Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to spend a few moments to eulogize our old friend, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos. He has been one of my dear friends all these years. I have been here 31 years, and he was here 26 years. He and Annette have really been wonderful people in Elaine's and my life. Mr. President, this morning began sadly, as the two leaders have said, with the news of the death of Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the giants among the Democrats in the House, and, frankly, among all Members of Congress during the last 28 years. Congressman Lantos had been diagnosed with cancer a few months ago, and had recently announced he would not run for a 14th term for the 12th District of California, which he so ably served since 1980. Tom Lantos led a remarkable life. A Hungarian Jew, he lived what he said was a happy childhood until the Hungarian fascist allies of Hitler brought the Holocaust to Hungary. Through most of the war, he was interned in various forced labor camps, some from which he escaped, and was at least once recaptured, following a beating that he later said, ``I was pleasantly surprised to survive.'' After a final escape, he spent the remainder of the war in hiding, protected, as so many Hungarian Jews were, by Raoul Wallenberg, the man who risked his life to protect as many of Hungary's Jews as he could and who vanished into the Soviet camps at the end of the war. One of the great days of my life was to pay homage to Raoul Wallenberg at the monument in Europe. Six hundred thousand Hungarian Jews perished in the Holocaust, including Tom Lantos's family. One of the first initiatives of Congressman Lantos upon coming to the House of Representatives in 1980 was to pass legislation granting Raoul Wallenberg U.S. citizenship. Tom Lantos was, in his words, ``an American by choice,'' and to know him was to see that every day of his life he embraced the opportunities an immigrant can find in this great country. He arrived penniless to this country, as my two colleagues have said. According to his biography, his only possession was ``a precious Hungarian salami,'' which was confiscated upon arrival, as my colleagues mentioned. But with a scholarship and hard work, he earned a Ph.D. in economics and taught at San Francisco's State University for almost three decades, developing, during that time, his credentials as a commentator on world affairs. Tom Lantos brought to the House his passionate patriotism and the drive of a survivor. When people would comment on the demands of his work, which included regular travel to his constituency 3,000 miles away, his global travels as a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which he recently chaired, and the hectic pace of his other congressional assignments, he would be quick to remind us that this was nothing in comparison to what he had faced as a young man. He founded the House Human Rights Caucus, a platform which he used to highlight the human rights abuses around the world, and with which he became inextricably associated. For many of us in Congress and for many oppressed through the world, Congressman Lantos was the chairman for human rights. He was a Democrat who believed in the use of American power for good and who understood the nuances of subtle, as well as confrontational, diplomacy. For example, he kept trying to get a visa to visit Tehran because he believed there was always room to talk with enemies as well as friends. But when asked what he would say to the dictators in Tehran, he was less than subtle: I will tell the Iranians the truth--that it's a great country and they need to be reintegrated into the family of civilized nations and that they must give up their lunatic notions. Less than subtle, to be sure, but truthful. It is hard to disagree with this view, Mr. President. Tom Lantos also recognized that diplomacy could fail and the use of the U.S. military could achieve noble ends. He was a strong supporter of the military during the Cold War, supported military assistance to Israel, urged President Clinton to lead NATO forces against Milosevic's genocide, and supported our interventions in Iraq, although, to be fair to him, he was critical, as many of us have been, about the implementation of our invasion of Iraq. The point is, Tom Lantos represented the wing of the Democratic Party that kept central our national security concerns, that recognized our duty in the world, and accepted that the use of force is sometimes required. This is the wing of the Democratic Party that needs to survive if that party is to remain relevant to the events in the world that will continually shape us. I am honored to have been a friend of Tom Lantos for decades. We loved each other. We showed that love repeatedly over the years. He was a dear friend, and I want everybody to know just how deeply I felt about him. Our staffs worked together well, and he always had my admiration and respect. I will never forget a tour he gave me and Senators Reid and Daschle of the old Jewish ghetto in Budapest when our separate codels happened to be in that city at the same time in 1996. Later, he gave us a personal tour of the magnificent Hungarian Parliament building. One of the first post-Communist governments was in power, and they so highly regarded Tom Lantos for his heritage, as well as his anti-Communist stance throughout his life, that he was granted free access throughout the building. He even knew where to turn the lights on. The prayers and thoughts of Elaine and I go out to Annette, his beautiful wife of 58 years, whom he married in California, but who, like himself, was a survivor of the Holocaust in Hungary and was actually a childhood sweetheart. The fact that they loved each other as long as they have, that they came from similar backgrounds, and worked together daily throughout their lives only makes her loss that much sadder. Our condolences go out to her and their two wonderful children. And I believe there are 18 grandchildren. But the death of Tom Lantos is a great loss, as well, to his constituents, to his colleagues in the House, to his party, and to all of us in Congress. It is a loss to our great Nation and to all those who strive in solidarity for the cause of human rights. Tom Lantos was slight of build, but he was a giant. He was a moral force who used the authority of a survivor from the Holocaust, of an American immigrant, and of a scholar and leader to show the great institution of Congress how it can lead in a dangerous and often immoral world. Elaine and I loved Tom, we love Annette, and we hope we can be of some assistance to Annette and her family as we move into the future. But we will miss Tom very badly. What a great and noble man who suffered so much for freedom. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator from California yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak immediately following the Senator from California.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, The first letter is from the National Sheriffs Association on behalf of 20,000 nationwide sheriffs. It states in part: The Nation's sheriffs recognize the critical role that electronic communication service providers play in assisting intelligence officials on national security activities. We are gravely concerned that, without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from protracted litigation is unacceptable to the security of our citizens. We strongly urge you to help preserve the cooperative relationship between law enforcement and the private sector by supporting the immunity provision of this bill. The other letters include one from the National Troopers Coalition, on behalf of its 40,000 members, one from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, on behalf of its 21,000 members, and one from the National Narcotics Officers' Association's Coalition on behalf of its 69,000 members. All of these letters support the retroactive immunity provision. I have to tell you, when 150,000 law enforcement personnel with tremendous experience and expertise say they support telecom retroactive immunity, we should be listening and we should be giving this great weight. They know firsthand the dangers we face and they know what is at stake. Let me talk a little about the Feinstein amendment No. 3910 on exclusive means. S. 2248 already has an exclusive means provision that is identical to the first part of the distinguished Senator's amendment. That provision simply restates Congress's intent back in 1978, when FISA was enacted, to place the President at his lowest ebb of authority in conducting warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. The current provision in S. 2248 was acceptable to all sides in the Intelligence Committee because it maintains the status quo with respect to the dispute over the President's constitutional authority to authorize warrantless surveillance. Unfortunately, the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California is a significant expansion of the bipartisan provision that we enacted in the Intelligence Committee bill. Her amendment goes further by stating that only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance, other than FISA or the criminal wiretap statutes, shall constitute additional exclusive means. This attempts to prohibit the President's exercise of his judicially recognized article II authority to issue warrantless electronic surveillance directives. During the next attack on our country or in the face of an imminent threat, the Congress may not be in a position to legislate an express authorization of additional means. We may get intelligence information about an imminent threat during a lengthy recess, over a holiday. Air travel may be inhibited. The bottom line is, we don't know what tomorrow will bring. Yet this provision of the distinguished Senator from California would raise unnecessary legal concerns that might impede effective action by the executive branch to protect this country. This amendment would also make members of the intelligence community who conduct electronic surveillance at the direction of the President subject to the FISA criminal penalty provisions of a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for not more than 5 years. Virtually all of these people are not partisan people. They are people who continue on regardless of what administration is involved. They are there to do the job to protect us. They are not partisans. We should not treat them as such, and certainly we should not be saying that if they make a mistake, they are subject to a criminal provision of a $10,000 fine or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. Also, it is likely these criminal penalties would apply to any service provider who assisted the Government in conducting such electronic surveillance. That makes it even tougher to get their cooperation. Up until now they have been willing to cooperate because they realize how important this work is, and they have the request of high-level officials in the Government. That should be enough to protect them. They are doing it patriotically, to protect our country. They should not be hampered nor should their general counsels have to make a decision that the U.S. Government will have to go to court, with all of the delays involved in that, in order to do what it takes to protect the people in this country. Regardless of what the skeptics and critics have said about the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Constitution trumps the FISA statute. If a Government employee acts under the color of the President's lawful exercise of his constitutional authority, that employee should not be subject to a criminal penalty. In my opinion, the current restatement of exclusive means is fair and keeps the playing field level, and it is enough. Ultimately, the Supreme Court may decide whether Congress has the authority to limit the President's authority to intercept enemy communications. Until then, it is my hope that we don't try to tilt the balance in a way that we may someday come to regret. I urge my colleagues to vote against this exclusive means amendment. The next Feinstein amendment is No. 3919. This amendment alters the immunity provision of the Rockefeller-Bond bill. I will oppose this amendment. As has been said countless times, the immunity provision in this legislation was created after months of extensive debate and negotiation between the Congress and the intelligence community. I cannot emphasize enough the painstaking work that the Intelligence Committee undertook in order to create this immunity provision. The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated the following in the Intelligence Committee report: The [Intelligence] Committee did not endorse the immunity provision lightly. It was the informed judgment of the Committee after months in which we carefully reviewed the facts in the matter. The Committee reached the conclusion that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this case after holding numerous hearings and briefings on the subject and conducting a thorough examination of the letters sent by the U.S. Government to the telecommunications companies. The administration wanted more than what is in this bill, and they did not get it. In a bipartisan way, we came together to come up with this bill, and it should not be tampered with now on the floor. Let's look at what this means in relation to ongoing litigation. Since this immunity compromise provides no immunity for Government agencies or officials, the following seven cases will continue to be unaffected by this legislation. The immunity provision of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence bill still allows TSP challenges in the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. George W. Bush case, the ACLU v. National Security Agency case, the Center for