Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 10 a.m. in order to hold a hearing on the President's foreign affairs budget.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a committee coffee with His Excellency Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Defense Department's Homeland Security Role: How the Military Can and Should Contribute.''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in open session in order to receive testimony on improvements implemented and planned by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the care, management, and transition of wounded and ill servicemembers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 13, 2008, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a mark up of an original bill entitled ``Industrial Bank Holding Company Act of 2008''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the State Secrets Privilege: Protecting National Security While Preserving Accountability'' on Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness list Carl Nichols, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC; The Honorable Patricia M. Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Washington, DC; Louis Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library of the Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Robert M. Chesney, Associate Professor, Wake Forest University School of Law, Winston- Salem, NC; and Michael Vatis, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, in order to conduct a hearing on the FY 2009 Budget for Veterans Programs. The Committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 13, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in order to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing on the Family and Medical Leave Act on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. The hearing will commence at 3 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the intelligence authorization bill, which contains a provision requiring all U.S. governmental agencies, including the CIA, to comply with the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture. This reform is urgently needed. I commend the Intelligence Committee for adopting this provision. Its enactment will ensure that the Government uses only interrogation techniques that are lawful and those provisions should be retained. In the Detainee Treatment Act passed in 2005, Congress attempted to reaffirm our commitment to the basic rights enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and restore America's standing in the eyes of the world as a nation that treats detainees with dignity and respect. These rights reflect the values we cherish as a free society, and also protects the lives of our service men and women. Today, however, we know that the 2005 act has fallen short of our goals. By not explicitly applying the Army Field Manual standards to all Government agencies, we have left open a loophole that the Bush administration promptly drove a Mack truck through. The so-called enhanced interrogation program carried out in secret sites became an international scandal and a profound stain on America in the eyes of the world. The administration issued an executive order last year to try to minimize the outcry, but the order failed to renounce abuses such as waterboarding, mock executions, use of attack dogs, beatings, and electric shocks. The disclosure of secret opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel gave further evidence that the administration had interpreted the Detainee Treatment Act and other antitorture laws in an unacceptable, narrow manner. Attorney General Mukasey's refusal at his confirmation hearings to say whether waterboarding is illegal gave us even more reason for concern. The outrages do not end there. Two months ago, the New York Times reported that in 2005 the CIA had destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the use of abusive techniques on detainees in its custody. These videotapes have been withheld from Federal courts, the 9/11 Commission, and congressional committees. Two weeks ago in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General flat out refused to consider investigating possible past acts of torture or to brief congressional committees on why he believed the CIA's enhanced interrogation program is lawful. Last week, we received official confirmation that the CIA had used waterboarding on three detainees. At the same time, the White House made the reckless claim that waterboarding is legal, and that the President can authorize its use under certain circumstances. The White House position is directly contrary to the findings of courts, military tribunals, and legal experts that waterboarding is a violation of U.S. law and a crime against humanity. In the words of a former master instructor for U.S. Navy SEALs: Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Waterboarding has a long and brutal history. It is an ancient technique of tyrants. In the 15th and 16th centuries, it was used in the Spanish Inquisition. In the 19th century, it was used against slaves in this country. In World War II, it was used against our troops by Japan. We prosecuted Japanese officers for using it and sent them to years and years of jail for following that procedure. In the 1970s, it was used against political opponents by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and military dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. Today it is being used against pro-democracy activists in Burma. That is the company we keep when we fail to reject waterboarding. In fact, Attorney General Mukasey could not even bring himself to reject the legal reasoning behind the infamous Bybee torture memo of the Office of Legal Counsel which stated that physical pain amounts to torture only if it is: equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. According to that memo, anything that fell short of that standard would not be torture. This Bybee memorandum was in effect for 2\1/2\ years before it was ever effectively suspended. It was suspended then by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the Judiciary Committee, quite frankly, in order that his nomination could be favorably considered. Included in the Bybee memoranda was a provision that was an absolute defense for any of those who would be involved in this kind of torture, unless prosecutors could prove a specific intent that the purpose of the torture was to harm the individuals rather than to gain information, therefore effectively giving carte blanche to any of those who would be involved in torture. When Attorney General Gonzales appeared before the Judiciary Committee and effectively repealed the Bybee memoranda, he did so for the Department of Defense but not for the Central Intelligence Agency, even at that time a clear indication of what the administration was intending to do with the Central Intelligence Agency. It should not be any surprise to anyone that this has been ongoing and continuous. According to that memo, again the Bybee memorandum, anything that fell short of this standard would not be torture. CIA interrogators called the memo their ``golden shield'' because it allowed them to use virtually any interrogation method they wanted. When the memo--this is the Bybee memo--became public, its flaws were obvious. Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School testified that in his professional opinion as a law professor and a law dean, the Bybee memoranda is ``perhaps the most clearly legal erroneous opinion I have ever read [because of all of the previous statutes and laws that have been passed to prohibit torture by the Congress of the United States and those initiated and supported by Republican presidents, by Ronald Reagan, as well as Democratic presidents''.] This was not a partisan series of statements about what the United States position has historically been. The Bush administration was embarrassed into withdrawing the memo. To this day, no one in the administration has repudiated its content. The torture memo continues to haunt this country. I have asked the Attorney General several times to reject its legal reasoning, but he continues to refuse to do so. The only solution is for Congress to apply the Army Field Manual's standards to the entire Government. There has rarely if ever been a greater need to restore the rule of law to America's interrogation practices. The field manual represents our best effort to develop the most effective interrogation standards. The manual clearly states that: Use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. We have on trial in military courts six of those who are going to be tried because of 9/11. There is no question there is going to be a whole series of appeals because of the use of various techniques against them. It may very well be that some turn out--because of the violations of basic and fundamental, some constitutional rights, there will be a question about what the outcome is going to be with regard to those individuals. Why not get it right from the start? The manual gives our interrogators great flexibility, provides all the techniques necessary to effectively question detainees, but it makes clear that illegal and inhumane methods are not permitted. In a letter to our troops dated May 7, 2007, General Petraeus stated: Our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual . . . shows that the techniques in the Manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting the information from detainees. Applying the field manual's standards throughout our Government will move us closer to