Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I was unavoidably detained on the last vote. Had I been present to vote on S. Res. 501, I would have voted in the affirmative. I would like to be recorded as such.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to recognize the Reverend Elliot Foss, who is our guest Chaplain this morning. Reverend Foss is quite a unique individual. He is currently the national chaplain of the American Legion. He was appointed by Commander Martin Conaster on August 30, 2007, to that position. Reverend Foss is a retired U.S. Navy command master chief and hospital corpsman, having served in the Submarine Service. He served in the Navy during Vietnam and through the Persian Gulf war. He attended Candler Seminary and School of Ministry at Emory University in Atlanta, GA. He served as a pastor in the States of Maine, Virginia, Connecticut, Florida, and Georgia. He currently resides in Kingsland, GA, with his wife Arlene. He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. He is a member of American Legion Post 317 in the coastal area of Georgia, where he serves as post commander. He also has served as the Eighth District vice commander and as Post 9 commander in Brunswick, GA. He has served as the American Legion Department of Georgia chaplain for the past 7 years. I think in this difficult time our country is faced with right now, where we all are very cognizant of the fact that we have a number of men and women in harm's way as well as a number of veterans who have served our country so valiantly in the past, it is very appropriate that we have the current chaplain of the American Legion in this great country of ours to stand before us and ask for blessings upon all Members of this body as well as the other leadership from a civilian standpoint as well as a military standpoint. Reverend Foss is a terrific individual. I happened to be with him last week in Kings Bay, GA, which is the home of a submarine fleet. We had the USS Georgia, which is a converted nuclear submarine, return to Kings Bay, where it is going to be stationed now. We had a very great ceremony on Friday of last week at Kings Bay, and Reverend Foss was very much involved in the planning for that ceremony. So I say to him, thanks for coming and for extending that great blessing to us, and congratulations on serving as the national chaplain of the American Legion. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to discuss and support amendment No. 4230 which has been filed by Senator Feinstein and myself. While this amendment is identical to amendments Senator Feinstein and I have offered previously to budget resolutions and that have been adopted by unanimous consent, Senator Feinstein has been an excellent partner and colleague in developing this amendment. She has been a strong supporter not just of this particular provision but of law enforcement in general. It has been a pleasure to work with her. What this amendment does is to provide for an increase in the funding level for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which we commonly refer to as the Byrne/JAG provision, to a total of $906 million. This amendment is fully offset, and I am pleased to say that the following Senators have asked to be added as cosponsors in addition to myself and Senator Feinstein: Senators Bond, Harkin, Cantwell, Biden, Inhofe, Brown, Coleman, Clinton, Bingaman, Obama, Collins, Durbin, Isakson, Kerry, Burr, Lincoln, Feingold, and Dole. The Byrne/JAG program is the primary provider of Federal criminal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions, and the funding supports all components of the criminal justice system-- multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse programs, prosecution initiatives, domestic violence programs, and information-sharing initiatives. Our law enforcement officials, our sheriffs, prosecutors, and drug court professionals, and many other public servants in the law enforcement community, rely on these particular grants to fight the drug issue in their particular jurisdictions. They are making their communities safer because of the awarding of these grants over the years. According to a survey conducted by the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Policy, in the 2004 grant year, multijurisdictional drug enforcement task forces, funded by the Byrne/JAG program, made more than 221,000 drug arrests. Almost 18,000 kilograms of cocaine was seized, with an estimated consumer street value of $1.6 billion. Almost 5,500 kilograms of methamphetamine was seized, with an estimated street value of $518 million. The total value of drugs seized was over $12 billion, representing $63 in seized drugs for every $1 spent on drug task forces. I know the results our law enforcement community gets with Byrne/JAG funding are tangible and real. In my State of Georgia, we have used this program extensively. It has been essential to fighting crime, drugs, and gangs across the State. Last year in Georgia, with Byrne/JAG funding, the following successes were achieved: Multijurisdictional task forces were able to make 5,600 drug arrests and seize almost $50 million in drugs; 2,500 law enforcement officers were trained in more than 100 different classes offered by the Georgia Public Safety Training Center through its drug enforcement training program; the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's State drug task force led a cooperative investigation resulting in an interstate drug enforcement effort with Alabama that received national recognition. The Georgia Information Sharing and Analysis Center is Georgia's Homeland Security State-level fusion intelligence center. The center expanded its Southern Shield initiative and widened the focus for intelligence integration in the region by coordinating with 12 other States within the Southeast on intelligence collection and dissemination. Nine drug court programs were supported, as was a mental health court diversion program. One great thing about this Byrne/JAG program is that the money is allocated so that 40 percent of the funding is distributed to local governments. In many cases, grants from the Byrne/JAG program are the only source of Federal funding for sheriffs and police in smaller communities. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment. The former president of the National Sheriffs Association happens to be a good friend and constituent of mine, Sheriff John Cary Bittick in Forsyth County, GA. Sheriff Bittick was here recently when Senator Feinstein, Senator Harkin, Senator Biden and I, along with Senator Bond, talked about the Byrne/JAG program. During that conversation, my friend Sheriff Bittick related the fact that there are a number of joint programs in our State that, due to the decrease in the funding last year in the omnibus bill, were having to eliminate their programs. If we eliminate these programs in small rural communities around my home State and the other 49 States, what we are going to see is certainly an increase in drug and illegal trafficking activities in those rural areas. This program is essential to fighting the drug problem in rural America. Our amendment is supported by the following organizations: the National Criminal Justice Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the American Correctional Association, the American Probation and Patrol Association, the National Narcotic Officers' Coalition, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the National Association of Police Organizations, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major County Sheriffs' Association, National Center for Victims of Crime, National Association of Counties, International Community Corrections Association, and Boys and Girls Clubs of America. It is pretty obvious that this program is very popular in the law enforcement community. The reason is because it works. Lives are being saved. More drugs are being confiscated. More bad guys who are manufacturing and distributing drugs around America are being locked up and put away because of this program. I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 4230 sponsored initially by Senator Feinstein and myself. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. No more than 10 minutes, probably less.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in support of a piece of legislation that my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and I have filed. I compliment my friends and colleagues from South Carolina, North Carolina, and Alabama for their leadership. I look forward to supporting their commonsense measures toward doing what we said we were going to do, which is secure the border. The one thing we learned last year, as the Senator from North Carolina alluded to earlier, during the immigration reform debate is the American people don't have confidence in Congress that we are going to do what we say we are going to do when it comes to border security. There is good reason for that. Credibility on this issue is simply lacking, both with the administration, as well as with Congress. Now we have an opportunity to come back and take a commonsense approach from a legislative perspective on truly securing the border. The legislation Senator Isakson and I are introducing does this. A lot of people have said: Senator, why don't you just enforce the laws that are on the books today? Why don't you get local law enforcement officials involved in helping secure the border and in dealing with people who are here illegally? Well, the fact is, local law enforcement officials have very little power when it comes to dealing with folks who are in violation of a Federal immigration law, particularly when it comes to being here illegally. So what our particular piece of legislation does is, it puts the tools in the hands of those folks who are going to have the primary contact and are more likely to have the initial contact with folks who are here illegally, and that is local law enforcement officials versus someone from ICE or any other part of the Federal Government from a law enforcement standpoint. All of us remember that three of the 9/11 hijackers were stopped on routine traffic stops by local law enforcement officials. Unfortunately, those local law enforcement officials did not have the means whereby they could check to determine whether those individuals were in this country legally or illegally. If they would have had the input--not access but the input--by the Federal Government into the NCIC, which is the national identification tracking mechanism for vehicles and drivers of vehicles that is used nationwide, then those local law enforcement officials would have known and understood those individuals were here illegally. And if they would have had the tools otherwise given in this piece of legislation, they could have dealt with and detained those individuals. So what we seek to do with this commonsense piece of legislation is to, first of all, clarify the authority that local governments have in the normal course of carrying out their duties to help enforce our immigration laws. Secondly, it will expand the National Crime Information Centers Immigration Violators File to include those individuals who are known to be here illegally, or known to be here legally, so they can be cross-referenced in an instant and not have to worry about getting incorrect information