Constitutional Rights v. George W. Bush case, the Guzzi v. George W. Bush case, the Henderson v. Keith Alexander case, the Shubert v. George W. Bush case, and the Tooley v. George W. Bush case. I wish to draw attention to the first case. The al-Haramain Islamic Foundation has been designated by the Department of the Treasury as a ``specially designated global terrorist'' for providing support to al- Qaida and was similarly designated by the United Nations Security Council. If there ever was a case that should be dismissed, this is it--a terrorist organization providing support to al-Qaida sues the President for listening to their terrorist conversations. Unbelievable. And yet since the immunity provision in this bill is silent on the issue, the case will go on. I highlight this case to remind people the provision in the bill already represents a compromise. The provision in the original bill passed by a 13-to-2 bipartisan vote out of the Intelligence Committee on which I serve. Despite repeated attempts to tweak this compromise, it remains the most appropriate and just mechanism for the resolution of this issue. Just like the faulty ideas of Government indemnification and Government substitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court review of certifications is yet another alternative that fails to improve on the original bipartisan immunity compromise we have in the bill before us. I will oppose any provisions which weaken the immunity compromise. This amendment we are debating will do exactly that. Rather than rely on the carefully crafted language, this amendment introduces radically new ideas which completely change the dynamics of the immunity provision of the bipartisan bill. Rather than allowing the presiding district judge to review the Attorney's General certification called for in this bill, this amendment unnecessarily expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court jurisdiction into areas unheard of when this court was created nearly 30 years ago and equally unheard of in the year 2008. Let's remember what it is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created to do: A court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance. That is the mission of the FISC. So the FISC hears applications for and grants orders approving electronic surveillance. That is it. That is all they were created to do and rightly so. These are judges from all over the country who serve on the FISC at special times and do read these briefs, do read these legal matters that come before them, and then do exactly that, ``a court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance.'' Yet this legislation will completely alter the nature of this court by transforming it into a trial court for adversarial litigation. This completely alters the intention of FISA from 1978 which carefully created this court. The role of the FISC, or Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, has been greatly misunderstood during this debate. I suggest we pay close attention to the recent opinion from the FISC, which is only the third public opinion in the history of the FISC, and that is over a 30-year period. The importance of this quote has been emphasized many times by Senator Bond, and this is what the FISC said: Although the FISC handles a great deal of classified material, FISC judges do not make classification decisions and are not intended to become national security experts. Furthermore, even if a typical FISC judge had more expertise in national security matters than a typical district court judge, that expertise would not be equal to that of the executive branch which is constitutionally entrusted with protecting the national security. I understand there are certain Senators in this body who dislike President Bush. That is their right. But on the other hand, there may come a time when a President of their party may have to protect our country. They ought to think it through because they are taking away the tools that are necessary to protect our country in a zeal to go beyond what the FISC was ever designated to do. Going beyond the fact this amendment would turn the role of the FISA Court on its head, let's look at what the FISC is asked to do in this amendment. According to the language, liability protection would only occur in three limited instances: One, the statutory defense in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii) has been met. Two, the assistance of electronic surveillance service providers was undertaken on good faith and pursuant to an ``objectively reasonable belief'' that compliance with the Government's directive was lawful. And three, assistance was not provided. Regarding the first instance in which litigation would be dismissed, we need to realize 18 U.S.C. 2511 is not the only statute that allows the Government to receive information from telecommunications companies. There are numerous statutes which authorize the Government to receive information from private businesses. Here is a list not meant to include all such statutes. Look at this list: 18 U.S.C. 2516; 18 U.S.C. 2518, 18 U.S.C. 2512(2)(a)(ii), 18 U.S.C. 2511(3)(b)(iv), 50 U.S.C. 1802(a), 50 U.S.C. 1804, 50 U.S.C. 1805, 50 U.S.C. 1811, 50 U.S.C. 1861, 18 U.S.C. 2702(b)(5), 18 U.S.C. 2702(c)(5), 18 U.S.C. 2702(b)(8), 18 U.S.C. 2702(c)(4), 18 U.S.C. 2703(a), 18 U.S.C. 2709, 50 U.S.C. 1842, 18 U.S.C. 3127, 50 U.S.C. 1843, and 50 U.S.C. 1844, to mention a few. Regarding the second narrow instance of dismissal of litigation, the phrase ``objectively reasonable belief'' is not defined in the legislation. What does this mean? How can it not be given a definition if the court is supposed to rely on it? Are we going to turn it over to the court to define it? Again, that is not the mission of the court. The court is not skilled in intelligence matters, except to the extent they have to know about it to be able to approve the various requests that are made of them, and there is no way it is going to be as skilled as the intelligence community. So this amendment would grant the FISC new jurisdiction to review past conduct of private businesses utilizing a standard which did not exist at the time of the supposed activity and a standard which is not even defined in the legislation which creates it. Wow. In addition, this amendment would allow plaintiffs and defendants to appear before the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. But we should know the FISC is not a trial court. It has never had plaintiffs in ongoing civil litigation appear before it in its nearly 30 years of existence. There are approximately 40 civil cases which are ongoing out of this matter. Would all these plaintiffs appear before FISC? How would classified information, therefore, be protected? This amendment would create an entirely new role for the FISC, thus abandoning the very formula by which the FISC was created in the first place. Remember, the FISC was created to be a specialized court. Yet the expansion of FISC jurisdiction and duty required by this amendment brings us down a road where the FISC could be transformed from a specialized court to an appendage of the Federal district court. That precedent set by this amendment could forever alter the role of the FISC. Quite simply, the FISC is not a trial court, nor should it be. Quite simply, the FISC is not a forum for adversarial litigation, nor should it be. This amendment extends the rationale that the answer to any question during this debate is ``have the FISC look at it.'' The role of the FISC is vitally important, but the FISC is not the answer to every question during this debate. Misguided attempts to expand the FISC to be the purported solution to any alleged problem with terrorist tracking are impractical, imperceptive, and inappropriate. We are long past the time for guesswork, and we need to support the tried-and-true bipartisan immunity provision as appropriate remedy to a critical problem. I reiterate my strenuous objection to this amendment, and I urge my colleagues not to support an amendment which introduces far too many unanswered questions into a debate which needs none. Amendment No. 3912 With regard to amendment No. 3912 regarding bulk collection, this amendment did pass out of the Judiciary Committee, but it passed on a 10-to-9 party-line vote after only four minutes of discussion. This Judiciary substitute was tabled by the full Senate by a 60-to-36 vote, and this amendment is one of the reasons it was. There is confusion about the need for this amendment. Does it preclude bulk collection or not? The text of the amendment seems to indicate that no bulk collection is permitted. Yet the author of the amendment states there is an exception for military operations. I have read the amendment, and I don't see any exception listed. Perhaps he is referencing comments in the Judiciary Committee report. But committee reports are not law. The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence have carefully reviewed this amendment, and they have stated that if this amendment is in a bill which is presented to the President, they will recommend that the President veto the bill, and I agree with that recommendation. Amendment No. 3979 With regard to the Feingold amendment No. 3979 on sequestration of U.S. person communications, I am very concerned about the substance of this amendment, as are many of my colleagues. In addition, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence have thoroughly reviewed this amendment, and they recently sent a letter to the Senate stating: This amendment would eviscerate critical core authorities of the Protect America Act and S. 2248. Our prior letter and Statement of Administration Policy explained how this type of amendment increases the danger to the Nation and returns the intelligence community to a pre-September 11th posture that was heavily criticized in congressional reviews. It would have a devastating impact on foreign intelligence surveillance operations. It has never been the case that the mere fact that a person overseas happens to communicate with an American triggers a need for court approval. Indeed, if court approval were mandated in such circumstances, there would be grave consequences for the intelligence communities' efforts to collect foreign intelligence. The last part of this has been underlined. Accordingly, if this amendment is part of a bill that is presented to the President, we, as well as the President's other senior advisors, will recommend that he veto the bill. Unlike many of the amendments we have debated here on the Senate floor, this amendment did not receive a vote in either the Intelligence or Judiciary Committees. Not that that is limiting, but the amendment itself is not a healthy one on its face. Yet this amendment is among the most drastic in terms of affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of our intelligence collection processes. This amendment imposes tremendous restrictions in which the intelligence community is limited in what information they can receive and how this information can be shared. That is what I think we were shocked to find when 9/11 occurred, that our various intelligence community organizations--FBI, CIA, et cetera-- were not sharing information. Now that we have solved that problem, why go back? The massive reorganization of our collection techniques which would be required by this amendment is certainly obvious. The author of the amendment has recognized this as well, previously stating: I do understand this amendment imposes a new framework that may take some time to implement. We need to remember the purpose of this bill is, and always has been, to enable the intelligence community to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas. But in order to make sure we are not missing valuable intelligence, we need to get all of a target's communications, not only when that target is talking with other people overseas, and that may mean intercepting calls with people inside the United States. In fact, those may be the most important calls to try to prevent an attack in the United States. I understand there is concern about the impact of foreign targeting on U.S. persons. But we have a lot of protections built into this new bill that came out of the Intelligence Committee on a 13-to-2 bipartisan vote. I have been to this floor on numerous occasions and highlighted how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's role in all aspects of foreign intelligence collection is being greatly expanded by this bill, far beyond the 1978 FISA statute. In addition, the Senate agreed to an amendment by Senator Kennedy that would make it clear you cannot use authorities in this bill to require communications where the sender and all intended recipients are known to be in the United States. We shouldn't go any farther. The intelligence community must use minimization procedures. Our analysts are familiar with these procedures. They have used them for a long time without any known abuses. Yet the scope of this amendment seems to represent no confidence in the minimization procedures used by the U.S. Government. Keep in mind, these minimization procedures were enacted over 30 years ago, and this bill will authorize the FISC to review and approve them for the first time. This bill goes farther than ever before in our history in striking a balance between intelligence collection and protection of civil liberties. Personally, I am proud of this bill. I think all in the Intelligence Committee should have stuck with it, and we should not be trying to amend it at this point, especially with amendments that aren't going to work and will diminish our ability to get the intelligence we need to protect our citizens. Now I believe that in this bill we are protecting the civil liberties of ordinary Americans, but we also need to make sure our intelligence community isn't blind to information which may ultimately prove to be critical. Section (a)(1) of this amendment would not allow the collection of certain communications if the Government knows before acquisition a communication is to or from a person reasonably believed to be in the United States. The Government knows when it targets foreign citizens in foreign countries that they might call or be called by U.S. persons. These are called ``incidental communications.'' Under the limitations in this amendment, the Government could not initiate the collection in the first place under many circumstances. This essentially undoes the authority granted in section 703 of this bill and will cause us to go deaf to our enemies. The Director of National Intelligence has told us before that speed and agility are essential in tracking terrorists and preventing terrorist attacks. Yet even if collection could somehow begin under the dangerous restrictions in this amendment, analysts would have to go through hoop after hoop after hoop to use information that has foreign intelligence value. Remember, if it doesn't have foreign intelligence value, any U.S. person information would already have been minimized. I do not understand why we would set up unnecessary roadblocks and slow this process down when we already have so many substantial protections in place. The Director of National Intelligence has stated this amendment would cause significant operational problems for the intelligence community that could lead to intelligence gaps. I affirm this statement. Knowing this, it would be irresponsible to handcuff our intelligence community with these additional restrictions. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous amendment. I emphasize again: We have brilliant, knowledgeable, well-trained, decent, honorable people who are here, no matter who is President, in the business of protecting our citizens from terrorist acts. And this bill, which passed 13 to 2 on a bipartisan vote out of the Intelligence Committee, provides more checks on these good people than the FISA Act of 1978 did, and that act has worked very well through all those years. The reason we are doing this bill is because we are in a new age, with new methods of communication that simply were not covered by the 1978 act, to put it in simple terms. This is a complex thing, and I think we have to be very careful if we go beyond what the Intelligence Committee bill has said we should do. It was a bill worked out after months of hearings and work by the Intelligence Committee. I believe, in the Senate, I have probably been on the Intelligence Committee longer than anybody else, and I want to protect our people too. I want to protect them in a multiplicity of ways. But one of the most important ways we can protect them in this day of Islamic fascism is to give them the tools to do it and not restrict and hamper them from doing it--keeping in mind that they are honest, non-partisan citizens who are more interested in protecting Americans and getting the information we need to protect everybody than the partisans and sometimes uninformed people make them out to be. Yes, any administration can put the top-level people in, but it is those who collect this information on a daily basis, minimize this information when it needs to be minimized, and work to do it in an honorable fashion who do the work. We should not be tying their hands and hampering them from getting the work done in this day and age when we have so many problems, and it looks to me as if we are going to have them for many years to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be considered as in morning business but fall in line with regard to the bill before us.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wanted to briefly mention my opposition to amendment No. 3913 offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. This amendment relates to reverse targeting, which is a theory that the Government could target a foreign person abroad when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, thus circumventing the need to get a warrant for the U.S. person. Quite simply, reverse targeting is already considered illegal under FISA. Going even further, the Intelligence Committee bill has a very explicit prohibition against reverse targeting. The amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin adds subjective language which completely alters the meaning of the original bipartisan provision. I asked Attorney General Mukasey this during a hearing on Wednesday, and here is our exchange. HATCH: Now the topic of reverse targeting has been mentioned often during the FISA reform debate. From an intelligence perspective, reverse targeting makes no sense. From an efficiency standpoint, if the government was interested in targeting an American, it would apply for a warrant to listen to all of that person's conversations, wouldn't it? Not just his conversations with terrorists overseas? MUKASEY: Correct. HATCH: Now, I asked General Wainstein about this during the Judiciary Committee hearing last October, and he reiterated the government's view that FISA itself makes reverse targeting illegal. Does the DOJ still consider reverse targeting illegal under FISA? MUKASEY: Absolutely. HATCH: Are you aware of any instances of intelligence analysts utilizing reverse targeting? MUKASEY: I am not aware of any such instances. We are enacting national security legislation, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this bill does not lead to unintended consequences which provide protections to terrorists. This amendment is absolutely unnecessary, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Amendment No. 3920 Mr. President, I wish to say a few remarks with regard to my dear friend, Senator Whitehouse's amendment to authorize the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to assess compliance with minimization techniques. I rise to express my opposition to the Whitehouse amendment No. 3920. My opposition to the Whitehouse amendment is related to the totality of this bill. This is an amendment that greatly expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's jurisdiction. Keeping in mind that the bill before us already expands FISC jurisdiction of foreign collection to an unprecedented high historical level, this amendment tips the balance and could lead to real-life instances of intelligence analysts' operational decisions being second guessed by the court. The original approach and goals of this legislation were simple and twofold. Goal No. 1: Wire communications taking place in 2008 should receive the same treatment as radio communications taking place in 1978; and goal No. 2: Our intelligence community's sources and methods should not be subject to exposure by litigation brought about by hearsay and innuendo. I am pleased the legislation before us provides more protections to American citizens than any intelligence bill in my recent memory, and certainly more than the original FISA law. Over the last several months, a great deal of attention has been given to the FISC, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The FISC was created by the original FISA law, and its jurisdiction was extremely limited by that law. Here is what the FISC was created to do. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: ``A court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance.'' This jurisdiction is purposefully limited, as the task of reviewing applications to intercept electronic communications is among the most important tasks our Government can do to protect our country and its citizens. Terrorists have to communicate to plan and execute attacks, and our interception of these communications is paramount to stopping the next attack. The jurisdiction of the FISC is greatly expanded by this legislation. Combined with other provisions in this bill, the new oversight created is prevalent and comprehensive. Since the breadth of this new oversight is critical when determining the necessity of the amendment we are debating, let's look at the oversight created by this legislation. Let me read these five charts. No. 1, for the first time the FISC will review and approve minimization procedures used by the intelligence community. No. 2, for the first time the FISC will review and approve targeting procedures used by the intelligence community. The FISC will determine whether the procedures are reasonably designed to ensure targeting is limited to persons outside the United States. No. 3, for the first time, a court order will be required to target U.S. persons regardless of where they are in the world--for the first time. No. 4, for the first time the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be required to assess the intelligence community's compliance with court-approved targeting and minimization procedures. These assessments must be provided to the FISC and congressional Intelligence Committees. No. 5, new congressional oversight--for the first time Congress is creating statutorily required inspector general--that is the Department of Justice and intelligence elements--semiannual assessments of compliance with court-approved targeting and minimization procedures. These assessments must be provided to congressional Intelligence Committees. Now, given the staggering amount of new oversight, we should be very careful when creating mechanisms which could negatively impact our intelligence analysts, particularly when these mechanisms provide no benefit, in this case, to the privacy of American citizens. The intelligence community has a great deal of experience in the techniques used to minimize incidental communications, and very detailed procedures for handling these communications are contained in the United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, which has been in effect for over 28 years. Remember, the Government is gathering information relating to foreign intelligence in order to protect national security, not necessarily for criminal prosecution. That is why different procedures are necessary. Otherwise, all national security information gathering would be changed to fit within the procedures of title III criminal wiretaps, which is impossible. Minimization techniques deal not just with retention and dissemination, but with acquisition. Analysts make decisions up front whether to acquire, keep, or share U.S. person information based on whether it has foreign intelligence value. This means if a judge is reviewing compliance with minimization procedures, this review is much more than a factual check. The judge is not limited to simply making sure that technical and administrative guidelines are followed. Rather, this amendment could allow a judge to question specific decisions by intelligence analysts on why they chose to acquire, keep, or share certain communications. Now this begs the question: Are judges better trained in intelligence collection than the intelligence analysts whose job it is to repeatedly perform this task? Not only do I think the answer is no, but we should remember what the FISC said in their recently publicly released opinion, which is only the third public opinion released in the history of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Here is what the FISC said: Although the FISC handles a great deal of classified material, FISC judges do not make classification decisions and are not intended to become national security experts. Furthermore, even if a typical FISC judge had more expertise in national security matters than a typical district court judge, that expertise would still not equal that of the Executive Branch, which is constitutionally entrusted with protecting the national security. Enactment of this amendment could result in judges making foreign intelligence determinations in place of trained intelligence analysts. Based on this unjustified scrutiny, our intelligence analysts could become overly cautious when determining whether to deem information as having intelligence value in order to avoid unwarranted judicial scrutiny. This could result in less foreign intelligence information being accumulated, and thus could mean we may miss a vital piece of information. Do we want to take this chance? That is what this amendment would do. Should we risk this type of unintended result? In October of 2007, I asked Assistant Attorney General Wainstein if putting the FISC judges in the position of assessing compliance would effectively put the judge in the role of an analyst. Here is what he said in response: And that is the problem, that it would get the FISC in the position of being operational to the extent that it's not when it assesses compliance for, let's say, the minimization procedures in the typical or traditional FISA context where you're talking about one order, one person. Here, some of our orders might well be programmatic, where you're talking about whole categories of surveillances, and that would be a tall order for the FISA Court to assess compliance. The Whitehouse amendment also contains language which lets the FISC fashion remedies it determines are necessary to enforce compliance. This is very broad language and gives the court the ability to come up with whatever methods it chooses to enforce compliance. Does this mean that the FISC could shut down collection of information from foreign targets overseas while the Government addresses technical issues which have little to do with the privacy of American citizens? We do not know, since this amendment does not answer this question. Remember, we are talking about targeting foreign terrorists to prevent terrorist attacks. This is not the same thing as wiretapping a cocaine dealer in Los Angeles for criminal prosecution. If we approve an amendment which creates numerous unanswered questions, we are putting Americans at risk in unprecedented ways. Given that the Government has adequately utilized minimization procedures for many years, what