Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am a cosponsor of the Lincoln, Mikulski, and Snowe amendment. Our military people don't stand in line when they have to serve this country, and they shouldn't have to stand in line to file for their disability claims. This is outrageous. We need to put enough money into the checkbook to protect the troops over there and when they come back here. Let us vote for this Lincoln amendment. If you support the troops, let us end the backlog.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes and ask that the time not count against the Cornyn amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Madam President. First, I congratulate the manager of the bill, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, on the outstanding job he has done to develop a modern framework for consumer product safety. There was a time when I was the appropriator for the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Also, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is located in my State. I know what a consumer product safety agency does, I know what it should do, and I know what faithful, independent civil servants would want to do if they had the right leadership and the right authority. I believe what the Senator from Arkansas has done is modernize the consumer product safety framework from when it was originally invented in the 1970s. Technology has come a long way. Products are more complex. Imports are on the rise. We know we need to modernize if we are going to protect Americans. I view what the Senator from Arkansas has done as an act of homeland security because what is it homeland security does? It protects the American people from anyone who has a predatory intent toward the United States. I believe if you put lead in children's toys, if you knowingly look the other way when you make the blood thinner called heparin--that is a lifeline to so many people with heart disease--let me tell you, if you know you did it, and you know it is coming to the United States, or you are making something in the United States, standing up to protect the consumer is exactly an act of homeland security, and I congratulate the Senator in doing it and the bipartisan coalition he has put together. So he can count on me to support the bill. But like any good idea, it can be improved. That is why I am here today. I have an amendment I wish to discuss that requires any food that comes from a cloned animal or progeny to be labeled. In other words, cloned animals have now been approved by the FDA to be safe for human consumption, even though most Americans actively oppose cloning and scientists say we should monitor it. I have always taken the position that consumers have a right to know, they have a right to be heard, and they have a right to be represented. Yet when we talk about cloned food entering the marketplace, if it enters the marketplace, it has been deemed safe by the FDA, but when it comes to your table, to the restaurant, to school lunch programs, it will be unidentified, it will be unlabeled, and it will be unknown to you. Well, I find that unacceptable. Here we have a picture of Dolly. Sad, isn't it? But nevertheless, Dolly is the first cloned animal. Dolly, or cows, or other animals, have been deemed safe to enter our food supply. So you could walk into a restaurant and you could have a ``Dolly-burger.'' You could go to a fast food chain or maybe that local malt shop that has so many fond memories for you in Missouri and you could have a ``Dolly milkshake.'' You could have ``Dolly in a glass.'' You could have ``Dolly on a bun.'' You could have ``Dolly on the table.'' You could have ``ground Dolly,'' ``pattied Dolly,'' ``roast Dolly,'' ``pot roast Dolly.'' But any way you have Dolly, you would not know you were eating Dolly. I say that is not acceptable. What I wish to do, if appropriate, is offer an amendment to the consumer product safety bill, even though it is regulated by the FDA-- and I acknowledge that--that would label them as being from cloned animals or their progeny. Now, in this bill, we look out for toys, strollers, appliances and all of that is right and I salute my colleague, as I have said. But I also wish to look out for the food we put on our table. People say: Well, Senator Mikulski, hey, the FDA approved it. Well, the FDA used to be the gold standard, but we have heard ``it is safe'' for too long. We were told asbestos was safe, but I have men who worked in the Baltimore shipyards who traded in their lunch bucket to carry an oxygen tank because of the lung disease they have. We were told DDT was safe. Do you want to be sprayed with DDT? Then there were people who said thalidomide was safe. No pregnant woman would take it today. Then Vioxx was safe. Would anyone with a heart condition or cholesterol want to take it? So there are a lot of flashing yellow lights around FDA. Where are they the weakest? In postapproval surveillance. But you can't surveil unless you know there is a problem with a product. The National Academy of Sciences said cloned food might be safe, but the science is too new. We need to monitor it. But you can't monitor it unless you know where it is. That is why I am for labeling. Labeling would tell us where the food is and we could do that postmarket surveillance. I don't know why there is an urgency to do this--to have cloned food enter the marketplace. What labeling would do is it would give consumers the right