or making assumptions. This piece of legislation expands the 287(g) program, which is a very popular program with our law enforcement officials. Three of my counties in Georgia are already utilizing this program. What it does is, the Federal Government steps in with a county anywhere in the country to provide the law enforcement officials in that county with training and instructions as to how to deal with folks who are found to be violating our immigration laws. Lastly, it will compensate State and local entities for immigration- enforcement-related expenses. Madam President, common sense is what we are asking for here when it comes to enforcing the border and providing our law enforcement officials with the tools necessary to assist in making sure our borders are secure. With that, I look forward to working with my other colleagues on their particular pieces of legislation as we move forward to make sure we restore confidence with the American people when it comes to border security, and we will be able to truly say we have secured the border, and here is how we have done it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Minnesota. The great thing about being involved in public service and having the opportunity to serve people from our respective jurisdictions is the privilege of becoming associated with other individuals who are dedicated public servants. We stand on the verge of history right here because in this Presidential election we are going to have two Members of the U.S. Senate who are going to be vying to become Commander in Chief. I think all of us as Members of Senate ought to be justly and duly proud of all of those who have put their names out there, who have worked hard, campaigned hard, and been willing to make the sacrifices necessary to travel the country expressing their views and opinions about issues to become President. Obviously, last night our good friend, Senator John McCain, became the nominee on the Republican side. John deserves an awful lot of credit for endurance, perseverance but, most importantly, for standing by his principles. That is the one thing we as Members of the Senate need to look to John and say: There are ways to do this, and there are ways not to. But you stood by your values. You stood by your principles. You did this in the right way. He is unique in so many ways. Everybody in here has their own unique assets. Certainly John has a great and storied background from a military perspective, and he served his country well before he ever got to this body. But once he got here, as my friend has just said, he exhibited great leadership from the standpoint of providing the kinds of ideas, the kind of vision that is needed from a national security and a national defense standpoint. He also, primarily, had a vision about how the taxpayers' money, how the individuals he represents, as well as all other taxpayers in the United States, ought to have their money spent. John has been a tireless advocate for the elimination of wasteful Washington spending. Assets such as those are what have projected John to the nomination of our party. I am very proud of the fact that he is going to be leading us. It is going to be a spirited campaign. All of us as Members of the Senate should be justly proud of all of these candidates who have been out there. I am very proud to stand today and salute my dear friend, my colleague, Senator John McCain.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Iraqi troop withdrawal bill that we are discussing, the bill as proposed by Senator Feingold. We have been here before, simply stated. The Senate has voted to reject measures similar to this bill at least three times over the past year. The only thing that has changed since we have had those votes is that conditions on the ground in Iraq have continued to improve as a result of the President's new strategy. Even the opponents of the surge have had to acknowledge that it is, in fact, working. In the midst of this progress and of al-Qaida's continued retreat in Iraq, the Senator from Wisconsin would have us surrender to an enemy that is on the run. I understand his concern for the welfare of our soldiers and for those who have sacrificed in Iraq. But the way we pay tribute to those who have sacrificed and to our brave men and women still fighting in Iraq today is to finish what we started so that we honor them and bring those who are still in Iraq home victorious and not defeated. If we are trying to reverse the progress we have made in Iraq, embolden our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people, and ensure that our mission fails, I probably could not have crafted a better bill than that of the Senator from Wisconsin. As a result of the U.S. troop surge, the Al Anbar awakening, significant al-Qaida in Iraq defeats, and the unilateral cease-fire last August declared by Muqtada al-Sadr, the security in Iraq has steadily improved. Violence has reached its lowest level since the insurgency began, and there has been a large increase in Iraqi security forces trained and equipped. Today that stands at about 440,000 men. In the last year ethnosectarian-related deaths have decreased 95 percent. Suicide attacks in Baghdad have gone from 12 a month in January of last year to just 4 last month, a 66 percent decrease. Attacks have decreased in 17 of the 18 provinces in Iraq, and IED detonations are down by 45 percent in Baghdad itself. Security incidents countrywide and in the 10 Baghdad security districts have declined to their lowest level since February 2006 when the Samarra Golden Mosque was bombed. As Sunnis in Al Anbar got frustrated with AQI, the troop surge provided the opportunity for them to work