is the pressing need for FISC expansion into this area? There is no need to continue unlimited expansion of the FISC into unsuitable areas. If this amendment does not pass, it does not mean that American citizens are not protected. Incidental communications of Americans will continue to be minimized, and the minimization procedures will have been approved by the FISC. But if the Whitehouse amendment passes, we will be taking a great risk that the unnecessary judicial oversight will cause very harmful unintended consequences that I have already mentioned. We are too far along to introduce guesswork into the carefully crafted compromise bill before us. I will oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Amendment No. 3930 Now, Mr. President, there is one other amendment I wish to refer to. In October of last year, the Intelligence Committee passed a bipartisan compromise bill which would modernize our foreign intelligence surveillance activities. Unfortunately, this bipartisan bill contained a 6-year sunset provision which would automatically curtail our ability to protect our homeland unless Congress acted. Let me be clear, I am opposed to any sunset in this legislation. While I believe the inclusion of this sunset provision was not appropriate, it was a result of the bipartisan negotiations in the Intelligence Committee. Now this serves as yet another example that not all of us who support this bill are happy with every provision, and every Senator will need to make concessions to get this bill passed and signed into law. Given my opposition to any sunset, I will oppose the Cardin amendment No. 3930, which would change the sunset from 6 to 4 years. Proponents of this amendment have propounded several arguments, none of which justifies this change. I am going to discuss three of those arguments today. The most common argument cited is that this legislation is too technical and too complex to have a 6-year sunset. This is certainly a complex bill, but this is not the first time the 110th Congress has tackled complex issues. We have already waded through several different and complex bills, such as immigration reform, ethics and lobbying legislation, and even a vast energy bill. We are not reinventing the wheel with surveillance law, as this is a FISA modernization bill. But it is important to note how Congress has previously legislated in this area. The 1978 FISA law made dramatic changes to our surveillance laws and oversight mechanisms. While FISA has been discussed extensively, what has not been stated nearly enough is that the 1978 FISA had no sunset. Given that FISA had no sunset, let's look at how Congress has previously legislated FISA amendments with regard to sunsets. Sunsets are not common in previous laws amending FISA. Other than the PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, seven of the eight public laws amending FISA had no sunsets on FISA provisions, and the remaining public law had a sunset on only one of those provisions. Now, this statistic speaks for itself. What is so different about this bill? I do realize it contains massive new congressional oversight provisions which could possibly hinder our collection efforts, and that we may need to revisit it for this reason. However, if this is the case, we obviously do not need a sunset to do this. We can legislate in this area whenever we want to. A second reason I have heard that some support the Cardin amendment is that this sunset will keep Congress more engaged. One of my colleagues previously stated that a sunset ``gives Congress the ability to stay involved.'' Congress should not need sunsets to stay involved. We do not need legislative alarm clocks to go off in 4 years in order to address national security. I wake up every day thinking about how we might protect our fellow Americans. I certainly do not need a sunsetting bill to remind me about national security and oversight, and neither should my colleagues. The final reason I have heard for a 4-year sunset is the idea that the next administration should be given an opportunity to address this issue and that a sunset fosters cooperation between Congress and the White House. Along these lines, one of my colleagues previously stated: Having a sunset gives us a much better chance to get cooperation . . . between the Congress and the White House. Once again, the next President can weigh in on this topic whenever and however he or she wants to. And regarding the idea that we should include a 4-year sunset to foster cooperation between two branches of Government--do we need a statute to influence the separation of powers? I say to my colleagues that the relationship between the branches of Government should be fostered by natural restrictions contained in the Constitution of the United States, not by an artificial sunset provision in an intelligence bill. The very idea of a 4-year sunset understates the importance of timeline implementation of new legislation. It takes a great deal of time to ensure that all of our intelligence agencies and personnel are fully trained in new authorities and restrictions brought about by congressional action. This is not something that happens overnight. We cannot wave a magic wand and have our Nation's intelligence personnel instantaneously cognizant of every administrative alteration imposed by Congress. Like so many other things in life, adjusting for these new mechanisms takes time and practice. While certain modifications are necessary, do we want to make it a habit of consistently changing the rules? Don't we want our analysts to spend their time actually tracking terrorists, or is their time better spent navigating administrative procedures that may be constantly in flux? I know my preference is that our analysts be given the time to use the lawful tools at their disposal to keep our families safe. I do not want to see them spending all their time burying their heads in administrative manuals which change from day to day whenever the political winds blow. After all of the efforts by many in this body to write a bill that provides a legal regime to govern contemporary technological capabilities, I am certainly not alone in my opposition to a sunset provision. In fact, my views are completely in line with what the Senate has done in the past when amending FISA. The administration strongly opposes a sunset, and Attorney General Mukasey confirmed this opposition during last week's oversight hearing here in the Senate. The fact is that this administration will not be here to see this sunset occur. Why would they care if there is a sunset in the bill or not? Their opposition demonstrates that those who are in charge of protecting our country know that a sunset is a bad idea and their opposition is based in logic and practical application. The administration knows that they will not be here, but the intelligence analysts who protect our country will. These analysts are not politically appointed, and do their job regardless of who the President is or what party the President represents. They need the stability of our laws to effectuate long term operations to prevent terrorist attacks, not guesswork which could hinder intelligence gathering practices. We have already had a trial run with the 6-month sunset of the Protect America Act. Enough of the quick fixes, let's have confidence in the work product created by the nearly 10 months we have spent on this issue. A shorter sunset gives us an excuse to not legislate with conviction, and this is an excuse we should not make. The 95th Congress had the ability to decipher complex problems and pass FISA with no sunset, and the 110th Congress can certainly modernize it without second guessing our capabilities by approving the Cardin amendment. I will oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for about 5 minutes on Gordon B. Hinckley.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. He basically stated in very articulate terms how important President Gordon B. Hinckley was, not just to Senator Bennett and myself, but to people all over the world. I express my deepest empathy, sympathy, and love to the family of Gordon B. Hinckley. I agree with Senator Bennett, that President Hinckley in dying was happy to go and again be with his beloved eternal companion, Marjorie, whom he missed, who died about 4 years before him, and to be with others he has known here on this Earth, and others he would like to know who helped to make this country the greatest in the world, and many others as well. I extend my deep sympathy to his family--a wonderful family; they are terrific people. President Hinckley was as ecumenical as a person could be. He led a worldwide church, the fifth largest church in America, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He basically taught all of us to understand that all religions are good and that we should work together. I don't think there has been a humanitarian mission or a major disaster anywhere in the world where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--nicknamed the Mormons--hasn't cooperated with Catholic charities and other Christian charities--especially Catholic charities--to immediately go into action and provide the needed food, clothing, pharmaceuticals, et cetera, all over the world. These two charities have done so much. He made sure our members--13 million strong around the world--participated in each humanitarian concern. In fact, we have thousands and thousands of humanitarian missionaries all over the world. Many are older people who are retired and are giving 18 months, or even more, of their time--and some less--to be able to bring humanitarian help to people all over the world. This man led that. He was also a great business leader. Imagine, we had a man like this run this very important worldwide church. Senator Bennett mentioned his sense of humor. You hardly heard a set of remarks by President Hinckley where he didn't very wittily make his points even better than he would have if they were just stern and tough. He was never stern and tough, unless it was essential. He was always kind and loving. He was kind to me. Elaine, my wife, and I personally love him and we are going to miss him very much. He traveled all over the world. I have traveled all over the world, and generally have done it on military planes with military liaisons helping us and carrying our bags, doing everything to make it a reasonable trip. I come back beat every time. In every case, I wanted to kiss the ground when I got back here. He traveled extensively all over the world, almost a million miles. In that regard, I pay tribute to Jon Huntsman, Sr., who made it possible in his later years for him to have a very good airplane that I think extended his life for a longer period of time for the benefit of mankind all over this world. It was a wonderful thing. He had love for all human beings and he expressed that love not only through his words but also through his actions. I might add that, as Senator Reid mentioned, he established the perpetual education fund where members of our faith donate millions of dollars every year to help unfortunate young people in these foreign lands to be able to go to school and raise their educational level so they can become leaders in their own country, and so they can make great contributions. I think it is one of the most inspired things I have ever seen. We have thousands of young men and women who are now leaders in their countries--teachers, doctors, lawyers, and others--all because of the vision of this great man, whom we call a prophet. I might mention that in his travels he dedicated dozens of temples, the most of any president of the church, all over the world. To LDS people those temples are extremely important. We believe marriage is so sacred and it is for all eternity, not just this life. Frankly, we try to live that way. Many do. These temples are extremely important to us. He went all over the world doing it. I can truthfully say this is a man I loved. He was a profound influence on Senator Bennett, me, and millions of others. He was a man who got along with leaders of other faiths. He taught us we must respect everybody. Today I add my voice to those of 13 million other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in bidding farewell to our beloved prophet, President Gordon Bitner Hinckley. His death late yesterday in his home in Salt Lake City has reminded us that all good things must come to an end. It is a sad day for all Utahns. We have lost our friend, our leader, and our fellow servant. President Hinckley lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people, leaving behind him a fame and a name which will be known for generations to come. In our effort to follow in President Hinckley's footsteps, Latter-day Saints found they had to lengthen their stride to keep up with him. Even into the sunset of his life, President Hinckley was indefatigable. He set a vigorous pace, traveling the world and sharing his message of service, love, and compassion with millions of all faiths. Everywhere our prophet traveled, he succored the weak, lifted the hands which hung down, and strengthened the feeble knees. When I think of the blessing President Hinckley was to those around him, I am reminded of the words from the great Mormon hymn, ``Every day some burden lifted, every day some heart to cheer, every day some hope the brighter, blessed honored pioneer.'' President Hinckley was born to humble surroundings on June 23, 1910, in Salt Lake City, UT. He attended public schools, and graduated with a bachelor's of arts from the University of Utah. His first job was as a newspaper carrier for Utah's Deseret News. This modest start with a newspaper was a prelude of things to come. President Hinckley became the most media savvy leader the LDS Church has ever known, sharing his warmth and spirit with countless reporters, cultivating great friendships with notables