to know that it is there. It would allow scientists to monitor. Also, it would protect our export markets. I have talked about why it would be good science to have labeling so we can monitor and why consumers want to know, but what about the export deal? Well, you know what I worry about? I worry about our food being banned from exports because they don't know if cloned food is coming into their country. There are those who already called our genetically altered products ``Frankenfood.'' They call it Frankenfood, and they don't want it to come in. Our European trading partners have exhibited consistent concern about genetically altered products. My State exports food, particularly chicken. We are a big chicken State and chicken-producing State. We share that with the Senator from Arkansas. It has helped save our agricultural interests down there. So I want us to be able to export, and that is why I want whatever is cloned or its progeny to be labeled. While we see Dolly in this photograph, I have to wonder what cloned food accomplishes. We don't have a shortage of food in our country. We don't have a shortage of milk in this country. For those who want to produce Dolly, we can't stop it, but we should stop the effort to put cloned food into the food supply without labeling and without informed consent. At the appropriate time, I will offer this as an amendment. At this time, I wish to again thank my colleague for the wonderful job he has done. I am glad to be part of the effort. We need more fresh and creative and affordable solutions such as the Senator has done. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I now call up amendment 4023.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 4023 be considered en bloc with Senator Brownback's amendment. I do not need a recorded vote. I am more than happy to accept a voice vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for a vote at an appropriate time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 4023, a very important amendment that affects over 200,000 people in my State. I am not calling up the amendment right this moment, pending some other parliamentary action, but I do wish to speak on the amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senator Klobuchar, who has taken a very impressive lead, as well as Senator Coleman. This bipartisan amendment is to stand up for constituents all over the United States of America who are severely disabled and who are about to lose their case managers. Thousands and thousands and thousands of people--severely handicapped or disabled, both children and adults--are about to lose either their social workers or their nurses because of a new, harsh, punitive rule put out by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare. The amendment does the same thing as Senate Bill 2578 that is sponsored by the Senators from Minnesota and myself and 17 others and would simply do this: It would stop the CMS from implementing the new rule by delaying its implementation until April 2009, when we have a new President and a new attitude. Now, let me give the background. In December, CMS proposed this rule that would cut Medicaid funding to something called ``targeted case management'' services. The rule will go into effect March 3. That is why we are offering it on this very important bill of Indian health, and we thank the managers of the bill for their courtesy. We hear all these government words, but I am going to talk today not only as the Senator from Maryland standing up for my constituents, but also as a professionally trained social worker. What is this? Well, a Medicaid case manager is either a social worker or a nurse who helps adults and children with very complicated problems. Children in foster care and children with disabilities get the medical and social services they need to be able to have a quality of life to be independent. But what does that mean in real terms? Well, let me give you an example. I have a constituent in Baltimore, a 2-year-old, who was diagnosed with a genetic disorder that leads to significant feeding problems. This disease causes very severe problems and without help in early life. So what does the case manager do? If the case is a very complicated medical situation, often the case manager is a nurse. If it requires lots of complicated social intervention, it will be a social worker. First of all, the case manager gets in there and does a family assessment and works with the doctors, such as Johns Hopkins or the University of Maryland, so we know what medical plan is in order for this little child to have the ability to thrive. Then the case manager works with the family, who is in acute distress, to make sure they know someone is on their side and helps them comply with the treatment plan. Now, what might that be? Well, in the genetic disorder case, it will be very specialized nutrition services. That is a lot of coordination to get the right people there to help that family. It will be also speech and language and occupational therapy, so a lot of compliance to make sure that child will be able to get what they need. Then, very important, psychosocial help because when a child has this type of disorder, there are other very severe psychosocial problems that emerge. Then the case manager is working with the family to get the child in the appropriate very specialized daycare. You can imagine the kind of supervision this is. This is tough, hands-on, gritty