repairing the damage to our international reputation in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. It will once again commit the United States to be the world's beacon for human rights and fair treatment. It will improve the quality of intelligence gathering, and protect own personnel from facing punishment, condemnation, or mistreatment anywhere in the world. It will make us more, not less, safe. Torture is a defining issue. It is clear that under the Bush administration we have lost our way. By applying the field manual standards to all U.S. Government interrogations, Congress will bring America back from the brink, back to our values, back to basic decency, back to the rule of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Crime Gun Identification Act as an important step to reduce gun violence and support law enforcement. The bill requires semiautomatic handguns manufactured, imported or sold by federal firearms licensees to be equipped with microstamping technology. Congressman Xavier Becerra is introducing a companion measure in the House this week. Nearly 70 percent of homicides in 2006 involved a firearm, and handguns were the weapons of choice for most offenders. Handguns are also the weapons most often used in murders of law enforcement officers. There is an urgent need for effective, high-tech gun-tracing capabilities such as microstamping, which can provide law enforcement with a much-needed investigation resource in solving gun crimes. Microstamping uses lasers to make precise, microscopic engravings on the firing pin and chamber of a weapon, and this information is transferred onto the cartridge casing when the weapon is fired. The information includes the gun's make, model and serial number, and can yield important evidence to law enforcement officers investigating crimes. California has already enacted such legislation, and the technology has the support of many individuals and organizations, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the Boston Police Department, Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickles, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Additionally, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators passed a resolution supporting the use of microstamping technology. Microstamping is a significant new technology for ballistics identification. Congress should obviously support emerging technologies that enable law enforcement to make more effective use of evidence at crime scenes. Current ballistic analyses, conducted through the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, depend on the transfer of accidental markings from a gun barrel to bullets and cartridge cases, which are then compared to a limited database with evidence from other crime scenes. The current Ballistic Information Network has already been an invaluable resource for law enforcement. A remarkable number of crimes have been solved by using it, and it makes sense to invest in the next generation of ballistic technology. Microstamping in no way replaces any of the methods currently used by police to conduct ballistics tests, but it would clearly enhance the work currently done by law enforcement agencies. FBI data indicate that handguns are used in most homicides, accounting for nearly 7,800 murders in 2006. In Massachusetts, violent crime rates are on the rise--growing 11 percent in Boston in 2006. In 2005, Boston police made a total of 754 gun arrests and 797 illegal firearm seizures. Nevertheless, from 1997 to 2005, shooting incidents have jumped a drastic 153 percent. We can help law enforcement solve more handgun crimes and reduce gun trafficking through the use of microstamping technology. Bullet casings are often the only evidence left behind at crime scenes, particularly in gang crimes such as drive-by shootings. In Boston during 2006, bullet casings were recovered from nearly half of crime scenes involving shootings. In those cases, investigators could obviously have benefited from knowing the make, model and serial number of the guns involved in those crimes. Microstamp information can also be used to identify straw buyers and gun traffickers who supply the illegal flow of weapons to violent teens, gang members and other prohibited purchasers. Critics of microstamping technology claim that perpetrators engaged in crime will be able to subvert the technology by filing the microstamped information off the weapons. In fact, however, microstamping is virtually tamperproof. The microstamped information is invisible to the naked eye, and most criminals would be unable to detect it. The microstamp is placed on the firing pin and in the chamber of the gun, so even if a perpetrator replaced the firing pin, the information would still be transferred to the casing from the chamber. Others argue that criminals will plant cartridges at crime scenes to disrupt investigations. Realistically, however, we know that offenders rarely take even the simplest precautions, such as wearing gloves during a burglary, when engaging in criminal behavior. Opponents also contend that microstamping will result in the creation of a new national database of gun owners. In fact, it will not result in any new database, because it will use information already available to law enforcement officers investigating gun crimes. In addition, microstamped information on bullet casings can be viewed with imaging equipment generally found at Federal, State and local forensics laboratories, making it unnecessary to create and maintain special equipment or facilities. Finally, critics claim that the cost of adding microstamping technology is prohibitive. In fact, the technology will be available to manufacturers through a free licensing agreement from its inventor. Based on independent estimates, adding the technology to new semiautomatic handguns will cost only 50 cents to a dollar for each firearm produced by large volume manufacturers. Handgun owners and prospective handgun purchasers will not be burdened by this legislation. There will be no changes in the procedures or requirements for purchasing handguns. Existing handguns and handgun owners will not be affected by this legislation since it applies only to new handguns. The technology has been thoroughly tested. Independent examiners have fired thousands of rounds from guns with microstamping, and have consistently obtained readable marks on the casings. Microstamping technology is urgently needed by law enforcement and can make a major difference in solving gun crimes. It is cost effective and will not impinge on the rights of any gun owners. I urge my colleagues to support law enforcement and reduce gun crimes by enacting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all of us who knew Robert Ball are saddened by his death last week. For many of us in Congress and for tens of millions of Americans in recent decades, Bob Ball was Mr. Social Security. He deserves immense credit not only for his indispensable leadership in making it the most successful and most beloved social program in the nation's history, but also for doing so much over the years to keep it that way when some in high places sought to undermine it. President Kennedy named Bob as Commissioner of Social Security in 1962, the same year I came to the Senate, and I know my brother would regard him as one of his finest appointments. Bob's leadership was indispensable in maintaining the strength of Social Security in the 1960s and dramatically expanding it to include Medicare and disability benefits. Countless times over the years, I have benefited from Bob's extraordinary wisdom, experience and friendship. Bob stepped down as Commissioner in 1973, but he never really retired. He was a key member of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security reform in the early 1980s, and in 1986 he founded the National Academy of Social Insurance, whose studies and publications have been an invaluable policy resource for all of us in Congress on Social Security, Medicare, and other important social programs such as workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Through its awards and internships, the Academy has inspired many young people in government, the private sector and universities to devote themselves to these issues as he did. As recently as last fall, at the age of 93, Bob was sending out to his extensive mailing list his ideas for protecting and financing Social Security, backed up, as they always were, by sound cost estimates provided by loyal Social Security employees who are still deeply inspired by Bob. I will miss Bob very much, and I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Doris and all his children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. Bob Ball was one of a kind. Few if any in the long history of our country have done so much for so many for so long. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that last Friday's obituary in the New York Times on Bob Ball be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Crime Gun Identification Act as an important step to reduce gun violence and support law enforcement. The bill requires semiautomatic handguns manufactured, imported or sold by federal firearms licensees to be equipped with microstamping technology. Congressman Xavier Becerra is introducing a companion measure in the House this week. Nearly 70 percent of homicides in 2006 involved a firearm, and handguns were the weapons of choice for most offenders. Handguns are also the weapons most often used in murders of law enforcement officers. There is an urgent need for effective, high-tech gun-tracing capabilities such as microstamping, which can provide law enforcement with a much-needed investigation resource in solving gun crimes. Microstamping uses lasers to make precise, microscopic engravings on the firing pin and chamber of a weapon, and this information is transferred onto the cartridge casing when the weapon is fired. The information includes the gun's make, model and serial number, and can yield important evidence to law enforcement officers investigating crimes. California has already enacted such legislation, and the technology has the support of many individuals and organizations, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, the Boston Police Department, Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickles, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Additionally, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators passed a resolution supporting the use of microstamping technology. Microstamping is a significant new technology for ballistics identification. Congress should obviously support emerging technologies that enable law enforcement to make more effective use of evidence at crime scenes. Current ballistic analyses, conducted through the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, depend on the transfer of accidental markings from a gun barrel to bullets and cartridge cases, which are then compared to a limited database with evidence from other crime scenes. The current Ballistic Information Network has already been an invaluable resource for law enforcement. A remarkable number of crimes have been solved by using it, and it makes sense to invest in the next generation of ballistic technology. Microstamping in no way replaces any of the methods currently used by police to conduct ballistics tests, but it would clearly enhance the work currently done by law enforcement agencies. FBI data indicate that handguns are used in most homicides, accounting for nearly 7,800 murders in 2006. In Massachusetts, violent crime rates are on the rise--growing 11 percent in Boston in 2006. In 2005, Boston police made a total of 754 gun arrests and 797 illegal firearm seizures. Nevertheless, from 1997 to 2005, shooting incidents have jumped a drastic 153 percent. We can help law enforcement solve more handgun crimes and reduce gun trafficking through the use of microstamping technology. Bullet casings are often the only evidence left behind at crime scenes, particularly in gang crimes such as drive-by shootings. In Boston during 2006, bullet casings were recovered from nearly half of crime scenes involving shootings. In those cases, investigators could obviously have benefited from knowing the make, model and serial number of the guns involved in those crimes. Microstamp information can also be used to identify straw buyers and gun traffickers who supply the illegal flow of weapons to violent teens, gang members and other prohibited purchasers. Critics of microstamping technology claim that perpetrators engaged in crime will be able to subvert the technology by filing the microstamped information off the weapons. In fact, however, microstamping is virtually tamperproof. The microstamped information is invisible to the naked eye, and most criminals would be unable to detect it. The microstamp is placed on the firing pin and in the chamber of the gun, so even if a perpetrator replaced the firing pin, the information would still be transferred to the casing from the chamber. Others argue that criminals will plant cartridges at crime scenes to disrupt investigations. Realistically, however, we know that offenders rarely take even the simplest precautions, such as wearing gloves during a burglary, when engaging in criminal behavior. Opponents also contend that microstamping will result in the creation of a new national database of gun owners. In fact, it will not result in any new database, because it will use information already available to law enforcement officers investigating gun crimes. In addition, microstamped information on bullet casings can be viewed with imaging equipment generally found at Federal, State and local forensics laboratories, making it unnecessary to create and maintain special equipment or facilities. Finally, critics claim that the cost of adding microstamping technology is prohibitive. In fact, the technology will be available to manufacturers through a free licensing agreement from its inventor. Based on independent estimates, adding the technology to new semiautomatic handguns will cost only 50 cents to a dollar for each firearm produced by large volume manufacturers. Handgun owners and prospective handgun purchasers will not be burdened by this legislation. There will be no changes in the procedures or requirements for purchasing handguns. Existing handguns and handgun owners will not be affected by this legislation since it applies only to new handguns. The technology has been thoroughly tested. Independent examiners have fired thousands of rounds from guns with microstamping, and have consistently obtained readable marks on the casings. Microstamping technology is urgently needed by law enforcement and can make a major difference in solving gun crimes. It is cost effective and will not impinge on the rights of any gun owners. I urge my colleagues to support law enforcement and reduce gun crimes by enacting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Cardin has offered is very simple, but it is absolutely critical to this bill. The amendment would move up the bill's sunset date from 6 years to 4 years. Congress would need to revisit the law by the end of 2011 instead of 2013. The amendment is good public policy. Whenever a significant new law is enacted, it is important to require Congress to revisit it at an earlier rather than a later date. The FISA bill we are considering is highly complicated legislation affecting Americans' security and liberty. It grants the executive branch vast new authority for electronic surveillance at a time of rapidly changing technology and rapidly changing threats. Even the country's leading national security experts cannot say for sure what our national security challenges will look like in 3 years, much less how this legislation will work out in practice. This is also highly controversial legislation. I don't need to remind anyone in this Chamber of the intense debate that has been taking place over many parts of this bill. The FISA rules on electronic surveillance affect every American. They are the only thing that stands between the freedom of Americans to make a private phone call, send a private e- mail, or search the Internet, and the ability of the Government to listen in on the call, read the e-mail, and review the Internet search. In this information age, FISA gives Americans basic protection against Government tyranny and abuse, and we owe it to the American people to revisit it promptly to make sure its protections are effective. Congress also needs an earlier sunset because we need more information to assess how these new policies will work in practice. The ongoing confusion and controversy in this area mean that Congress does not have enough knowledge or confidence to be sure the legislation is adequate. With an early sunset, Congress will have to make an early assessment of how the legislation is being interpreted and implemented. We will be able to identify problems and abuses much sooner. If changes are made to the law in 2011, it will be because experience has shown that changes are needed. We passed this exact same amendment in the Judiciary Committee in the middle of November, and in the weeks since then, I have heard only two arguments against it, both from the White House. Neither of them holds up. The first objection is that there has already been sufficient consideration of these issues, so that Congress should be able to pass a permanent FISA reform right now. Everyone agrees that short sunsets are valuable when Congress has not had time to consider an issue thoroughly and develop a factual record. But the Bush administration claims there has already been a detailed and informed discussion of FISA modernization. That objection is wrong on the facts. The administration has recently started to work with Congress more openly, but there is still a great deal we don't know about how it has been conducting its electronic surveillance. Much of what we have learned has come from leaks to the press. A few months ago, the White House decided to share with the Senate certain documents on the role of the telecommunications companies in an effort to obtain retroactive immunity for them. This was the first time the administration had ever shown Congress any documents on its warrantless surveillance. So far, however, the White House has shared only a small number of documents with a small number of Senators--and until late last month, not with any Members of the House of Representatives. Such selective disclosure is a pale shadow of the real disclosure Congress needs to enact good legislation. That objection is also wrong as a matter of policy. No matter how much discussion there may have been, this is highly complicated legislation that makes major, untested changes in our surveillance laws. It is impossible for Congress to analyze these issues in the abstract, without any track record to evaluate. With a law as complex, new, and important as this, a short sunset is responsible policy. The second objection I have heard is that a short sunset introduces too much uncertainty to the rules affecting our intelligence professionals. The administration says it is not efficient for agencies to develop new policies and procedures, only