like Larry King and Mike Wallace. Wallace once described President Hinckley as ``a man I admire and I love really, because he's just an extraordinary guy.'' As many Latter-day Saints do, Gordon B. Hinckley served a mission for the church while he was young. President Hinckley served in Great Britain in the 1930s, sharing the gospel's message of peace and hope during a time of great political and economic turmoil. Discouraged by the lack of receptivity he found among the Britons, he confided his dismay to his father, who instructed the young Gordon to ``forget himself and go to work.'' Young Gordon did, both in Great Britain and in the 70 years of service that followed. His love of God fueled his love of country. President Hinckley carried the torch of patriotism, and the spirit of America burned in his heart. He once said, ``I love America for [its] great constitutional strength, for the dedication of its people to the peace and the prosperity of the entire earth. I love America for the tremendous genius of its scientists, its laboratories, its universities, its researchers, and the tens of thousands of facilities devoted to the improvement of human health and comfort, to the extension of life, to better communication and transportation. Its great throbbing and thriving industries have blessed the entire world. The standard of living of its people has been the envy of the entire Earth. Its farmlands have yielded an abundance undreamed of by most people of the Earth. The entrepreneurial environment in which has grown its industry has been the envy of and model for many other nations.'' President Hinckley's patriotism inspired him to great acts of civic service, in addition to his church duties. He was a chairman or board member of many businesses and educational entities. He received honorary doctorates from five colleges and universities, the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Silver Buffalo Award from the Boy Scouts of America, and special recognition for his contributions to tolerance from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. President Hinckley's ministry earned him national prominence. In 2004, President George W. Bush awarded our prophet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civil award. President Hinckley was one of the spiritual leaders President Bush invited to the White House following the September 11 attacks. It was a great honor, both for him and our faith, that the President invited him to that gathering. A few months later, on the eve of the Winter Olympics in 2002, President Bush said, ``President Hinckley represents a great religion, he is a strong part of the American scene.'' But President Hinckley never let his love of the United States obscure his vision for the rest of the world. Prior to becoming the LDS president in 1995, Hinckley supervised the church's organization in Asia, Europe, and South America. During his tenure, the number of members living inside North America was surpassed by those living outside of it. The nations of the Earth heard his voice and he brought them a knowledge of the truth by the wonderful testimony which he bore. As president, he administered to both the ecclesiastical and temporal needs of the church, whose 13 million members are spread over some 160 nations and territories. President Hinckley lifted his voice on every continent, in cities large and small, from north to south and east to west across this broad world. One global vision President Hinckley had for the LDS Church was a perpetual education fund, whereby members in wealthier nations could donate to the education of those in developing nations, thereby empowering them to help themselves and strengthening the infrastructure in struggling parts of the world, particularly Latin America. When he became president of the church in 1995, the church had only 47 temples, our special meeting houses such as the magnificent one in nearby Kensington, MD. Thanks to President Hinckley's vision of expansion, today there are 124 in operation, and 12 more are under construction. One of his first messages upon becoming our prophet in 1995 was a proclamation to the world, declaring the divine nature of the family unit and providing direction on how to nurture strong family relationships. There is no greater duty or privilege among the Latter- day Saints than to serve our families. President Hinckley admirably demonstrated that service as a grandfather, father, and husband to his eternal companion, Marjorie, who walked side by side with him for two- thirds of a century. Now he and Marjorie are walking together in the fields of paradise, enjoying a richly deserved peace in the Lord. I am sure at this time he would remind us that death is the great equalizer. No matter what a man or woman may accomplish in this life, this final inevitability is waiting for them. Shortly before his own passing, perhaps seeing the end was nigh, President Hinckley told church members, ``A man must get his satisfaction from his work each day, must recognize that his family may remember him, that he may count with the Lord, but beyond that, small will be his monument among the coming generations.'' Our heads are bowed now, as we bid him farewell. Gordon Bitner Hinckley joins the ranks of departed prophets, on whose shoulders he stood and in whose mighty company he can now proudly mingle. God be with you, our friend, till we meet again. I have to say, he stood for everything that was good, and I love him. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have at least 10 minutes to give my remarks on FISA.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been to this floor on numerous occasions to aggressively support the immunity provisions of the FISA modernization bill. I cannot understate my passion for this issue. I am of the firm belief that the lawsuits facing the telecom providers constitute a grave threat to national security. The potential risks from inadvertent disclosure of classified information cannot be understated. The potential damage to our intelligence sources and methods from allowing these lawsuits to go forward is substantial. Unfortunately, the more we delay this legislation, the more likely it is that our sensitive intelligence methods will be exposed, and not just exposed to the American people but to al-Qaida and thousands of other terrorists and enemies around the world. Remember, the very point of these lawsuits is to prove plaintiffs' claims by disclosing classified information through the discovery process. Let's think about this. Do we really want any person to be able to make accusations that are utter hearsay and then be given the ability to jeopardize the intelligence community's sources and methods by demanding discovery during frivolous litigation? We simply cannot do this. We should never reveal our intelligence agencies' technical capabilities, who they work with, who they target, or what their strengths and weaknesses are. We on the Intelligence Committees have that assignment because we are expected to honor the classified nature of those matters. The reasons should be obvious to all of us. Here is an example that illustrates this point: If criminals are running drugs northbound along I-95, they may have an idea that they will encounter police checkpoints. But they need to transport the drugs, so they will balance this risk. But what if they know for sure there is a checkpoint in a specific State? What if they then find out the checkpoint is at a specific mile marker? Will they change their routes and methods? You better believe they will. They are not stupid and neither is al-Qaida. Does it really make sense for us to broadcast across the globe, over the Internet, how we work? Do we want to replace the uncertainty of how we track terrorists with established fact? Confirmations or denials of the allegations in the lawsuits will certainly reveal certain intelligence agencies' sources and methods. Even when the proceedings are in camera or ex parte, this risk is still apparent. I cannot stress this point enough: The identity of any company that may or may not have cooperated with the Government with the terrorist surveillance program is highly classified. Accusations and hearsay do not confirm any relationship. The very activities these cases seek to disclose could reveal whether a company has or hasn't assisted the Government. In addition, any verdict in the case would likely provide the same type of information, and replacing the Government for these companies in the litigation does not solve the problem. Our enemies have tough decisions to make regarding how they communicate. They cannot stay silent forever, and they have to weigh the need to communicate against the chances that their communications are intercepted. We know they are carefully watching us and following every proceeding to see how our Government collects information. If they think they see a weakness in our collection capabilities, they will certainly try to take advantage of it. Make no mistake, al-Qaida and the other terrorist organizations would benefit tremendously from learning the identity of any company that assisted the Government following the attacks of 9/11. A few of my colleagues and many in the outside media have highlighted accusations from a former telecom employee. His name is Mark Klein. Mr. Klein claims he has proof that computers diverted domestic electronic communications from a phone company directly to the NSA, the National Security Agency. In fact, his accusations play a major role in one of the lawsuits currently facing a telecom provider. It is important to note the Government chose not to classify Klein's declarations or exhibits in one of the lawsuits. The Government could have, but it didn't. So Klein's court documents are public. Due to the ongoing litigation, I do not want to speak directly to his claims, but I will highlight a statement that was made by an official representing the Government during a court proceeding in one of the lawsuits against a telecom provider. This statement was from the Assistant Attorney General on June 23, 2006, in front of Judge Vaughn Walker. Here is what was said about the decision not to classify Klein's declarations. This is the Government statement regarding Mark Klein: We have not asserted a privilege over the Klein declarations or exhibits. Mr. Klein and Marcus never had access to any of the relevant classified information here, and with all respect to them, through no fault or failure of their own, they don't know anything. I cannot understate the importance of this quote as it has never been mentioned during this debate. No further commentary on it is needed, but I think its meaning is extremely important when Senators and the public weigh the relevancy and reliability of Klein's accusations. I am particularly hopeful that three of my distinguished colleagues who have highlighted Klein's claims on this floor are aware of these statements from the Government. I hope we all realize Klein's accusations highlight only one side of the story. I also want to draw attention to another claim repeatedly made on this floor: the false declaration that the immunity provision in this bill will ``close the courthouse door.'' These claims seek to convey the false impression that the immunity provision in this bill will halt all litigation relating to the terrorist surveillance program, or TSP. This is absolutely false. There are no fewer than seven lawsuits currently pending against Government officials that are related to the TSP. The immunity provision in this bill will not--I repeat that, will not--affect any of those cases. These cases are completely unaffected by the immunity provision in this bill. Here are the cases. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. George W. Bush; ACLU v. National Security Agency; Center for Constitutional Rights v. George W. Bush; Guzzi v. George W. Bush; Henderson v. Keith Alexander; Shubert v. George W. Bush; Tooley v. George W. Bush. Finally, it is imperative for us to understand national security is greatly dependent on the cooperation of telecom providers. We cannot do it by ourselves. Yet many foreign governments are in quite the opposite situation, one which gives them an advantage in certain electronic interceptions. Many foreign telecoms are run by the respective host government. Many others have government officials with controlling authority. These countries do not have to worry about telecom cooperation. They can simply force the telecoms to comply. We have chosen not to have that system in our great Nation. Rather, we rely on the voluntary assistance of telecommunication providers. When these companies are asked to assist the intelligence community based on a program authorized by the President and based on assurances from the highest levels of Government that the program has been determined to be lawful, they should be able to rely on these representations. For those who argue we need a compromise, let me be clear: We already have a compromise. The Government wanted more than what is represented in this bill, and they did not get it. The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated the following in the Intelligence Committee report: The [Intelligence] Committee did not endorse the immunity provision lightly. It was the informed judgment of the Committee after months in which we carefully reviewed the facts in the matter. The Committee reached the conclusion that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this case after holding numerous hearings and briefings on the subject and conducting thorough examination of the letters sent by the U.S. Government to the telecommunications companies. The immunity provisions in this bill are limited in scope. Not everyone is going to be happy with them, and that is the whole point. I, for one, wanted to see more protection for companies and Government officials in this