work. Let's also take a look at when there is a child born with cerebral palsy. Again, you have a biomedical plan and the need to get the right education for the child and also assistance for the family on how to do it, then a lot of nitty-gritty work. In this case, the child would be evaluated, say, at the fantastic Kennedy-Krieger Institute, where some of the best neurosurgeons and neuroscientists will be working with them. But the case manager helps get the family a wheelchair, a ramp for the home, special education services, and counseling for the parents because this is going to be a significant responsibility for a long time. Without case management, the whole thing falls apart. If you don't get the right services for the family in the home and the educational programs, you will not have the follow through on the biomedical plan that helps them remain independent or able to grow up. Now, CMS says they do not want to pay for that. They say they have the authority from the Deficit Reduction Act and they can just slash these services from Medicaid funding. Well, in my State, this affects 200,000 people. It means that over 1,400 social workers and nurses who have devoted their life to helping these families will be impacted, and it means a Governor will have to pick up the bill. In my State, these services cost $150 million, with 50 percent paid by the feds and the other 50 percent paid by the State. CMS wants to eliminate the 50 percent, which means Maryland will lose $75 million. I know Senator Klobuchar will tell us equally horrific stories. Senator Coleman has spoken about this. We object to CMS. We object to this rule. We want to delay the rule until sensible heads prevail. We have 20 Senators who have cosponsored the bill that is the same as this Amendment. They have names such as Cardin, Corker, Domenici, Bingaman, Alexander, Voinovich, Brown, Snowe, Wyden, Sanders, Kennedy-- the list goes on. Thirty States would be so affected they have taken it upon themselves to write directly to CSM. I must say to the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, this also affects his State of North Dakota. It affects severely handicapped Native American children. This is not about who is your favorite bean counter at OMB or how can we control runaway Medicaid costs; it is how do we in this country make sure our constituents and our people get the services they need to be able to have an independent life. I believe we can give help to those who are practicing self-help. For those families who are out there struggling to make sure a loved one with a handicap, a child, or an adult is able to remain independent, they need a government on their side. So my amendment will delay the implementation. It is not my amendment, it is our amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. I say to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, let's be those compassionate conservatives whom you once talked about. Join with us. Let's do this. At the appropriate time, I will call up this amendment officially, and I will ask for a vote on it. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the stimulus package and I wish to talk about our economy and I wish to talk about the Senate. I am very frustrated with the Senate. We spent a week maneuvering and twisting over parliamentary procedure. Our processes are slowing us down in meeting the day-to-day needs of the American people and the long-range needs of our country. Our country is at risk. We are fighting a global war against terrorism. Our dollar is worth a box of Kleenex. We need an economic stimulus and an economic recovery package, and we are fooling around on motions to proceed and clotures and backward and forward, and so on. The American people wonder what are we doing. They believe that when all is said and done, more gets said than does get done. And guess what. Put me in the column with the American people. I am very frustrated with this institution. The rules were designed to make sure the minority party could always be able to express their view. That should happen. But it was not to bottle up progress. It was not to stifle the opportunity to get our economy back on track. It was not to tie up the Senate so we could not help 250,000 vets, 20 million senior citizens, and actually get money in the pocketbooks of people so we can start getting our economy back on the track. Everyone agrees we need to jump-start our economy, everyone agrees we need to do it now--everybody but the other side of the aisle who is sitting on their hands and sitting on parliamentary procedure and sitting on you know what. I think it is time they get up, and I call out to the people: Flood our phones, get them off this, and get this economy going. We know we are being very hard hit. Last month, we lost 17,000 jobs in the service sector. That was supposed to be job-loss proof. Families all over the country are losing their homes to the subprime crisis. The price of food, gas, and health care is going up. We voted last night on a parliamentary procedure that would have moved this legislation on the economic stimulus forward. It lost. It lost by one vote. But did it lose on a majority? No. Under the rules of the Senate, we need 60 votes to win a majority or we need 67 votes to win a majority. I thought a majority used to be a majority. Now we find that one vote--one vote--is standing in the way of moving the economic stimulus package. I say to America: You watch