Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from North Dakota like 2 more minutes to close?

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

Mr. SPECTER. That is acceptable.

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

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are very close to having a unanimous consent agreement setting forth the proceedings to conclude the bill, but there is still a need to review some more documents. My suggestion is we proceed with a vote on the Chambliss amendment. In between the votes we hope to have the final unanimous consent agreement formed so the Senators will be aware of what we are doing before the second vote starts. Amendment No. 4084

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006. First, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for their work on what I believe is an excellent and much needed proposal. No one disputes that preserving our homeland must be our first priority. Without that, every other goal falls away. And no one can dispute that the enemy we face today is an enemy beyond negotiation. It is an enemy that believes it is on a mission from God to establish a worldwide theocracy and destroy all those who preach tolerance of other ideas. It is an enemy that regards mercy as a moral failing, and proudly plays videotapes of its followers beheading innocent civilians. At the same time, no one disputes that we must, in fighting to preserve America, ensure that we protect what is uniquely American--our way of life, our principles, and our belief in liberty. Throughout our history, we have balanced the need to protect our Nation with the need to preserve our freedom. No one disputes that we must continue to achieve both of these ends. The question is how to do so. I believe that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act goes a long way to answering this question. It is a responsible bill that establishes a workable framework for the future. This bill eliminates some artificial and outdated constraints in FISA: It grants the executive branch 7 days, instead of 3 days, for seeking an emergency order--a change that the FISA judges who testified before the Judiciary Committee advocated; it cuts through redtape by confirming that applications for FISA orders may be made by delegees of the Attorney General, such as the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of the National Security; it creates new emergency provisions, allowing extended periods of surveillance in the event our Nation is once again attacked; and it allocates additional personnel to DOJ to prepare applications for FISA orders in a prompt and timely manner. This bill also ensures that our civil liberties are protected by strengthening oversight of the executive branch: It eliminates the current ambiguity in FISA and the National Security Act of 1947, and makes it clear the executive branch must inform all members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on all electronic surveillance programs; it requires the executive branch to submit an additional report to the congressional Intelligence Committees listing any recommendations for legislative or administrative improvements in FISA, so that we in Congress can update FISA as needed; it establishes rigorous reporting requirements for the exercise of emergency surveillance powers; and it establishes a document management system to ensure that information concerning electronic surveillance programs is readily available for review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Congress, to allow for short term decisions and long-term accountability. I do have one concern over the bill, a concern over constitutionality. The bill states that the only way the President may carry out electronic surveillance is through the procedures outlined in FISA or the Federal Criminal Code. During the four hearings I held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, numerous scholars and five FISA judges called this provision into question. They testified that the President has certain inherent powers that we in Congress cannot take away. They explained that to the extent a bill purports to override the President's inherent powers, and tell the President that he may not use them, the bill might be unconstitutional. I think this is precisely the type of complex and weighty concern that we should work out in the Judiciary Committee, through study, analysis, and discussion. And I look forward to having those discussions with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to introduce the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006. First, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and her staff for their work on what I believe is an excellent and much needed proposal. No one disputes that preserving our homeland must be our first priority. Without that, every other goal falls away. And no one can dispute that the enemy we face today is an enemy beyond negotiation. It is an enemy that believes it is on a mission from God to establish a worldwide theocracy and destroy all those who preach tolerance of other ideas. It is an enemy that regards mercy as a moral failing, and proudly plays videotapes of its followers beheading innocent civilians. At the same time, no one disputes that we must, in fighting to preserve America, ensure that we protect what is uniquely American--our way of life, our principles, and our belief in liberty. Throughout our history, we have balanced the need to protect our Nation with the need to preserve our freedom. No one disputes that we must continue to achieve both of these ends. The question is how to do so. I believe that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act goes a long way to answering this question. It is a responsible bill that establishes a workable framework for the future. This bill eliminates some artificial and outdated constraints in FISA: It grants the executive branch 7 days, instead of 3 days, for seeking an emergency order--a change that the FISA judges who testified before the Judiciary Committee advocated; it cuts through redtape by confirming that applications for FISA orders may be made by delegees of the Attorney General, such as the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of the National Security; it creates new emergency provisions, allowing extended periods of surveillance in the event our Nation is once again attacked; and it allocates additional personnel to DOJ to prepare applications for FISA orders in a prompt and timely manner. This bill also ensures that our civil liberties are protected by strengthening oversight of the executive branch: It eliminates the current ambiguity in FISA and the National Security Act of 1947, and makes it clear the executive branch must inform all members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on all electronic surveillance programs; it requires the executive branch to submit an additional report to the congressional Intelligence Committees listing any recommendations for legislative or administrative improvements in FISA, so that we in Congress can update FISA as needed; it establishes rigorous reporting requirements for the exercise of emergency surveillance powers; and it establishes a document management system to ensure that information concerning electronic surveillance programs is readily available for review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Congress, to allow for short term decisions and long-term accountability. I do have one concern over the bill, a concern over constitutionality. The bill states that the only way the President may carry out electronic surveillance is through the procedures outlined in FISA or the Federal Criminal Code. During the four hearings I held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, numerous scholars and five FISA judges called this provision into question. They testified that the President has certain inherent powers that we in Congress cannot take away. They explained that to the extent a bill purports to override the President's inherent powers, and tell the President that he may not use them, the bill might be unconstitutional. I think this is precisely the type of complex and weighty concern that we should work out in the Judiciary Committee, through study, analysis, and discussion. And I look forward to having those discussions with Senator Feinstein and the other members of the committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24 at 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider pending calendar business which may be ready for consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the nomination of R. David Paulison to be Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, May 24, 2006, at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: TBA. Panel II: Andrew J. Guilford to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California, Frank D. Whitney to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed Business Meeting.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2788, a bill to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San Juan and Uintah counties, Utah and for other purposes; S. 2466, to authorize and direct the exchange and conveyance of certain national forest land and other land in southeast Arizona; and S. 2567, to maintain the rural heritage of the Eastern Sierra and enhance the region's tourism economy by designating certain public lands as wilderness and certain rivers as wild scenic rivers in the State of California, and for other purposes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kyl.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. SPECTER. I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. To respond to my colleague, I would say sometime around the dinner hour when we see how the debate goes. We have a great many amendments, and we know when we start to vote it takes much longer than the designated time. I would say somewhere in the 6 o'clock range.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be prepared to have the vote occur as soon after 5:30 as we finish amendments. I think we may be able to have two more amendments in the next hour and a half. I think we can accommodate the request of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I must.

Mr. SPECTER. May I say, I think that is a wise reliance.

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this morning we will resume debate on the pending amendment related to the orange card visa program offered by Senator Feinstein. We have an agreement of 60 minutes of debate prior to the vote. Senators should be on notice that a vote will occur sometime between 10:45 and 11 o'clock this morning. We expect additional votes throughout the day and perhaps into the evening. Last night, the majority leader filed cloture. The order now provides that all first-degree amendments must be filed by 2:30 today in order to qualify under rule XXII. Senators should also be reminded that the Senate will take its customary Tuesday recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for the party caucus meetings.