bill, but I am willing to accept the compromise, and my colleagues should be willing to do the same. We are not all getting what we want. We are getting what the public has to have--what the public needs. We have been working on legislation to modernize FISA since at least April of 2007. I am extremely proud of the bipartisan efforts that led to this bill in the Intelligence Committee where all of the investigations were made, where the intelligence was protected. We found a balance. Let's show the confidence and resolve to vote on this compromise, not back away from it. I will support cloture on the Rockefeller-Bond substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. In that regard, I pray that my colleagues will listen to the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, who has played a significantly proper and important role in helping to get this bill through the committee and to the Senate floor. This is a major bill of protection for our country, and I attribute much of the success of it to Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, both of whom have been sterling leaders on this issue. I hope it is not true that anybody in this body will support some of the amendments that may be brought to the Senate floor because we have looked at this issue frontwards, backwards, all over the place. We have examined it. We spent many months on this subject in the Intelligence Committee. That should not be ignored. It passed the Intelligence Committee 13 to 2 compared to the substitute we defeated with cloture that was 10 to 9 in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I ask that we support cloture on this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I will never apologize for voting in favor of provisions which protect national security and civil liberties. During the remainder of this debate, I will continue to support initiatives that properly protect the lives and liberty of Americans. I am hopeful my colleagues will do the same. And I hope we will table this Judiciary Committee partisan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague from Missouri for the leadership he has provided, along with Senator Rockefeller, on the Intelligence Committee and throughout this process. We ought to be listening to him. This is a very important bill, one of the most important in the history of the country, and we have to get it right. I congratulate him and thank him for the hard work he has done, and also Senator Rockefeller who, as chairman of the committee, led us in this matter. As the only Republican on both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, I have been very involved in the process of developing the FISA modernization bill with a unique understanding of the journey this bill has taken through the Senate. I continue to express my full support for the bill as passed out of the Intelligence Committee and encourage my colleagues to reject the risky and problematic Judiciary substitute amendment. The seeds of discontent with the Judiciary substitute were sown from the very beginning of that committee's consideration. Late in the afternoon the day before the markup, a Judiciary substitute amendment was circulated that replaced the entire first title of the Intelligence Committee-reported bill. This substitute included 10 Democratic amendments and no Republican amendments. It was eventually adopted on a party-line vote. Unfortunately, the careful bipartisan balance crafted by the Intelligence Committee was irrevocably altered and effectively nullified by partisan maneuvering. The Judiciary Committee was not able to coalesce to advance a compromise bill, as evidenced by the consistent 10-to-9 party-line votes on amendments and final passage. These votes typified the approach the Judiciary Committee undertook. We know that this bill, like all national security legislation, needs bipartisan support to pass. The Judiciary substitute simply doesn't have it. I remind my colleagues that on November 14, 2007, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee stating: If the Judiciary substitute is part of a bill that is presented to the President, we and the President's other senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill. In addition, on December 17, 2007, a statement of administration policy was distributed for S. 2248 which stated: If the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment is part of a bill that is presented to the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the President's other senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill. Both of these letters illustrate extensive problems with provisions included in the Judiciary substitute and in very specific terms. These warnings from the very people in the Government who are asked to protect us from terrorist threats should be heeded. We disregard these warnings at our own peril. I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. On numerous occasions I have voiced very specific concerns with the Judiciary substitute. I again want to list some of the reasons that illustrate why I oppose this measure. One phrase that has been expressed on the floor of the Senate is that the Judiciary substitute supposedly ``strengthens'' oversight. That might sound like a good talking point, but what does it mean? Does it mean that the Intelligence Committee version is weak on oversight? Based on their previous statements, some of my colleagues seem to believe this. One of my colleagues described the Intelligence Committee bill as ``a bill of token oversight and weak protections for innocent Americans.'' This same colleague also stated that ``it really reduces court oversight nearly to the point of symbolism.'' Another colleague stated the bill will allow the Government to ``review more Americans' communications with less court supervision than ever before.'' The truth is actually much different. The Intelligence Committee bill contains extensive new oversight provisions for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Congress. I think it should be perfectly clear that it is a fallacy to claim that the Intelligence Committee bill does not have adequate oversight. On the contrary, it has a level of oversight that is unprecedented and quite possibly provides the most comprehensive oversight of any historical bill relating to foreign intelligence gatherings. We have also heard the contention that this bill would provide broad new surveillance authorities. Since I have discussed the expanded oversight, I wish I could put up some charts that illustrate this so- called massive expansion of surveillance authority. The problem is that expansion is not in the bill. It doesn't exist. Despite the phrase being repeated over and over, this bill simply contains no new broad and unprecedented surveillance authorities. For the first time, the Federal Intelligence Court will review and approve targeting procedures used by the intelligence community. For the first time since 1978--it wasn't done before--FISC will determine whether the procedures are reasonably designed to ensure targeting is limited to persons outside the United States. This bill simply accounts for the technological change in international communications from over the air to cable. It is the bare minimum, but it does give them what they need. Given the amount of opposition to the Judiciary substitute, I wish to highlight one of the controversial provisions added in the Judiciary Committee relating to ``reverse targeting.'' One of the basic requirements of any FISA modernization proposal is that we should not have any provisions which could be interpreted as requiring warrants to target a foreign terrorist overseas. Quite simply, foreign terrorists living overseas should never receive protections provided by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. They never have and they never should. Reverse targeting refers to the possibility, as alleged by critics of lawful Government surveillance, that the Government could target a foreign person when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, thus circumventing the need to get a warrant for the U.S. person. Reverse targeting has always been unlawful in order to protect the communications of U.S. persons. Contrary to what most people believe, the legitimate definition of U.S. persons is not limited to U.S. citizens. What is a United States person? ``An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' and ``a corporation which is incorporated in the United States.'' So from an intelligence-gathering standpoint, reverse targeting makes no sense. From an efficiency standpoint, if the Government were interested in targeting an American, it would apply for a warrant to listen to all of the American's conversations, not just conversations with terrorists overseas. But let's not let logic get in the way of good conspiracy theory. Even though reverse targeting is already considered unlawful, a provision is included in the Intelligence bill which makes it explicit. This provision is clearly written and universally supported. However, the Judiciary Committee passed an amendment by a 10-to-9 party-line vote which altered the clear language of this provision. Where before the provision said you cannot target a foreign person if the ``purpose'' is to target a U.S. person, the new language adds the ambiguous term ``significant purpose.'' If this amendment became law, an analyst would now have to ask himself the following question when targeting a terrorist overseas: Is a ``significant purpose'' of why I am targeting this foreign terrorist overseas the fact that the terrorist may call, A, an airline in America to make flight reservations or, B, a terrorist with a green card living in the USA? If the answer is yes, then the language in this amendment would require a warrant to listen to that foreign terrorist overseas. Do foreign terrorists overseas deserve protections from the courts in the United States? Of course not. The ambiguous and unnecessary text of this amendment should not be left up to judicial interpretation. Enactment of this amendment could lead to our analysts seeking warrants when targeting any foreign terrorist, since the analyst may be afraid he or she is otherwise breaking our new law. Now we should remember that the Intelligence Committee spent months working on a bipartisan compromise bill. This amendment I have been talking about was not in the Intelligence bill. So people should assume that the Judiciary Committee spent a great deal of time debating this amendment, right? Wrong. The Judiciary Committee spent 7 minutes debating this amendment before it was adopted on a 10-to-9 party-line vote. Let me repeat that number: 7 minutes. Now, the inclusion of this amendment alone would cause me to vote against this Judiciary substitute. But there are many more provisions that were added via party-line vote which I strongly oppose. The Judiciary Committee also adopted an amendment to shorten the length of the sunset in the Intelligence Committee's bill. There are a few quick things we should realize when talking about sunsets. It takes a great deal of time to ensure that all of our intelligence agencies and personnel are fully trained in any new authorities and restrictions brought about by congressional action. This is not something that happens overnight. We cannot just wave a magic wand and have our Nation's intelligence personnel instantaneously cognizant of every administrative alteration imposed by Congress. Like so many things in life, adjusting for these new mechanisms takes time and practice. While certain modifications are necessary, do we want to make it a habit of consistently changing the rules? I do not think so. Don't we want our analysts to spend their time actually tracking terrorists? Or is their time better spent navigating administrative procedures that may constantly be in flux? I can tell you clearly what I want, and that is for our analysts to use lawful tools to keep our families safe. I do not want to see them unnecessarily diverting their attention by burying their heads in administrative manuals whenever the political winds blow. After all of the efforts to finally write a bill that provides a legal regime that governs contemporary technological capabilities, I am certainly not alone in my opposition to this sunset provision. In fact, my views are completely in line with what this body has done in the past when amending FISA. Remembering that FISA itself had no sunset-- the 1978 bill had no sunset--let's look at how Congress has previously legislated in this area: Sunsets are not common in previous laws amending FISA. Other than the PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, seven of the eight public laws amending FISA had no sunsets on FISA provisions, and the remaining public law had a sunset on only one of the provisions. Now this statistic speaks for itself. What is so different about this bill? I do realize that it contains massive new oversight which could possibly hinder our collection efforts, and that we may need to revisit it for this reason. However, if this is the case, we obviously do not need a sunset to do this. We can legislate in this area whenever we want to. The fact that the Judiciary Committee shortened the length of an already unnecessary sunset is yet another example of why I will oppose the Judiciary substitute amendment. We all realize that the Judiciary Committee's bill also removed the bipartisan immunity provision. I have come to the floor on numerous occasions to articulate why this provision is so vital and so necessary. I will do so again when we debate the misguided amendment to strike this bipartisan compromise provision. We are enacting national security legislation, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this bill does not lead to unintended consequences which provide protections to terrorists. I have no doubt that provisions in the Judiciary Committee substitute could significantly harm--significantly harm--our national security. I am not willing to take that chance. I am not willing to support a bill which raises operational hurdles that impede collection of foreign intelligence. I am not willing to support initiatives that would allow our collections to go dark during the appeal of a ruling from one judge. I am not willing to support a bill which handcuffs our intelligence agencies. I am not willing to support a bill which provides excessive and obtrusive oversight that placates fringe political groups at the possible expense of national security. The stakes are too high. The damage that can be done if we get this wrong is too great.