cable TV, you listen to the chattering class, you read the newspapers. You know where that one vote lies. You see those empty chairs over there? One vote lies there. Flood our phones with calls, flood our Internet, flood our fax machines so we can get moving. Last night what we had was a plan to move the economy forward. It was a well-thought-out plan of tax rebates to help families. We included not only that but 250,000 disabled veterans and 20 million seniors. At the same time, we extended unemployment insurance for an extra 13 weeks because for people who lost their job, it is now taking a longer time to find another job. And we help small business. Last night, we Democrats voted to stand up for those disabled vets, for those senior citizens, for those people who have lost their jobs to make sure they will have the opportunity to benefit from the stimulus, and as they benefit from the stimulus, because they have such modest incomes, the money they get will go right into the economy. It will not go into paying the bar bill for somebody who has a fifth home in the Hamptons. It will go into the economy. This bill helps 250,000 disabled vets. They say they did not qualify; they did not have earned income. My God, my God. I have a veterans advisory board. I meet with the disabled vets. Some of them belong to the Purple Heart Association, some come in wheelchairs, some come with canes because they bear the permanent wounds of war. We always say a grateful nation never forgets, but we forgot them in the stimulus package. We forgot 250,000 of them. If a grateful nation never forgets, let's say we think you earned that. We think you earned that at Iwo Jima. We think you earned it at Normandy and Porkchop Hill and the Mekong Delta. If you have worn the uniform, you have earned it. Now we want to help 20 million seniors who are left out because they said those Social Security benefits are not earned income. You pay your Social Security based on your wages. I think that is earned income. Every day there are people out there working, or who have worked every day. They have spent their whole lives building our economy, building our Nation, and they are ready to do it again. All they need right now is to qualify for what they should be entitled to. People say: Well, there she goes again. You know, Barb has a master's degree in social work. Well, you bet I do. And that social work took me into the neighborhoods and families of our constituents, and as a Senator I often try to think that way. While everybody here likes to talk about the macroeconomics and they take codels to Davos to hang out with the rich and famous, who want to be even more rich and more famous, I worry about the macaroni and cheese issues. And the macaroni and cheese issues that we have to focus on are what is happening in our economy. But I just don't want to be a bleeding heart--though I am happy to be a bleeding heart. I am happy to be a bleeding heart, but I know that something called Moody's Economy.com--Moody's Economy.com--tells us where we get the most stimulus from the techniques used to do the stimulus, and what do they tell us? They tell us to give it to the people who need it the most--to extend unemployment benefits and to extend other benefits, such as LIHEAP, which helps people with their energy costs. Now, 41 Republicans blocked this bill. They called it a Christmas tree. They said it was loaded with pet projects. Well, yes, disabled vets are a pet project with me. I stand guilty. Disabled veterans are a pet project with me. Clean up the mess at Walter Reed, clean up the compensation system, and include them in the stimulus package. You bet. But I also resent that. Disabled veterans are not ornaments or decorations, they are heroes, and they are the backbone of our country. So one vote stands between the American people and some help during these tough times. I thank the eight Republicans who voted with us last night to move the bill forward so we could vote up or down on amendments. We need one more Senator to join us, one more Senator who will stand up for the people, for families, for seniors, for wounded warriors, one more vote against politics as usual. I say over there to those empty chairs: Will one of you come forward and join this very important effort? Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to proceed for 10 minutes in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 7 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the Indian health bill is very important. Senator Dorgan will be coming to the floor to lead the advocacy of its passage, which I support. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I want to share some very disturbing news with you and all of my colleagues. Last week, the FDA gave the green light for cloned foods to enter our food supply. The FDA announced food from cloned animals, or their progeny, is safe for human consumption. Despite pleas from thousands of Americans, and this Senator, to wait until there was more science, the FDA went ahead anyway. Mr. President, I want to be clear. I am not opposed to cloning that follows strict scientific and ethical protocols. This Senator has always been on the side of science for the advancement of mankind. This Senator has always been on the side of the consumer and the consumers' right to know, right to be heard, and their right to be represented. So today I come to the floor for a vigorous call to action that my legislation