to have the law change within a brief period. They say the intelligence community operates more effectively when the rules governing intelligence professionals are well-established, and are not in doubt. This objection is more serious, but it too dissolves upon consideration. It is true that there may be a little extra uncertainty that comes with a short sunset. But the much more significant uncertainty is whether all of the changes made by this bill will be good for the country--and there is no way to be sure about this ahead of time. Intelligence professionals should not be locked into a surveillance system that doesn't work well for them, and Americans should not be locked into a system that fails to protect their security or their rights. The early sunset guarantees that Congress will review these extremely complicated, untested, and powerful new authorities and how they are actually being used by the executive branch. The administration's argument against a sunset is an argument against congressional oversight of FISA. The White House wants Congress to pass a new FISA law, and then to look the other way while the executive branch implements and interprets its new powers. They want Congress to trust them when they tell us how the law is working, rather than look into it ourselves. Given this administration's track record of warrantless illegal spying, ``trust us'' is not an acceptable way to proceed. Congress needs to stay on top of this issue to make sure that our surveillance laws are keeping Americans safe and protecting their freedom. That is what we have been elected to do, and that is what the Constitution requires us to do. As I said at the start, this amendment is very simple. It moves the sunset date up by 2 years. Yet it may well be the single most important thing Congress can do to ensure that we reform FISA in a responsible and effective way. This sunset amendment is a win-win for national security and civil liberties. It will ensure that Congress remains engaged on the crucial issues of electronic surveillance that affect all Americans. To make sure that our new FISA law actually gets the job done, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the amendment that I have offered with Senators Kerry and Menendez addresses a serious problem with the FISA bill that we are now considering, and I am very pleased that it has been incorporated into the bill by unanimous consent. The amendment clarifies that under the new authority provided in this legislation, the Government may not intentionally acquire a communication when it knows ahead of time that the sender and all of the intended recipients are located in the United States. When the Government knows ahead of time that both the person making the call and the person receiving the call are located inside the United States, it will have to get a court order before it can listen in on that call. This is the way FISA has always worked, and my amendment makes sure that the law stays that way. There is broad agreement that communications known ahead of time to be purely domestic should continue to be governed by the standard FISA rules. Indeed, the Bush administration has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to use the new authority granted under the Protect America Act or this legislation to acquire communications that are purely domestic, without obtaining a court order first. The administration acknowledges that when the Government knows that all the parties to a conversation are in the United States, a specific court order should be needed to intercept that conversation. I haven't heard a single Member of Congress disagree with this point. But without this amendment, the FISA bill's new authority could be used to acquire purely domestic communications without a court order. The bill requires the Government's ``targeting procedures'' to be designed ``to ensure that any acquisition . . . is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.'' The problem arises because sometimes the ``target'' of the surveillance may be abroad, but the communications that the Government wants to acquire may occur entirely inside the United States, because the subject matter concerns the target who is abroad. The term ``target'' is not defined in FISA, but the legislative history states that the ``target'' is the person or entity ``about whom or from whom information is sought.'' That broad definition is capable of being interpreted to allow surveillance of people other than a ``target.'' For example, the Government might believe that two Americans in the United States--let's call them Tom and Mary--will discuss a third party who is located outside the country. Under this bill, that third party can be a group, not just an individual, and the Government can obtain a blanket warrant that allows it to spy on everything that group does in the future. Although the authors of the bill have stated this should not occur, the concern is that when Tom and Mary talk to each other, the Government might claim the third party is the ``target'' who provides the legal basis for the surveillance--with the practical result being that the Government could listen in on the conversation without making any showing to any court about Tom and Mary. My amendment protects innocent Americans by clarifying that traditional FISA rules still govern for communications known to be occurring within the country. The Government could still spy on Tom and Mary--but it would have to obtain a warrant first, with the usual exception for emergencies. According to the administration, the law already requires this. The administration has said flat out that it will not wiretap purely domestic communications without first obtaining a court order. But these kinds of statements are no answer when Americans' basic liberties are at stake. ``Trust us'' is not enough. FISA experts such as David Kris, a highly respected former lawyer at the Justice Department and the author of the leading treatise on FISA law, believe that the legislation is not clear right now. And if the law is unclear, there will be tremendous pressure on the intelligence community to apply it as aggressively as possible, because it is their duty to do everything they can within the boundaries of law. As Mr. Kris recently stated, even though the Intelligence Committee bill prohibits the targeting of persons known to be in the United States, it ``does not, however, foreclose all surveillance of [purely] domestic communications . . . because surveillance can 'target' an international terrorist group located abroad, but still be directed at a domestic telephone number or other domestic communications facility.'' Mr. Kris has said that his ``principal concern about [this bill] . . . is that it resembles the Protect America Act in allowing surveillance of domestic communications'' without a warrant. This is a radical change to a FISA system that has protected Americans for three decades. If put to a vote, I have no doubt that Americans would reject it. This concern can't be waved away by the administration telling us that it takes a different legal view. When one of the top FISA experts in the country says that the law is not clear, we should listen. Promises about how the Government will interpret the law in the future are not enough. If we all agree about a specific policy goal-- and everyone should agree that in purely domestic-to-domestic situations, the traditional FISA rules should apply--then we should be very clear about that goal in the legislation we write. Any FISA law that Congress passes may set the rules on surveillance for years to come, and different administrations may interpret ambiguous language in different ways. My amendment makes clear that the traditional FISA rules apply when the Government knows ahead of time that the communication is purely domestic. The amendment does not add any substantive changes to the law; it adds clarity and certainly where now there is ambiguity and confusion. Americans deserve to feel confident when they are talking with their friends, neighbors, and loved ones inside the United States that they will not be spied on without a warrant. Bringing clarity to this area of the law is good for Americans' liberties, and it is good for national security. I congratulate my colleagues for adopting this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reid and Senator Baucus for their leadership in getting stimulus legislation to the floor so quickly. It is not a moment too soon. In recent weeks, the many warning signs of a troubled economy have turned into loud alarm bells that we cannot ignore. Last week's worrisome GDP figures show that economic growth has ground to a near halt. Savings are plummeting. Debt is rising. The Fed has cut short-term interest rates more rapidly than at any time in its history. For the first time in years, we are losing more jobs than we are producing. It is clear that we are facing an economic crisis that will present enormous challenges in the months and years ahead. This crisis will affect every man, woman, and child in our country, but it will be particularly hard on the millions of families who are already struggling who are having trouble finding work, heating their homes, and paying the mortgage. For these families, a recession isn't just part of the business cycle--it's a life-altering event from which they may never recover. Already far too many families are on the brink. Unemployment has skyrocketed more than 7.6 million Americans are looking for work but can't find a job. Foreclosures are rising 200,000 families each month are at risk of losing their homes. Bankruptcies soared by 40 percent last year, and experts predict they will rise even faster in 2008. Our actions today are vital for the entire economy, but they are most critical for these struggling families. Our decisions will help determine whether they keep their homes, whether their teenagers stay in college, and whether their children go to bed hungry. The current recession is a major turning point for our country. We have to choose a path out of this crisis, and the path we choose will determine the kind of America we will be for years to come. Do we choose to help some, or do we choose to help all? Do we choose a path of shared prosperity, or a path that leaves countless hardworking families behind? These are questions of basic fairness, and the American people understand fairness. They don't want to see their friends and neighbors who are struggling get left behind. They want us to do what is right for all. Today we have the opportunity to take a few basic steps forward to demonstrate our commitment to a fair economy. First, we have to tackle unemployment. It is clear that no matter what we do to boost economic activity, we will continue to have a significant unemployment problem for at least the next 2 years. Goldman Sachs predicts that the national unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 percent by the end of 2009. Many States around the country are already struggling with high unemployment. Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 percent. South Carolina's is 6.6 percent. Ohio just hit the 6 percent mark as well. Workers who lose their jobs are having much more trouble finding work now than before the last recession. Today, 18 percent of workers have been looking for a job for more than 26 weeks, compared to only 11 percent in 2001. This problem is affecting workers across the economic spectrum even those with college educations and years of experience can't find work. There are nearly two unemployed workers for every job opening across the country. Because it is becoming much harder to find a job, many more families are finding that our unemployment insurance system doesn't provide enough support. Across the country, 37 percent of workers are running out of benefits before finding a job, and more will follow as the recession deepens. Mr. President, 2.6 million people ran out of benefits in the year ending in October of 2007 that is far more than before the last recession. These shocking numbers represent real hardship for millions of hardworking people across the country. It is all too easy for a job loss to turn into a financial crisis, and many families never fully recover. In the last recession we saw the real impact of unemployment on working families parents cutting back on spending for their children, or even pulling older children out of college to cut back on expenses. We saw teenagers who should be in school forced to take jobs to help support their families. To prevent this downward spiral, we must act immediately to shore up the safety net for families struggling to find work. These workers have paid into the system for years. It is wrong to abandon them when they need our help the most. The Senate bill is a major step forward. By extending unemployment benefits for up to 13 weeks, and providing as much as 13 additional weeks of benefits in high-unemployment States, we provide an immediate boost for our economy. And, at the same time, we help working families weather the storm. Economists agree that extending unemployment benefits is a powerful, cost-effective way to stimulate the economy. Every dollar invested in benefits to out-of-work Americans leads to a $1.64 increase in growth. That compares with only pennies on the dollar for cuts in income tax rates or cuts in taxes on investments. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting an extension of unemployment insurance benefits. It's an essential solution that will jumpstart our economy and help families in crisis get back on track. Unfortunately, jobless families are not the only ones facing tough times. Millions of families today are facing a ``perfect storm'' of high costs and low wages. Every bill that comes in the mail just adds to the flood, until everyone ends up completely overwhelmed. Working families are being swamped by the extraordinary increase in the cost of living. On President Bush's watch, the price of gas is up 73 percent. Health insurance costs are up 38 percent. College tuition costs are up 43 percent. Housing costs are up 39 percent. Yet in the face of these skyrocketing costs, employees' wages have been virtually stagnant, rising only 5 percent. Family budgets can no longer make ends meet, and families across the country are feeling the painful squeeze. In the face of these economic pressures, workers are struggling to keep their families warm. The winter has been bitterly cold in many parts of the country, and the cost of heating oil is rising so rapidly that it is impossible to keep up. Since last year alone, the price of a gallon of heating oil has increased by more than 40 percent. A typical household may have to spend $3,000 or more on heating oil this winter. Our Senate HELP Committee held a field hearing on fuel assistance in Boston last month. One of our witnesses was Margaret Gilliam, a senior citizen taking care of her grandchildren in Dorchester. She has already spent $4,000 on heating oil this winter, which is nearly as much as she spent all last year, and there are still 6 or more weeks of winter to go. She told us that she tries to make each Social Security check stretch by asking her fuel company to deliver just 50 gallons at a time, because she can't afford to pay to fill her tank. Most often, heating oil companies will not deliver less than 100 gallons. Even for those fortunate enough to have fuel assistance under LIHEAP, the benefits will cover less than a third of these costs. Most households won't get any help at all--of the 35 million households eligible for fuel assistance nationwide, fewer than 6 million receive these benefits. The high cost of basic essentials forces families to make impossible choices between paying for fuel, paying for groceries, paying for health care, or paying their mortgage. If parents choose to keep their children warm and fed, they risk losing their home. The lack of even a small amount of assistance--just an extra 100 or 200 gallons of fuel oil--can mean the difference between security and homelessness. There are simple steps we can take to end this ``perfect storm.'' One of the most important is the provision in the Senate bill providing additional home heating assistance for families struggling to stay warm this winter. Mr. President, $1 billion in additional LIHEAP funding will help 2.8 million families pay their heating costs and make it through the winter. Helping families meet this basic need is also one of the quickest ways to jumpstart the economy. An increase in LIHEAP benefits takes as little as 2 weeks to get to the pockets of working families. This year, we provided a significant increase for LIHEAP. But it is far from enough and we still have a long way to go to get to the program's authorized level of $5.1 billion. It has been said that some people know the price of everything but the value of nothing. How else can you explain the administration's latest budget request which cuts the program by 22 percent? LIHEAP represents a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget. Yet it does so much for those most in need. Programs like LIHEAP are the best economic stimulus money can buy. But even if they werem not, we would still have an obligation to support them--simply because it is the right thing to do. Finally, there is widespread agreement that we need to put money into workers' pockets to encourage consumer spending that will boost our declining economy. The Senate bill includes a tax rebate to do just that. In order to create an effective stimulus, any tax cut must be designed to give the money to those who are most likely to spend it immediately--middle and low income families who are strapped for cash because of these dramatically higher costs. These families are the ones who need the help the most, and the dollars they receive from a one-time tax cut will be quickly spent. The money will be used to buy things they need but currently cannot afford. In contrast, wealthier taxpayers already have the money to purchase what they need. A tax rebate for them is much more likely to be deposited in their saving accounts than spent. Unless the tax cut is spent, there will be no increase in economic activity generated. That is precisely what the rebate proposal in the Senate bill will do--provide direct assistance to the millions of working families who are feeling the squeeze of this economic downturn the most. They work the hardest, and they deserve our help. They are also the ones who will spend the money most quickly, for necessities they otherwise couldn't afford. The Senate package also includes needed relief for seniors and disabled veterans. Both of these populations live on fixed incomes. Rising prices means a choice between buying food or needed medication. These Americans have sacrificed so much and worked so hard to build up our country, and they deserve our best efforts to help them weather the storm. In all of these respects, the Senate bill makes major improvements over the measure passed in the House of Representatives. It is fairer, and it produces a greater stimulus effect by paying low and moderate income workers the same size tax rebate that more affluent taxpayers would receive. It also extends the tax rebate to include 20 million retirees struggling to make ends meet. The Senate bill will provide 14 billion more dollars in tax cuts to households with incomes below $40,000. That is the best way to get the American economy moving again. There is no question that every family in America is struggling in today's economy, and that they face difficult times ahead. But today we have a choice about how to move forward. Do we do what it easy, or do we do what is right? Do we go part way or do we do what it takes to add dignity to the lives of all of America's working families? I hope that each and every one of my colleagues will listen to their conscience, do the right thing, and support the kind of stimulus that will help all Americans achieve better days ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in support of the Gun Show Background Check Act to reduce gun violence. Closing this dangerous loophole in current Federal gun laws will make gun show transactions safer for all our people. Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun control laws. They want effective background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows or anywhere else. Yet, year after year, the ``gun show loophole'' allows firearms to be purchased with no questions asked, and legislation is urgently needed to close this flagrant loophole in our current gun laws. Under today's laws, licensed gun dealers must be approved, must register with the Federal Government, and must conduct background checks on gun buyers who come to their stores. But in most States, almost anyone can be an unlicensed private seller of guns. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was one such private seller at gun shows. These private sellers have no obligation to conduct criminal background checks on buyers or keep any records at all about the sale. It is no surprise that felons and other prohibited gun buyers go to gun shows to buy guns in order to evade background checks. That is unacceptable. Closing the gun show loophole and requiring background checks for purchasers at gun shows is vital for public safety. The Gun Show Background Check Act defines gun shows as any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and requires gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It requires the promoters to maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and these vendors must acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. It also requires that all firearm sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. Private vendors and nonlicensed persons will be required to complete the sale of weapons using such a licensee, who will be responsible for conducting a background check on the purchaser and maintaining a record of the transaction. Finally, the bill improves the tracing of firearms by requiring these licensees to submit information about firearms sold at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center. Approximately 50 percent of all gun sales in the U.S. today are ``private'' sales made by individuals at thousands of gun shows. No proof of identification and no criminal background check are required. Even after the horrific events of September 11, suspected terrorists and felons can easily purchase any quantity of firearms, including military style assault weapons, without an ID or background check at gun shows in 32 States. Federal law permits gun owners to sell rifles, shotguns, and even assault weapons to children, without their parent's knowledge or permission. It is not enough to leave this issue any longer to State action. As John Rosenthal, founder of the nonprofit organization, Stop Handgun Violence, has pointed out, Massachusetts has enacted some of the most effective laws to prevent gun violence in the country, but Massachusetts is surrounded by States, which have no such laws and allow individuals to buy and sell guns easily. According to ATF data for 2006, many of the gun crime weapons recovered in Massachusetts had been obtained in other States with little or no regulation of firearms sales. Critics claim that mandating background checks at gun shows will not reduce crime significantly and will be a step towards banning private firearms sales between individuals. Some even make the preposterous claim that there is no gun show loophole, and that gun control advocates are trying to address a non-existing problem. Evidence clearly proves, however, that gun shows are an important source of the guns used in crime in the U.S. During the late 1990s, cases involving gun shows and flea markets accounted for 30 percent of all trafficked guns in the U.S. That is no surprise, since there are over 4,000 gun shows in the U.S. every year, and no Federal laws to regulate them. Statistics also show that States such as Massachusetts, where strict gun control legislation has been enacted, have significantly lower firearm fatality rates than States with lax gun laws. In another appalling move, the Bush administration successfully pushed legislation requiring the FBI to destroy records of approved gun purchases within 24 hours of a completed background check. That action prevents law enforcement from identifying whether a person under investigation for another crime, including terrorism, has purchased a firearm. In addition, if federally licensed gun dealers fail to report stolen or missing guns, they face only misdemeanor charges, despite the fact that thousands of guns are stolen from gun stores every year. The rifle used by the DC sniper was ``lost'' by a gun store--the same store that ``lost'' 238 guns in 3 years. We can't ensure public safety unless we stop kowtowing to the gun lobby. We can't accept a system that allows criminals and terrorists to buy guns at gun shows without detection. The gun show loophole should have been closed long ago. I urge my colleagues to enact this vital legislation to do that. I commend Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reed for introducing this bill, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible. Too many lives are on the line for us to delay any longer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in support of the Gun Show Background Check Act to reduce gun violence. Closing this dangerous loophole in current Federal gun laws will make gun show transactions safer for all our people. Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun control laws. They want effective background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows or anywhere else. Yet, year after year, the ``gun show loophole'' allows firearms to be purchased with no questions asked, and legislation is urgently needed to close this flagrant loophole in our current gun laws. Under today's laws, licensed gun dealers must be approved, must register with the Federal Government, and must conduct background checks on gun buyers who come to their stores. But in most States, almost anyone can be an unlicensed private seller of guns. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was one such private seller at gun shows. These private sellers have no obligation to conduct criminal background checks on buyers or keep any records at all about the sale. It is no surprise that felons and other prohibited gun buyers go to gun shows to buy guns in order to evade background checks. That is unacceptable. Closing the gun show loophole and requiring background checks for purchasers at gun shows is vital for public safety. The Gun Show Background Check Act defines gun shows as any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale and requires gun show promoters to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. It requires the promoters to maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and these vendors must acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. It also requires that all firearm sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. Private vendors and nonlicensed persons will be required to complete the sale of weapons using such a licensee, who will be responsible for conducting a background check on the purchaser and maintaining a record of the transaction. Finally, the bill improves the tracing of firearms by requiring these licensees to submit information about firearms sold at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center. Approximately 50 percent of all gun sales in the U.S. today are ``private'' sales made by individuals at thousands of gun shows. No proof of identification and no criminal background check are required. Even after the horrific events of September 11, suspected terrorists and felons can easily purchase any quantity of firearms, including military style assault weapons, without an ID or background check at gun shows in 32 States. Federal law permits gun owners to sell rifles, shotguns, and even assault weapons to children, without their parent's knowledge or permission. It is not enough to leave this issue any longer to State action. As John Rosenthal, founder of the nonprofit organization, Stop Handgun Violence, has pointed out, Massachusetts has enacted some of the most effective laws to prevent gun violence in the country, but Massachusetts is surrounded by States, which have no such laws and allow individuals to buy and sell guns easily. According to ATF data for 2006, many of the gun crime weapons recovered in Massachusetts had been obtained in other States with little or no regulation of firearms sales. Critics claim that mandating background checks at gun shows will not reduce crime significantly and will be a step towards banning private firearms sales between individuals. Some even make