with coalition forces to disrupt AQI operations. Al Anbar now will be transferred to Iraqi security control in the near future, bringing 10 of the 18 provinces in Iraq under the sole control of Iraqis. AQI attempted to shift operations to Baghdad and its surrounding northern provinces, but the Al Anbar awakening movement prompted other awakening movements and concerned local citizen groups began to spring up all over Iraq. As a result, AQI has been disrupted. But as the DNI told the Senate Intelligence Committee in February, ``AQI remains capable of conducting destabilizing operations and spectacular attacks, despite disruptions of its networks.'' These successes cannot blind us to AQI's abilities or to their resolve in attacking Americans. Kurdish areas in northern Iraq were the safest in Iraq a year ago, but today AQI is taking advantage of this safety by establishing around Mosul and launching attacks against the population. This is an area where U.S. troops are used sparingly. In my humble opinion, that is no coincidence. U.S. operations forced AQI out of al-Anbar, restricted their operations in Baghdad, and they are now moving to more rural areas with less U.S. military. If this legislation passes and our troops must withdraw from Iraq, AQI will have the freedom to terrorize the rest of Iraq and beyond. The Director of National Intelligence stated that he is ``increasingly concerned that as we inflict significant damage on al-Qa'ida in Iraq, it may shift resources to mounting more attacks outside of Iraq . . . Although the ongoing conflict in Iraq will likely absorb most of AQI's resources [over] the next year, AQI has leveraged its broad external networks--including some reaching into Europe--in support of external operations.'' Forcing our troops out of Iraq would result in a resurgent AQI which could mount attacks from Iraq against Americans and our allies. Security is not the only aspect improving in Iraq. On the political front, the Council of Representatives is taking steps to institute necessary legislation to help reconcile Iraq. Earlier this month, the Council of Representatives passed a debaathification law which will help reintegrate former regime officials into society. Two weeks ago, the Council of Representatives passed three key pieces of legislation: an amnesty law, a provincial powers law, and the 2008 fiscal budget. For the first time, Iraq's main political parties compromised in order to support passage of these bills. The provincial powers law requires the council to pass an election law within 90 days and for provincial elections to occur no later than October 1, 2008. These are encouraging steps. In spite of the fact that the provincial powers law was vetoed yesterday, it is encouraging, and I am very hopeful we are going to see the differences reconciled in short order and that law become permanent. By limiting our military actions to specific areas, this bill would ensure that every one of these successes and improvements in security is reversed. In the midst of progress in Iraq, which no one denies, and with a strategy that is working, it simply does not make sense to tie the hands of the commanders on the ground and force them to implement a strategy which will lead to failure--a strategy that in the best judgment of our military leaders, our intelligence agencies, and from the perspective of countless outside observers have stated will lead to the failure of our mission and the rapid deterioration of conditions in Iraq and for the Iraqi people. Hopefully, it is evident to people who are watching this debate and have examined the Feingold bill that the strategy which inspires the provisions and limitations in this bill is not a military strategy; it is a political strategy. The tactics being used by those who would enact conditions and limitations on our involvement in Iraq, such as those contained in this bill, are not based on strategic thought or analysis. Rather, they appeal to a political base that has always opposed the war, refuses to acknowledge the progress we are making, and wants to see our mission fail. Political strategies for fighting wars such as the rhetoric some are now imploring all have one thing in common: They all result in failure. They are shortsighted, politically motivated, do not serve any national security objective and, most importantly, are a disservice to the men and women who have been called into action and are on the ground in Iraq. We are making progress in Iraq. The strategy our President and our military commanders have implemented is working. We are receiving positive updates from our leaders in the field. Our leaders are adjusting their strategy in accordance with those developments on the ground as well as the realities back home. They are doing this wisely, not hastily or in response to opinion polls, but according to good judgment and a realistic assessment of what will work, what will not work, and what is appropriate at this point in time. The Feingold bill will stop our leaders' ability to do this. It will keep them from doing the jobs we sent them to do; and that is to lead, to decide, to make judgments, and to report back to us on their effectiveness. Most importantly, it will keep them from completing the job we have sent them to perform. This is unacceptable. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Mr. President, I yield back. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss Senate amendment No. 3907 offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to the Intelligence Committee's FISA legislation. I compliment my friend from Alabama for some very strong, very pointed remarks on this issue as well as the other issues he addressed. I am pleased the leaders of the Intelligence Committee were able to come up with an agreement on how to proceed on this important legislation. I look forward to the debate on many of these amendments. A couple of the amendments have been offered relating to title II of the bill which provides immunity to those telecommunication carriers that currently face lawsuits for their alleged assistance to the Government after September 11 and their participation in what is known as the terrorist surveillance program, or TSP. Senators Dodd and Feingold have offered an amendment striking this section. Senators Specter and Whitehouse have offered an amendment which would substitute the Government as a defendant for the telecommunication providers currently being sued for their alleged support to the President's TSP program. I do not support either of these amendments. As a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I had access to classified documents, intelligence, and legal memoranda, and heard testimony related to the President's TSP program. After careful review, 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 the correspondence sent to the electronic communications 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 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 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; rather, it is a statement about how important this assistance by the electronic communication providers is to our Government. I cannot understate the importance of this assistance--not only for intelligence purposes but for law enforcement purposes also. 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 strike title II and substitution is not an acceptable alternative. This week, we have been alternating between legislation geared to helping our taxpayers and FISA. Yet substituting the Government in these lawsuits will force the American taxpayer to front the heavy legal bills associated with this legislation. Substitution would allow these trials to continue and could risk exposure of classified sources and methods through the discovery process in the litigation. As a defendant in these frivolous lawsuits, the Government may be required to expose some of our most sensitive intelligence sources and methods. Let me emphasize the committee already found that these communication providers acted in good faith under assertions from the highest levels of our Government that the program was lawful. If an individual alleges he or she has a claim due to this program, that claim can be brought against the Government and should not be brought against the providers. The Intelligence Committee bill left open the option for Americans to sue the Government. An aggrieved individual may sue the Government and attempt to prove standing and a cause of action. However, substituting the Government doesn't shield our American business partners from these cases, nor does it relieve them of the liability to their stockholders they may unjustly face and which may be borne out in our economy. Substitution only increases the risk of leaks, and these potential revelations only make our enemies better informed on the tools we have to conduct electronic surveillance. Some of my colleagues have complained about access to the documents regarding the President's program. It is true many Members of Congress have not had access, nor have they had an opportunity to review these documents. There is a good reason for that. These documents are highly classified and represent details about intelligence sources and methods. I worry that expanding the number of people who have access to these documents will increase the likelihood that intelligence will get leaked into the public. It is more appropriate that the oversight committee review and report back to the Senate on the various intelligence activities of the United States. That is why the Senate has an Intelligence Committee. As a member, I am familiar with handling classified material and receiving classified briefings. I have made commitments to safeguard the information I learn behind closed doors within the Intelligence Committee. Given the wide array of information I have heard on the Intelligence Committee, I question the benefits a Member would gain from such a limited, yet specific, review of the operations of our intelligence community. Rather, I urge my colleagues to support the determination of the Intelligence Committee, which is charged with regularly reviewing the intelligence activities of the United States and oppose the amendments offered by Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold. 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 subjected to costly legal battles. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As the Senator has said on the floor over the last several days, we are ready to pass this bill tonight if our friends on the other side of the aisle will simply get together with us and let us vote it up or down. When it comes to the issue of 60 votes, I have only been in this body for 5 years, but I cannot think of one single major piece of legislation that I have seen on the floor of the Senate during those 5 years that didn't require 60 votes for all major amendments. I was the manager of the farm bill recently. That is a long way away from this sophisticated piece of legislation, but every major amendment we had required 60 votes. That was the most recent, large piece of legislation we have had on the floor. So every time we have a major bill, a 60-vote requirement is reasonable and is going to be called for. I think for us not to have it in this particular situation would be extremely unusual.