to label cloned food be passed as quickly as possible. This is a consumer alert today and a call for action. My bill requires the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. Mr. President, my bill requires that the FDA and the Department of Agriculture put a label on this cloned food. The FDA handles milk products. We say FDA should work on this issue. The Department of Agriculture regulates meat products. That, too, should be labeled. My labeling bill would insist that cloned food be labeled at the wholesale level, the retail level, the restaurant level, the school lunch level, and the Meals on Wheels level. My bill allows the American public to make an informed decision. People have a right to know what they are eating. This is necessary because the FDA and the Department of Agriculture have refused to put a label on cloned food. My legislation allows for consumer choice and also, at the same time, it would allow for monitoring of food as it comes into the food supply for postsurveillance to see if there are any negative consequences. Americans find cloned food disturbing, and some even repulsive. Close to 80 percent of Americans have said they would not drink cloned milk. There is a ``yuck'' factor to this technology. Right now, under FDA and USDA provisions, there would be no way to tell if food comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. I want the public to be informed, so that is why my labeling bill is for their benefit. The FDA has been most troubling to me. They made their decision despite two congressional directives--one in the omnibus bill and one in the farm bill. The omnibus bill, which the President signed on December 26, strongly encouraged FDA to hold off on a cloning decision before additional studies were done. On December 14, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the farm bill that would require the National Academy to peer-review FDA's decision. Now, this was limited to 1 year. So I wasn't talking about a 20-year longitudinal study. I do want more science. Second, I am concerned if we discover a problem with cloned food after it is in our food supply, and it is not labeled, we will not have any way of monitoring this. It is labeling that allows us to monitor. The FDA has been very weak in postmarketing surveillance of drugs. Why would they be stronger on cloned food? Who will worry about the ethics? And where is the urgency? We are not facing a global shortage of beef and a global shortage of milk. I know FDA's decision on the risk assessment is over 900 pages long. Mr. President, I have been skeptical of long reports. I have found that the longer the report, usually the more shallow the information. My concerns are grave. I am for more science, and I have asked for it responsibly through the legislative process. I am going to continue to advocate for more studies on this issue. In the meantime, I want to protect the consumer and also allow scientists to monitor this new technology. If America doesn't keep track of this from the beginning with labeling, our entire food supply could be contaminated. I am not opposed to cloning. I am on the side of science, but let's label and monitor it. The National Academy of Sciences suggested that we monitor this new technology because it is very new. They urged the Federal Government to use diligent postmarket surveillance mechanisms. That requires labeling. Mr. President, last week, the EU decided that cloned foods were safe, but they also put up a big yellow flashing light. They referred it to their science and ethics and new technologies committee. They said there is no ethical justification to use cloned food. The EU called for more scientific study on cloned food, and they also said it should be labeled. Denmark and Norway have already banned cloned food from their food supply. I am worried that they will start banning our exports if they are not labeled. My State depends on the export of food, whether it is seafood, chicken, or other products. We want to be able to export our food. Mr. President, we are going down a track that I want to be sure is not irrevocable or irretrievable. The way to ensure safety in our food supply and consumer choice and the ability for science to continue is monitoring and labeling. I stand here on behalf of the consumer to say, please, let's pass this labeling bill. It is needed, it is responsible, and it will be effective. I think it will save us a lot of ``yuck'' in the future. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies, I rise today to clarify for the U.S. Senate the sponsorship of a congressionally designated project included in the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany the consolidated appropriations amendment to H.R. 2764. Specifically: Senator Levin should be listed as having requested funding for city of Grand Rapids, MI, for LOOP funded through the Department of Justice.