the preposterous claim that there is no gun show loophole, and that gun control advocates are trying to address a non-existing problem. Evidence clearly proves, however, that gun shows are an important source of the guns used in crime in the U.S. During the late 1990s, cases involving gun shows and flea markets accounted for 30 percent of all trafficked guns in the U.S. That is no surprise, since there are over 4,000 gun shows in the U.S. every year, and no Federal laws to regulate them. Statistics also show that States such as Massachusetts, where strict gun control legislation has been enacted, have significantly lower firearm fatality rates than States with lax gun laws. In another appalling move, the Bush administration successfully pushed legislation requiring the FBI to destroy records of approved gun purchases within 24 hours of a completed background check. That action prevents law enforcement from identifying whether a person under investigation for another crime, including terrorism, has purchased a firearm. In addition, if federally licensed gun dealers fail to report stolen or missing guns, they face only misdemeanor charges, despite the fact that thousands of guns are stolen from gun stores every year. The rifle used by the DC sniper was ``lost'' by a gun store--the same store that ``lost'' 238 guns in 3 years. We can't ensure public safety unless we stop kowtowing to the gun lobby. We can't accept a system that allows criminals and terrorists to buy guns at gun shows without detection. The gun show loophole should have been closed long ago. I urge my colleagues to enact this vital legislation to do that. I commend Senator Lautenberg and Senator Reed for introducing this bill, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible. Too many lives are on the line for us to delay any longer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join many of my colleagues in submitting a resolution recognizing January 2008 as National Mentoring Month. We all know the extraordinary help and support that a good mentor can give to a child. High-quality mentoring programs can make all the difference to students in need. They can reduce negative outcomes, and help keep children on track. They can reduce drug and substance abuse and delinquency. They can enable students to stay in school instead of dropping out. By promoting such positive outcomes, mentors enable students to obtain the skills they need to succeed in school and in life. They improve academic achievement, and they also improve self-esteem and social and communications skills. National Mentoring Month is an opportunity to recognize and commend the many mentors across the country who are doing their part. It is also an opportunity to raise awareness about the real value of mentoring, and encourage more adults to become mentors. Experts estimate that nearly 18 million young students could benefit from being matched with a mentor, but only about 3 million of these youth are in such a relationship today. Fifteen million youth need a mentor--but they do not have one. Mentoring a young person doesn't just pay off for the youth; it can be beneficial for the mentor as well. For the past 12 years, I have participated in the Everybody Wins Program at Brent Elementary School near the Capitol. Once a week during the school year, I spend an hour with an elementary school student. We read together, share stories, and learn from each other. This year, my first reading partner is finishing high school, and next year she will be starting college. She has stayed in touch, and it has been amazing to see her grow. Robert Kennedy often spoke of the ripples of hope that people send forth each time they act to help others. Mentors are a proven example of the power of each citizen to create such ripples, and we should do what we can to recognize and support them. I urge the Senate to approve this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I hope the Senate will permit us to take action on an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself and Senator Leahy and others. This amendment we have prepared is very simple, but it is absolutely critical to this bill. The amendment would require the inspectors general of the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency and other relevant offices to work together to review the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The inspectors general will analyze this program and then issue a report on what they find. Members of Congress will receive a classified version of the report. The public will receive an unclassified version of the report. Simply put, there is no other way to put this episode behind us. Court cases looking into the administration's warrantless wiretapping have been stymied by concerns about standing, mootness, and the state secrets privilege. If Congress grants retroactive immunity, some of these cases will be eliminated altogether. But either way, court cases are no substitute for an inspector general review when it comes to finding and reporting the facts. Traditional rulings will tell us whether any laws were broken and which ones. The inspector general review will tell us why and how this happened, and it will help us avoid a similar lapse in the future. The administration has decided to share documents with the Senate Judiciary Committee but not with the House Intelligence Committee, or the Judiciary Committee whose FISA bill it doesn't like. It has refused to share any documents with other Members of the House and Senate who are now expected to vote on this legislation. So where are we now? We know that for 5 years the Bush administration conducted a massive program of warrantless surveillance that may have violated the rights of literally millions of innocent Americans. What we do not know is how this program was started, why it was started, what it covered, how many Americans were spied on, or what happened to the information it collected. We are being kept in the dark about one of the most significant and outrageous constitutional violations by the executive branch in modern history. An inspector general review is the only way to shed light on this abuse, the only way to document and assess the administration's warrantless surveillance activities over the past 6 years. The review will help bring clarity, closure, and accountability to this episode. It will help us draw lessons and move on from it. Millions of Americans have been secretly spied on for years. They at least deserve to know the reason. The Senate also deserves to know. Senators who vote to pass this amendment will be not only honoring their constituents' right to learn what was done to them, they will also be enabling themselves to serve their constituents better in the future. The inspector general report will produce information that will assist us in our legislative duties. When Congress takes up FISA in the future, the results of this report will be enormously valuable in helping us to enact legislation to meet the genuine national security and civil liberty needs of the Nation. It is revealing in how quiet the White House has been in opposing the inspector general review. Make no mistake, they have been clear they don't want any kind of investigation into what they did. But their arguments against the inspector general review have been very quiet, indeed, perhaps because they know how transparently weak and self- serving their arguments are. They said we should not have an inspector general review because it might reveal classified information or help our enemies. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic. The inspectors general public report will contain only unclassified material. Any classified material will go into a classified appendix. It has been said an inspector generals' review might fuel a partisan witch hunt. Senator Leahy and I have drafted this amendment to be tightly limited to the warrantless wiretapping program. The inspectors general will have a very specific mandate, and they will do their work without any political influence whatever. Understanding what happened to the rights of Americans over the past 6 years is not a partisan effort. All Members of Congress should want to learn about the activities in which the administration has engaged. The American people are concerned about what their Government has been up to. They need an independent review to restore trust in the Government and to feel confident that both their security and their liberty are being protected. Finally, I have heard it said the inspectors general are not the appropriate entity to conduct this review. The question is, if not the inspectors general, then who? The inspectors general are experienced and independent; they are trusted by Congress and the American people. They frequently conduct confidential investigations and have procedures in place to protect classified information. It is precisely for situations such as this that we created the inspector general. It has been reported that the Justice Department recently reopened the Office of Professional Responsibility's investigation into the warrantless surveillance program. That is a positive step, but it is not relevant to this amendment. The scope of the OPR investigation is severely limited. It deals with attorney misconduct, and it is confined to the Justice Department. By contrast, the inspector general review will cover all of the relevant agencies, including the National Security Agency, and it will examine the use of warrantless surveillance much more fully. Moreover, the inspectors general are more independent than OPR, and for investigating a