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would respond to the distinguished Senator from Missouri that this is the first time these protections have been enacted. This bill also prohibits reverse targeting. This is the first time in the history of our intelligence community that a FISA court order for U.S. persons is required regardless of where that individual is located. So if a U.S. citizen who goes abroad is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist seeking to communicate, our intelligence community must first get a court order before they can conduct any electronic surveillance, irrespective of whether that person is inside the United States or outside. For the first time in the history of our intelligence operations, this will be the case. So the added protections of the fourth amendment, which normally are not needed for a person located outside the United States, are applied in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Again, I thank the vice chairman for his question. The issue of reverse targeting is directly addressed in the bill--it is prohibited explicitly. Reverse targeting refers to the hypothetical situation where our intelligence community targets a foreigner overseas solely to get a U.S. persons' communications between that foreign person and a U.S. person. The targeting of the foreign person is allowed without a court order. The targeting of a person located in the U.S. is not allowed unless a court order is first obtained. So if someone in the intelligence community targeted a foreigner with the intent to listen in on the U.S. citizen, that is reverse targeting. This is prohibited in this legislation. Again, this is the first time we have seen that protection put in the statute. So as a lawyer still recovering from practicing law sometimes, I think, it is the first time that I can remember in all of my years since my days of constitutional law at law school where the United States applies fourth amendment rights to individuals who are outside of the United States.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Again, Mr. President, I respond to the vice chairman that reverse targeting is not prohibited under the Protect America Act. It is a procedure that some allege could occur under the Protect America Act, but which is clearly prohibited under this act. Anybody who is concerned about extending and protecting the rights of individuals ought to be a lot more concerned about getting this bill enacted into law than they should be about extending the Protect America Act. So this is one of those situations where it is totally unexplainable to me for someone to say: I don't think we ought to pass this law because it doesn't go far enough, when it goes further than current law and the Protect America Act which we already have voted for. Now there is an attempt being made to extend the Protect America Act for an additional period of time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, if I may respond, the Senator is exactly right. If we did not have a 60-vote requirement on amendments, or dealing with any issue in this bill, then it is possible that we could adopt amendments, by less than a majority of the Members of the Senate, which could hamper our intelligence community. And on this critical, sensitive, most important piece of legislation, for us to pass an amendment without a 60-vote requirement really makes no sense at all. I think all of us would certainly be remiss and derelict in our duties if we didn't insist on a 60-vote requirement.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk for a minute about the pending FISA legislation. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have been very pleased to be a part of the bipartisan process in which Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have crafted a very delicate, a very sensitive, yet important piece of legislation. Probably the most important piece of legislation that the Intelligence Committee has dealt with over the last several months or even years. Certainly, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come to the floor of this body this year. This FISA legislation gives tools to our intelligence community which allow our brave men and women--who stand at the forefront today of the war on terrorism in every part of the world--to gather information from those who are plotting, planning, and scheming to kill and harm Americans. The tools with which the intelligence community seeks to get in this particular instance deal with their ability to gather information, primarily through what we refer to as electronic surveillance, from terrorists, or bad guys, who are overseas communicating to other individuals who are also overseas. There is no question that in order for our intelligence or law enforcement officials to be able to gather information from communications of persons located within the United States, it is necessary that they first obtain a court order. Let's make that very clear. We must first obtain a court order to conduct surveillance against individuals located within the United States. What we are seeking to do in this legislation is to give our intelligence community the ability to collect information without a court order from people who are planning attacks against the United States and located outside the United States. It is those individuals whom we seek to gather information from and prohibit from having the capability to kill and harm Americans. This legislation is a crucial piece in the puzzle to enable the intelligence community to gather information from these individuals. This particular piece of legislation has been debated in the Intelligence Committee for 10 months and was voted out of the