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to finish.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I could make one comment. I have known Katherine for a long time. She is one of the truly great staffers on Capitol Hill. I want you to know how much all of us have appreciated the work you do, and with this great Senator you have been working for. I appreciate it. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has asked that I yield for a unanimous consent request, and then I would like to retain the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I may need a little more than 10 minutes because this is an important speech for me. I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, dedicated public servant, health policy expert and my chief of staff, Patricia Knight, or as many know her in the Senate--Trisha. We were all sad to learn last week that, after over 34 years of public service, Trisha has decided to leave the Senate family at the end of the year, which in the arcane ways of the Senate could be any number of days between now and December 31. In fact, had I been able to convince her to stay until January 7, we would have been able to celebrate with her the 34th anniversary of her first job on Capitol Hill. Trisha was born here in the District and grew up in Arlington. She progressed through Jamestown Elementary School, Williamsburg Junior High School and Yorktown High School. We like to kid her about the fact that this is the pathway that launched CBS newswoman Katie Couric. When I first approached Trish about being my chief of staff, she quickly pointed out that she was not from Utah. However, always thinking on her feet, she rapidly concluded that graduating from Syracuse University, or Syracuse U, was close enough to 4 years in Syracuse Utah! And that became her story. I might add that she graduated magna cum laude from Syracuse University, where she majored in anthropology and photojournalism, which makes her in my mind uniquely qualified to work in this body. Trisha never intended to work on Capitol Hill. She is the daughter of a pair of Washington journalists, both deceased. But, I know they are watching over her and are very proud of what she has accomplished. She always reminds the young people who come to work in my office that she got her first Federal job by walking up and down Constitution Avenue passing out resumes and the old Civil Service form SF-171. She was initially hired as a temporary typist at the U.S. Department of Commerce, which it turned out was a lucky career start, because she found out later she had flunked the typing test but they hired her anyway. That became her launching pad for work in the office of our former colleague, and then House member, Senator Jim Broyhill of North Carolina, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He trained her well. She moved from caseworker, to legislative correspondent, to legislative assistant. I would like to say it was a meteoric rise--but in those days the average Hill staffer stayed more than 2 years. Trisha was there for almost 8 years--day, night, and many weekends. I knew she would be a real asset to my staff because of her considerable government experience. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, Trisha served in the executive branch for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. It is interesting that she worked at two cabinet agencies twice--the Commerce Department and Health and Human Services. The Cabinet secretaries she served include Richard Schweiker, Margaret Heckler, Otis Bowen, M.D., Lou Sullivan, M.D., and Bob Mosbacher. Trisha is perhaps best known for her work at HHS--she served twice as a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services and is considered by many as one of the top health policy experts in Washington, D.C. In that job, she was a line officer in the Public Health Service, as well as a staffer for the Secretary, and she worked for some of my favorite people--Dr. Ron Docksai, Dr. Bob Windom, and Dr. James O. Mason. In addition to her work for Senator Broyhill when he served in the House, she has also served on the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, where she was minority clerk for the legendary Silvio Conte of Massachusetts on three appropriations bills: Commerce-State-Justice; Legislative Branch; and Foreign Operations. I felt very fortunate when Trisha agreed to work in my office as a volunteer after the defeat of President George H.W. Bush. In fact, I tried to hire her the first week, but she flippantly informed me I didn't have the budget to do it. A few months later, I found that money, and she joined my health staff, rising quickly to become my health policy director. She is one of the shrewdest, smartest, most effective legislative minds in the Senate. She deeply understands the legislative process and has cultivated relationships with health policy experts throughout this country and around the world. She truly knows everyone and the proper way to get things done, on health care, and a whole range of issues. She has a rare combination of policy expertise and legislative know-how. In other words, she not only knows what to do, she knows how to make it happen. Those are rare qualities anywhere; certainly around here. She is very proud of her work in Senate infrastructure development, including her active membership in the Senate Chief of Staff organization and its executive committee. She has been a real leader in that organization. She has worked hard to be a capable administrator and manager and to help develop our staff and our institutional knowledge. She also takes pride in the young people whose careers she has helped launch on Capitol Hill. I often hear her tell young legislative staff-- in the words of her good friend and mentor, Don Hirsch: ``Read the bill,'' as only she can say. I am a poor substitute. The legislation she has worked on is really among the most important in my service on Capitol Hill. Trisha was by my side when we finally persuaded Congressman Waxman, Congressman Dingell, and Senator Kennedy to allow the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act to go through. The Governor of New Mexico, now running for President on the Democratic side, was my prime cosponsor on that bill. It was a journey of several years. It was a legislative campaign that has served as the model for many pieces of legislation since. And, I might add, it was the only major health bill to be enacted in 1994, the year of President Clinton's Health Security Act. She was by my side in 1997, when Senator Kennedy and I worked with Senators Chafee and Rockefeller to enact the CHIP legislation in a record 144 days. People know how important that bill is. Virtually everybody in our society today recognizes the importance of the CHIP legislation. I know she had hoped to stay on and see the reauthorization finished this year, but we will do all we can to get it done next year. She has played a pivotal and extremely important role in that remarkable landmark legislation. She has had an influential role in development of so many other pieces of law--reforming the Food and Drug export laws, allowing medical volunteers at Community Health Centers to be covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so many of the budget reconciliation bills, including the landmark Medicare Modernization Act, all of the major FDA bills we have considered in the past 2 decades, including the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts and the Medical Device User Fee Acts. That is only mentioning a few of the bills and mainly in the health care area--not counting all of the other areas where she has played a pivotal and very important role. She also served on the Judiciary Committee, where she worked on nominations, patents and controlled substances issues, among many, many others. This week, as she is delighted to note, she assisted in seeing the first bill she drafted pass unamended--legislation to rename the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development as the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I think most people who really know, knew how close I am to Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver and how much I love Eunice Kennedy Shriver. This woman has given so much to our country. Frankly, she is one terrific human being, as was her husband when he worked in so many positions in the Federal Government. This was a bill that Trish drafted, helped to push through, along with myself, and I am really pleased that Eunice Kennedy Shriver will be memorialized. It is something she always took credit in--the National Institue of Child Health and Human Development. She has worked with children all over the world and deserves that distinguished honor. The list on and on. There are some that have not become law yet--and I know she regrets that--but I think we may still see the Knight agenda enacted. Two of these are allowing vitamins to be purchased with food stamps--a commonsense measure for good nutrition, and even more importantly, allowing FDA approval of biosimilars, my high priority. Trish spearheaded for me the Kennedy-Hatch Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2007, reported earlier this year by the HELP Committee. Trisha also is a walking rolodex. She knows everyone--including just about every health policy expert in the country. When she made her announcement on Friday, a flurry of e-mails came into the office. I would like to share just a few of them which I think you will enjoy, and which show her true character. One of my former staff directors for the Senate Labor Committee noted in response to her announcement: I can't believe you plan to hang up your whip. Ringmasters occasionally take breaks, but that doesn't mean they quit the circus. Senator Hatch thinks the world of you, as do we all. Whatever your final decision, I hope it keeps you in public affairs. One of Senator Kennedy's former staff directors said, The planets are realigning. The tectonic plates of the earth are shifting. The sea is parting. The world will never be the same again. Those Kennedy staffers always do go in for the hyperbole, don't they? That is why they are so successful. A leadership staffer noted: It truly will be a loss to the whole Senate. A Utah mayor and CEO told Patricia: I cannot tell you how much we have appreciated your help. You will be sorely missed. Your ability to make a difference on Capitol Hill is evident. You have been a great friend and ally. Your work ethic is unmatched by anyone I have seen on the Hill. When you combine that with your knowledge of key areas like HHS issues, you have been a very effective government operative. A Utah political leader noted: Trisha is the brightest political strategist I have known in all my years in politics. She has the ability to put together a long-term strategy to deal with a crisis before the crisis occurs. Her perspective and insight into issues is unsurpassed. And one last example, a former Robert Wood Johnson fellow in my office noted: You know, you were singlehandedly responsible for my whole perspective change on the reality of government and its operation . . . The amount of information you have in your mind, from your experiences, and all that you have done for others, is staggering. You will always be a close and dear friend and my life/ career has been better for knowing you in that role. No matter where you find yourself, my admiration and respect will only grow. While I was there (and since), you made sure that I had a life changing experience and got to see and hear it all. People on the ``outside'' who deal with many, many congressional staff, hold Trisha in the highest regard--for her expertise, her masterful strategic thinking, and for her straightforwardness, scrupulous honesty and sense of fair play. But more importantly, they genuinely like her because she is, above all, a wonderful, generous person. Over the years, Trisha has spent weeks traveling through Utah, meeting with county and city officials and getting a good feel for the issues and challenges Utahns are facing throughout our State. She has made it a point to get to know our great State and know it well. She brought to that task all she had learned in her government career, an experience that undoubtedly helped our State in innumerable ways. In fact, when he heard she was leaving, our House colleague, Representative Chris Cannon, said: It is the State's great loss. Trisha has the love and respect of everyone in the Senate, in Utah and those whose lives she has touched. I will always appreciate her wise counsel and deep commitment to me, to my staff and to the citizens of Utah. Her sense of humor has defused many a tense time. Trisha has been my right hand for many, many years--indeed, she is my longest-serving chief of staff and I will miss her greatly. In fact, one wag blogged upon hearing this news in the Salt Lake Tribune--I hope when she leaves she'll take Hatch with her. I thought that was a little coarse myself. I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. I will always be extremely grateful for the service she has rendered. But more than that, she