warrantless surveillance program authorized by the President, independence is of critical importance. Inspectors general also have a proven track record that gives them unique credibility. For example, the inspector general report on national security letters showed widespread abuse by the FBI, and it helped Congress understand what needs to be done. There is one reason, and only one reason, to oppose this amendment, and that is to cover up the administration's actions. A vote against the inspector general review is a vote for silence and secrecy, for stonewalling and denial. It is a vote to erase the past. Many of the issues we have been debating on FISA are difficult and complicated, and there is room for reasonable people to disagree. But there is no such room on this amendment. It is simple and straightforward. Its potential benefits are great, and its costs are negligible. No matter where one stands on the issues of retroactive immunity for the phone companies, this amendment should be a no-brainer. In fact, for my colleagues who want to eliminate the court cases against the phone companies, this should be even more critical because it will at least preserve some measure of accountability. It will give the Senate critical information to fulfill its constitutional duty to protect the rights of Americans, the separation of powers, and our national security. Many Senators who have been defending retroactive immunity have done so by emphasizing that the phone companies were just following White House orders. If you believe that argument, you should be especially in favor of this amendment because it places the inquiry exclusively on the White House. Here is what the amendment says: The unclassified report shall not disclose the name or identity of any individual or entity of the private sector that participated in the program or with whom there was communication about the program. Even though we oppose retroactive immunity, Senator Leahy and I included that provision because we want to make this amendment as uncontroversial as possible. We want to make it crystal clear that all Senators who take their constitutional duties seriously, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, need to support this amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to pass this amendment and take a vital step toward restoring honesty and the rule of law in America's surveillance policy. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment and pass the FISA bill reported by the Judiciary Committee. Since I introduced the original FISA legislation over 30 years ago, I have worked to amend the FISA law many times and I believe that only the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee is faithful to the traditional balance FISA has struck. FISA remains an essential tool in our battle against America's enemies, and the bills introduced by both the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee give the executive branch vast authority to conduct electronic surveillance that may involve Americans. But the Intelligence Committee bill lacks safeguards to provide oversight and prevent abuse, and Americans deserve better. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is one of our landmark statutes. For three decades it has regulated Government surveillance in a way that protects both our national security and our civil liberties and prevents the Government from abusing its powers. It is because FISA enhances both security and liberty that it has won such broad support over the years from Presidents, Members of Congress, and the public alike. It is important to remember that before this administration, no administration had ever resisted FISA, much less systematically violated it. When the Bush administration finally came to Congress to amend FISA after its warrantless wiretapping program was exposed, it did so not in the spirit of partnership but to bully us into obeying its wishes. The Protect America Act was negotiated in secret at the last minute. The administration issued dire threats that failure to enact a bill before the August recess would lead to disaster. Few, if any, knew what the language would actually do. The result of this flawed process was flawed legislation which virtually everyone now acknowledges must be substantially revised. I commend the members of the Intelligence Committee for their diligent efforts to put together a new bill. They have taken their duties seriously and they have made notable improvements to the Protect America Act. But their bill is deeply flawed and I am opposed to enacting it in its current form. This bill fails to protect America's constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. It is not just that the Intelligence Committee bill gives retroactive immunity to telecoms, which I strongly oppose; there are also many problems with title I of the Intelligence Committee bill. First: It redefines ``electronic surveillance,'' a key term in FISA, in a way that is unnecessary and may have unintended consequences. We have still not heard a single good argument for why this change is needed. Second: Court review occurs only after the fact with no consequences if the court rejects the Government's targeting of minimization procedures. This is a far cry from the traditional role played by the FISA Court. Third: It is not as clear as it should be that FISA and the criminal wiretap law are the sole legal means by which the Government may conduct electronic surveillance. This leaves open the possibility that future administrations will claim that they are not bound by FISA. Fourth: Its sunset provision is December 31, 2013. For legislation as complicated, important, and controversial as this, Congress should evaluate it much sooner. After all, the principal argument in support of reforming FISA is that technology has evolved rapidly and the law must change to take this into account. Because this legislation will make major untested changes to the FISA system and the pace of technology change will only increase, we should evaluate it sooner rather than later. The bill purports to eliminate the ``reverse targeting'' of Americans, but does not actually contain language to do so. Reverse targeting can occur if the Government wiretaps someone abroad because it wants to listen to a correspondent in the United States, thereby evading the traditional warrant requirement for domestic surveillance. The Intelligence Committee bill has nothing similar to the House bill's provision on reverse targeting which prohibits use of the authorities if ``a significant purpose'' is targeting someone in the United States. Mr. President, this legislation does not fully close the loophole left open by the Protect America Act, allowing warrantless interception of purely domestic communications. The administration has acknowledged that when it knows ahead of time that both the person making the call and the person receiving the call are located inside the United States, it should have to get a court order before it can listen in on that call. But the language of the bill doesn't clearly require it. It does not require an independent review and report on the administration's domestic warrantless eavesdropping program. Only through such a process will we ever learn what happened and achieve accountability and closure on this episode. It is enormously important, Mr. President, that we find out exactly what happened during this period of our history. Add it all up, and the sum is clear: This bill is inconsistent with the way FISA was meant to work and with the way FISA has always worked. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee's FISA bill shows that there is a better way, one that is faithful to the traditional FISA balance. The Judiciary Committee bill shares the same basic structure, but it addresses all of the problems I listed earlier. The Judiciary Committee bill was negotiated in public, which allowed outside groups and experts to give critical feedback. It was also negotiated later in time than the Intelligence bill, meaning we had the benefit of reviewing their work. Like the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's version also gives the executive branch significantly greater authority to conduct electronic surveillance than it has ever had before. Make no mistake, it, too, grants substantial power to the intelligence community. But unlike the Intelligence Committee's bill, the Judiciary Committee's version sets reasonable limits to protect innocent Americans from being spied on by their Government without justification. No one should underestimate the importance of title I of FISA. The rules governing electronic surveillance affect every American. They are the only thing that stands between the freedom of Americans to make a phone call, send an e-mail, and search the Internet, and the ability of the Government to listen in on that call, read that e-mail, and review that Internet search. In our information age, title I of FISA provides Americans essential protections against Government tyranny and abuse. We have a choice. We can adopt the Judiciary Committee's bill and preserve those protections or we can adopt the Intelligence Committee's version of title I and abandon them. As I have said before, I also strongly oppose title II of the Intelligence Committee bill, which grants retroactive immunity to the phone companies. At the appropriate time, I will come to the floor and explain why we must strike title II.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Pozen, a legal fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges through August of this year.