Intelligence Committee on a very bipartisan vote of 13 to 2. I actually voted against several of the amendments offered in the Intelligence Committee. But at the end of the day, even though some of the amendments I voted against were accepted and were included in the bill, I believed it was such an important piece of legislation and put such necessary power and authority into the hands of the intelligence community that I voted to support it. I commend my vice chairman, Senator Bond, who is on the floor with me now, for his leadership. I would simply ask the vice chairman: We started debate on this bill on the Senate floor in December, have been debating this bill this week, as well as last week. Where are we? What is the holdup in passing this critical legislation? What is the problem? Why can't the Senate give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect Americans?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would respond to the vice chairman, the Senator from Missouri, that without question, under his leadership and the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, the chairman, we have received important input and had dialogue with the intelligence community throughout the drafting stages of this legislation. We not only had the top leadership, including the DNI, the Director of the NSA, the head of the CIA, and folks from the FBI in to testify before the Intelligence Committee, but also every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has had the opportunity to visit these agencies and see firsthand where and how this information is gathered. We have had the opportunity to see firsthand the methods our intelligence community uses and the professionalism they exhibit. All of this is very highly classified. Our committee deals with all of this information in a very sensitive and classified manner. But the fact is, we have had testimony and firsthand accounts from top to bottom--from the individuals who physically gather the information all the way to the top leadership. Members of the committee on both sides of the aisle have asked tough questions to the individuals who have presented testimony before the committee. Everybody had the opportunity to have a free and open dialog and debate with those individuals. Again, based upon what our intelligence experts had to say, this legislation was crafted and debated within the committee. Without question, there was ample opportunity for every member to inquire of all of those in the intelligence community of why we need this legislation, why it is so critically important, where we would be without it, and why we need it to make sure we are able to stop those individuals who seek to do harm to Americans around the world.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would respond to the distinguished Senator from Missouri that without question, it is necessary, from a legal standpoint and from a practical standpoint, to get testimony and advice from the legal experts and our operators in the intelligence community to make sure there are no unintended consequences that come out of the final product from the Intelligence Committee. As the Senator will recall, we had some very heated debates on a couple of amendments within the committee. Very good debate on both sides of the issues. Sometimes, there were Democrats arguing with Democrats, other times Republicans were arguing with Republicans, but that is the nature of the Intelligence Committee. It operates in a bipartisan fashion to make sure we look at every aspect--legal, technical, as well as practical--to make sure we get it right. As the vice chairman knows and has been working to correct, some of the amendments adopted in committee were well intentioned but harmful to our collectors. With the input of the intelligence community the manager's amendment has been able to correct those unintended consequences while preserving the intent of the amendments. In this instance, I think we did get it right through engaging with our intelligence experts.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his question. I would simply say that, again, there is just no doubt this legislation goes beyond the Protect America Act and the current FISA statute to protect American's privacy and constitutional rights. After all the discussion, after all the testimony that was presented, after all the debate that took place within the confines of the Senate Intelligence Committee, we found that for 25 years, the members of the intelligence community have been able to conduct surveillance against Americans overseas without a court order. I would point out that they did this in a professional manner and reduced the risk of compromising American's privacy through established minimization procedures. Since FISA's original enactment, the intelligence community has used minimization procedures to ensure that the information being gathered from Americans was necessary foreign intelligence information and from individuals who are foreign agents. This legislation subjects this type of surveillance to a court order, providing new protections for Americans. One purpose of FISA reform was to ensure that the ultimate and final language we came up with would provide additional privacy protections to American citizens, both inside the United States as well as outside the United States.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the vice chairman if he has prepared comments he intends to make. If I have something to supplement that, I will do so.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum we will go into be equally divided between Senators Bond and Rockefeller.

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