is a dear friend who could always be counted on to tell me the truth. That was really important to me and has always been. Mr. President, I have been blessed to have superb staff in my 31 years here in the Senate. The devotion staff have to the institution of the Senate is understandable--we are all privileged to serve an institution that embodies the liberty and deliberation among free people that the Senate represents. But the devotion of staff to a Member is, for me, quite humbling. For 15 years, Trisha Knight has given me and the Senate her expertise, her knowledge, and her advice. I have been able to rely on her, literally, 24 hours a day during these 15 years. I have depended on her to help me pass landmark legislation, and surmount difficult challenges. I have relied on her advice--even when she felt obliged to tell me what I didn't want to hear. I have relied, without exception, on her integrity, and I am grateful for every day I have had the pleasure of her good character. We will all miss Trisha, but I suspect we will be seeing a lot of her in the future. We do have a saying: ``Once a Hatch staffer, always a Hatch staffer,'' and we will expect her to adhere to that rule. And all the other applicable rules and laws, I hasten to add. So, as the first session of the 110th Congress draws to a close, I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing appreciation for Patricia Knight for her loyalty, her service, her counsel, her sacrifice, and her commitment to good policy. Let me say I have worked with some wonderful people in my days. I have had some terrific people help me. I have had people who have been loyal, decent, honorable, kind, honest people who have set examples around here and, frankly, every one of them has become a very good friend. In particular, I love Trisha Knight. I believe she has more than given her best to the Senate, the Congress, and to the Government of the United States of America. I care for her, and I hope she will continue to stay in touch with me and with others in our office because we are going to need her help. We are going to need her advice from time to time. I hope she will always be there for us. I wish Trisha the very best in whatever she chooses to do next. I pray for her continued good health, success, happiness, love, and joy. She is a great one. I have been very privileged to have her with me. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to discuss this important issue with my good friend from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH. I am proud to be a leading cosponsor of patent reform. The inventiveness of our citizens is the core strength of our economy. Our Founding Fathers recognized the critically important role of patents by mandating in article 1, section 8, of the Constitution that Congress was to enact a patent law. The Congress has periodically seen fit to update the law to ensure it meets the changing needs of both science and our economy. But the current law has not seen a major revision since 1952. Much has changed since then. The courts have struggled valiantly to interpret the law in ways that make sense in light of change. but that piecemeal process has left many areas unclear and some areas of the law out of balance. So action by the Congress is needed, and needed urgently.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention. I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise. I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry. By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 would apply the performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions thereby removing the exemption on paying performance royalties currently in place for over- the-air broadcasters. The legislation also provides for a blanket license of $5,000 for small commercial broadcasters whose gross revenues do not exceed $1.25 million a year. In addition, noncommercial broadcasters as defined by section 118 of the Copyright Act, such as public, educational and religious stations would have a blanket license of $1,000 per year. No payment would be due until the Copyright Royalty Board determines the rates for large commercial broadcasters. The proposed language provides that sound recordings used only incidentally by a broadcaster and sound recordings used in the transmission of a religious service are exempt. S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works. I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention. I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise. I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry. By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 would apply the performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions thereby removing the exemption on paying performance royalties currently in place for over- the-air broadcasters. The legislation also provides for a blanket license of $5,000 for small commercial broadcasters whose gross revenues do not exceed $1.25 million a year. In addition, noncommercial broadcasters as defined by section 118 of the Copyright Act, such as public, educational and religious stations would have a blanket license of $1,000 per year. No payment would be due until the Copyright Royalty Board determines the rates for large commercial broadcasters. The proposed language provides that sound recordings used only incidentally by a broadcaster and sound recordings used in the transmission of a religious service are exempt. S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works. I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of this package and want to commend my colleagues on a job well done. To be fair, it would have been my preference to do a broader bill and resolve the myriad of Medicare-, Medicaid- and CHIP-related issues we have been discussing for many months now. Given that this has proven impossible, my overriding concern is that we move ahead with flawed correction to the physician reimbursement formula, as this bill does. Indeed, while most of us would have preferred to have a longer term physician fix, this bill is a reasonable compromise. Physicians will be able to practice medicine without having their Medicare reimbursement rates significantly reduced. And that means that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to quality health care. I also am pleased about other provisions in this legislation, particularly those related to policy on long-term care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, IRFs. With regard to long-term care hospitals, Senator Conrad and I introduced legislation, S. 1958, Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Patient Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. I am proud that the long-term care hospital provisions in today's Medicare legislation are based on the legislative language from the Conrad-Hatch bill. The legislation before us provides regulatory relief to allow continued access to current long-term care hospital services; requires new facility and medical reviews to ensure that patients are receiving appropriate care; and authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, on long-term care hospitals and patient criteria. This legislative language reflects compromises that were made between the various trade groups for long-term care hospitals and finding policy solutions which generate savings for Medicare. As a proud cosponsor of S. 543, Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007, I am also pleased that the Medicare bill eliminates the 75 percent rule implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, for rehabilitation hospitals. Instead, this legislation permanently freezes the inpatient rehabilitation services compliance threshold at 60 percent and allows comorbid conditions to count toward this threshold. Finally, it requires the Secretary of HHS to study beneficiary access to inpatient rehabilitation services and care at IRFs and make recommendations on how to classify inpatient rehabilitation facility hospitals and units. Additionally, the legislation before the Senate extends the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, through March 31, 2009. Let me make one point perfectly clear on this provision I--am not going to give up on reauthorizing the CHIP program for an additional 5 years. I am still committed to that goal and intend to work with my colleagues early next year. I will not rest until this program is reauthorized and all eligible, low-income children are covered by the CHIP program. On balance, while this bill is not what any of us would have liked, it does address many of the immediate concerns of Medicare patients, their physician and other health care providers. I strongly support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, when I came to the Senate after the election of 1976, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was a very distinguished gentleman from Mississippi named James Eastland. I can remember the first time I met Senator Eastland as a citizen newly elected to the Senate, when nobody thought I was going to make it. I was invited into his office and the first thing he did was offer me a cigar. I said: ``Well, I am sorry, sir. My faith does not permit me to smoke.'' He said: ``Well, then, have a drink.'' I replied: ``Well, sorry, sir, but my faith doesn't permit me to drink.'' Senator Eastland then exclaimed very loudly: ``What the expletive is the matter with you Mormons?'' I want everybody to know Senator Lott has never offered me a cigar nor has he ever offered me a drink, although I think he has been tempted a few times. Let me say this: I have such admiration for Senator Lott and his wife Tricia and for the love and respect they have shown to all of us and this institution, and for all of their hard work. It is no secret that I bitterly resent the way Senator Lott was treated after Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. It was wrong, and it was hitting below the belt. It would have crushed any one of us to go through what he went through, facing such harsh attacks knowing that he certainly did not mean to say what others tried to put in his mouth. But Trent fought his way back, kept his head high, became a friend to everybody in the Senate again the very next day, and, of course, won the respect of virtually everybody who has ever known him or what he stands for. I have tremendous respect and love for Trent and Tricia for the sacrifices they have made for their State and for this country. He and Senator Cochran have been one of the best duos in the history of the Senate--two real gentlemen, two strong, tough people. But, they are also two people who have shown respect for this body and all of its members in ways that not many others have. All I can say is I wish Senator Lott and Tricia the best of luck in all of their future endeavors. While I am certain he will be an asset to any effort with which he becomes involved, I am equally certain the Senate is going to be a lesser place without him. Supporting Senator Lott throughout his time in the Congress is one of the most beautiful and noble women in the history of the Senate. Tricia Lott has been the quintessential Senate wife, and I doubt Senator Lott would have been as great as he has become had it not been for his relationship with Tricia. Elaine and I are going to greatly miss you, Trent. I know I am not supposed to refer to you by your first name, but I am going to make an exception in this case. We will always be pulling for you, your success, and your happiness in this life. This old Senator is going to miss you greatly. We are going to miss the efforts you put forth. We are going to miss the talents you have. We are going to miss the energy you bring to the Senate. And, we are most certainly going to miss your ability to bring us together, making better Senators out of us all. God bless the Lotts. We in the Senate will surely miss them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an unintended oversight by my office in connection with the disclosure of a congressionally directed funding project in the House message to accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus appropriations bill. When I filed my original requests for funding for projects in May of this year, I did not realize the letter included a request to fund the Old Dome Meeting Hall Renovations project in Riverton, UT. Subsequently, with the enactment of Public Law 110-81 on September 14, 2007, along with other Members of the Senate, I was asked to sign, and did sign, various certification letters in connection with our requests for project funding. Upon a review of our files last night, with respect to the forthcoming House message to accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus appropriations bill, we determined that the certification letters sent to the committee may have been incorrect, as a member of my family may be deemed to have an indirect pecuniary interest in one of the items requested in my letter to the Appropriations Committee dated May 15, 2007. Upon discovering this oversight, I forwarded a letter to the attention of Appropriations Committee chairman, Robert Byrd, and ranking Republican member, Thad Cochran, which I believe to be in accordance with the facts now known to me. I have chosen to address these issues openly on the floor of the Senate to clear up any facts regarding this completely unintended and unfortunate oversight. I want my colleagues to know that I always have and will continue to do everything possible to ensure I meet all ethics laws, rules, and requirements here in the U.S. Senate. For the reasons I have outlined and in an effort to meet the highest ethical standards, I will be voting present on the Omnibus appropriations bill when I otherwise would have supported the legislation.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Republican Member Cochran be printed in the Record.