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have a great country. Here we are, we are debating essentially what is going to be the Federal statute on electronic surveillance on the American people and on those who might have predatory intent toward us. We are doing it in an open, public session, with the world to watch on C-SPAN and talking about what are the right parameters to be able to protect the American people and yet protect the American Constitution. I think this shows the strength of our democracy and also calls upon us, as we deliberate, to come up with the widest and most prudent choice. For those who are following this debate, I would encourage them to turn to the report that has been put out by the committee, called the Foreign--note it said ``Foreign''--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the amendments of 2007 to the act of 1978. This report will go into detail about the deliberations of the committee, the amendments that were offered, the debate we had, and additional views offered by colleagues. I commend it to their attention because it goes through the background in more detail. We are talking about law, which can be quite technical, but we are also talking about the consequences of the law which are quite important. I sit on the Intelligence Committee. In that job, I have two responsibilities: No. 1, to protect the American people and, No. 2, to protect the Constitution of the United States. Implicit in that is the right of privacy and explicit in that is their civil liberties. The Intelligence Committee's job was to modernize FISA in a way that would do both--protect the American people against predatory attacks and yet at the same time protect their constitutional rights, explicit and implicit. What this legislation does is gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to prevent, disrupt, detect, and derail terrorist plots while at the same time safeguarding the rights of American citizens. The FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was created in 1978. Since then, technology has changed with great speed and sophistication. I have at my home in Baltimore a rotary phone. I bought it in 1977, when I remodeled my home in Fells Point. My nieces and nephews are regaled with laughter when they say: Oh, Aunt Barb, how '70s. But when we look at the rotary phones and a blackberry was something you ate with cereal, look how far we have come since 1978. Technology has changed with speed and will continue to change with ever increasing sophistication. At the same time we are facing constantly emerging, radical, and treacherous threats that demand a new reform of the FISA law. Yet while technology and the nature of the threats have changed, we have to be very clear that our democratic values and the Constitution have not. It is an imperative that this Congress uphold both, our Constitution and our democratic values. I believe our Intel Committee bill will do exactly that. It will make America safer. It does this by giving the U.S. intelligence professionals the tools they need to safeguard and protect against predatory attacks. Six years ago, after September 11, terrorists remained--and continue to remain--on the hunt for U.S. vulnerabilities. They use now disposable phone cards, laptop computers, and different e- mail addresses. They are always on the run, and they are always probing to find our vulnerabilities. The old FISA law made it impossible for the U.S. intel community to engage in any kind of realistic techno hot pursuit, unless we change the law. This bill enables intel professionals to keep pace with those who have this predatory intent. They have to be able to monitor terrorists overseas with speed and flexibility. This reform legislation empowers the intel community to detect, disrupt, and prevent terrorist attacks. It does it, though, in a way that protects the constitutional rights of American citizens, both in the United States and when they travel overseas. This bill protects their privacy in two important ways. First, it strengthens the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Intel Committee requires a FISA court to approve a warrant in order for a U.S. person to be monitored in the United States. Let me repeat that. If a U.S. person is at home in the United States, not only their home address but on the physical territory of the United States, any surveillance of them requires a warrant that is approved by the FISA Court. This means the FISA Court determines whether the surveillance is legal and necessary. The FISA Court must also judge the procedures used. The FISA Court, also looking at terrorists, takes a look at the procedures used to target them to be sure there is no reverse targeting of U.S. citizens. Second, this bill protects the privacy rights of all Americans, whether or not they are in the United States. One can ask: What about those U.S. citizens who are traveling overseas or who are actually living overseas? What about people who are students? What about those conducting business? What about those on the cruise of a lifetime? Our good colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, offered a terrific amendment which said: Your privacy rights as an American don't stop when you leave the borders of the United States. I am giving plain English. I am using Barbara Mikulski language rather than committee language. In a nutshell, the Wyden amendment requires the FISA Court to approve any targeting of Americans overseas. The FISA Court approval is required in order to do this. It means your constitutional rights are based on your citizenship, not your geographic location. It is your right as a citizen that gives you the right of constitutional protections, not what ZIP Code or area code you are in at any given time. The Constitution travels with you wherever you go. This is absolutely important. I believe the Wyden amendment sets out very clear language about this. Let's talk about the immunity for the telecommunications industry. Ordinarily I am skeptical of any giveaway to these corporations, whether tax breaks or whatever. But this is one I do support. I understand there are a lot of concerns about that, and they have been raised by my colleagues in a very eloquent way. But let's examine what the telecom community was asked to do, what legal assurances they were given and by whom, and the context in which they acted. Think about where we were on September 11. There had been an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The people of Flight 93 had given their lives in the most gallant kind of way, ostensibly to protect us against a plane that was heading to the Capitol. All of us will tell you where we were that day. Quite frankly, I was in a meeting with Senator Daschle when the Pentagon was hit. Sixty Marylanders died, and I thought I might die that day. I think there were a lot of other people here who worried about that as well. We got through that day, and we stood on the Capitol steps and linked arms and said: God bless America. But we were filled with fear and apprehension. We were concerned that other attacks were being planned, that another attack might even be imminent. We were worried about the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Golden Gate bridge, about getting on planes, about getting on trains, about riding subways. We were even worried about going to football games. I remember on the eve of the Army-Navy game, wondering what would that mean with the best and brightest of our leadership, would even the Army-Navy game be attacked? The U.S. Capitol at that same time was hit by an anthrax attack. Don't you remember the wonderful day when they sealed the Hart Building, when I was told that my office was a crime scene and a public health incident? My chief of staff, who was a new nursing mother, was filled with fear that she might have anthrax. I remember taking that little swab with the Navy medic who shook my hand and said: Good luck. Good luck? I wanted Cipro. I didn't want good luck. We were scared to death. People were snapping up gas masks and survival kits. You walk around this Capitol today, you see all of that. So every single American was clear that they wanted to do anything to prevent or disrupt the next attack. We were all asked to do our part. It was in this context, then, that the Bush administration went to the telecom companies. These companies were asked to assist with a communications program to prevent further attacks. They were given letters of assurance that essentially said: The Attorney General of the United States, then John Ashcroft, deemed what they were being asked to do legal and necessary. There was a subsequent letter where then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales also assured these companies that what they were doing was legal and necessary. The correspondence declares that these activities were also authorized by the President of the United States during this time of anxiety. I know my colleagues would say the lawyers knew that and it was law school and so on. But what would you have done if you headed up a company in the law department? Would you have fretted over the law or would you look at how maybe you could cooperate, how maybe when you see the Beamer family on TV and they said they were ready to roll and we all felt as though we were ready to roll, maybe if you were a telecom company, you were ready to roll too? Maybe you were rolling the dice. But you did have a letter that assured you what was legal and necessary from the Attorney General, the White House, and that also had been authorized by the President. Within this context, the telecom companies thought what they were doing was patriotic and legal. At a time when the United States felt it was under imminent threat of an attack by a new kind of emerging threat, they were given these assurances. That is why I support giving them focused immunity, because they thought what they were doing was patriotic. Look at the context. At the same time they had these letters of assurance. What I do not support is what the Government additionally wanted, which was to give immunity to all persons connected to this, which means essentially the Bush officials, officials in the Bush administration who either knowingly broke or sidestepped the law. That is not what the committee bill would do. What the committee bill does is focus only on the telecom community. It does not give immunity to these Bush administration people. When we look at this, I ask everybody to remember what this was. This bill also has a sunset of 6 years which I think we need. We are now in the heat of war, and we must continue to reevaluate and improve this law when cool heads will prevail. I know others want to speak. I will speak later on on this bill in a more amplified and legal way. But I think the time has come to reform FISA, to make ourselves modern and contemporary and, at the same time, not to punish those who thought they were working with us; last, but not at all least, to protect the American people, both in terms of their safety but also their constitutional rights.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield back our time. Cloture Motion

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 513, S. 274.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I further ask that the amendment at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read for the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.