[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 857-864]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  FISA

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to continue the debate 
and discussion on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Let me 
underscore the point that Majority Leader Reid and others have made. I 
listened carefully to the comments of Senator McConnell, the 
distinguished Republican leader.
  I have served in this body for more than a quarter of a century now, 
and it is unfortunate that we seem to have come to a point where not as 
much is happening as should be happening, in my view.
  I brought committee products to the floor on many occasions, and I am 
sort of envious of the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky--because as 
a committee chairman, I love nothing more than to bring a product out 
of my committee. Many times I brought them out with unanimous votes, 
only to have to spend days here on the floor as amendment after 
amendment was being offered to change, in some cases dramatically, the 
substance of our bill, which we had worked on for weeks and months and 
years in some cases.
  So it is a new idea here to just accept committee product and say the 
other 90 or 85 Members should respect the work of our colleagues, and 
acknowledge that and pass the legislation as if we had all had some 
input here. That is unique and, I suppose, an idea that most of us 
would like to embrace at one point or another. But this is the Senate. 
This is not an operation that runs by fiat.
  This institution has an historic responsibility. In this institution, 
every single Member has the opportunity to express themselves, not only 
rhetorically for unlimited amounts of time, but also with the ability 
to contribute to the policy products we frame. To suggest that other 
Members, including members of a committee that had commensurate 
jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, ought to be excluded from adding 
their thoughts and ideas, is ridiculous. Even members of both 
Committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, are excluded, such as Senator 
Feingold. It was his amendment, as a member of both of these 
committees, that the Republican leadership would not even consider 
debating or acknowledging with a vote. So that is unique in any regard. 
Anyone who has observed this institution for more than an hour--or 
less--understands how this works.
  So the idea that we should accept this bill because the President 
will sign it, is nice to hear, but I have been around long enough to 
know that Presidents will sign things they did not think they would in 
time, and particularly if we can add some thoughts that Members have.
  I do not want to dwell on the procedural aspects of all of this, but 
I wanted to underscore the point that Senator Reid, our leader, the 
majority leader, made this morning, on the unique idea that Members who 
have substantive ideas and thoughts and amendments should somehow stick 
them back in their pockets, accept the product of the Intelligence 
Committee and go home, because the President will sign that bill. I 
will be anxious to raise the argument in future dates when I bring a 
bill to the floor and I find that the Republican leadership is going to 
offer some amendments to my ideas, reminding them of their eloquence in 
suggesting a different approach to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act.
  Last night, we saw into the heart of the minority's priorities. Since 
last month, day after day, opponents of retroactive immunity have been 
warning about its underlying motive: shutting up the President's 
critics. Pass immunity, we have said, and the debate will be shut down, 
the critics will be shut up, and the actions of the President's favored 
corporations will be shut in the dark for good.

[[Page 858]]

  Last night, we saw the mindset of the minority. Several of my 
Democratic colleagues have brought to the floor their carefully 
prepared amendments, many of which do their part to right the balance 
between security and civil liberties.
  The Cardin amendment, which would allow us to revisit the bill in 4 
years instead of 6, not exactly a frightening proposal. It would be a 
simple debate; we could decide if he's right or wrong--make your case 
either way. I happen to believe he is right. Amendments from Senator 
Feingold prohibiting the dangerous and possibly unconstitutional 
practice of reverse targeting and bulk collection. The Leahy amendment, 
requiring the inspectors general of the Director of National 
Intelligence and the Department of Justice and the National Security 
Agency to investigate possible illegal domestic spying. The Feinstein-
Nelson amendment allowing the FISA Court to determine whether immunity 
should apply to the telecommunications companies; and several more 
amendments as well.
  These are all very serious amendments. The Presiding Officer himself 
has one of these amendments. Some of them I support, others I would 
probably end up opposing. Nonetheless, I acknowledge the seriousness of 
their proposals.
  I am concerned, however, about amendments that expand the authority 
of the FISA Court beyond what Congress intended when it originally 
passed FISA. While I respect the motives behind such proposals, 
Congress needs time to fully consider their implications.
  Further, I am concerned that such proposals put excessive power in 
the hands of a secret court whose members are all appointed by one 
individual. In other words, I am concerned this is yet another 
concentration of power, the implications of which we don't fully 
understand and ought to consider carefully. Yes, secrecy is necessary 
at times in the life of every nation. But it is a bedrock principle 
that democracy should always err on the side of less secrecy. For that 
reason I believe cases against the telecoms are best handled in our 
standard Federal courts--which, by the way, have shown time and time 
again that they know how to protect State secrets.
  None of that is the real issue this morning. Whether you agree with 
any of these proposals or not, each amendment deserves consideration. 
Senators are not entitled to see their amendments agreed to, but they 
are entitled to this: a good-faith debate, honest criticism, and, 
ultimately, a vote on their ideas. Last evening, they didn't get that. 
Our Republican colleagues, assuming they would lose those votes, 
effectively shut down the work of the United States Senate. In the 
words of the cliche, they have taken their ball and run home.
  I don't think that is far off base, in seeing in this egregious 
shutdown a parallel to retroactive immunity itself. Both attitudes 
privilege power over deliberation, over consensus, over honest 
argument. Like immunity, pulling these amendments down shows a contempt 
for honest debate and a willingness to settle issues in the dark, in 
the back rooms, rather than in the open, where the law lives, where the 
American people can see it.
  President Bush wants to shut down the courts whose rulings he doesn't 
like. Last night, Senate Republicans showed when they don't like the 
outcome of a debate, they shut down that as well. It is one thing for a 
President to express that kind of contempt for the process of 
legislation. It is yet another for the coequal Members of this 
legislative branch to express it themselves.
  I have spoken repeatedly about the rule of law. The rule of law is 
not some abstract idea. It is here with us. It is what makes this body 
run and has for more than two centuries. It means we hear each other 
out. We do it in the open. And while the minority gets its voice, its 
right to strenuously object, the majority ultimately rules. Standing 
for the rule of law anywhere means standing for it everywhere--in our 
courts and in the Senate.
  The circumstances are different, of course, but the heart of the 
matter is the same. Last evening, I believe the Republican Party 
forfeited its claim to good faith on this issue. They are left to stake 
their case on fear. Whether that be enough, the next few days will 
tell.
  But I want to talk about the issue of the underlying bill, the 
substance of it. As my colleagues here know, I care deeply and 
passionately about several aspects of this bill. Again, I have great 
respect for the work it takes to strike the balance between the need 
for have surveillance of those terrorists who would do us great harm, 
and the protection of civil liberties, rights, and the rule of law. It 
is not an easy balance. I will be the first to acknowledge that the 
tension between those two goals has been an ongoing tension since the 
founding of this Republic. It is not just new since 9/11. It goes back 
to the very first days of our Republic.
  In fact, James Madison spoke eloquently about the tensions in civil 
liberties and rights and, with a great deal of prescience, recognized 
that it is usually threats from outside our country that have the most 
influence on endangering the rights and liberties we embrace at home. 
He acknowledged that more than two centuries ago.
  So the debate we are engaged in today is a historic one, historic in 
the sense that it has been ongoing. No Member of this Chamber wants to 
sacrifice the security of our country, and my hope is that no Member of 
this body wants to sacrifice our liberties and rights either. I want to 
believe that very deeply. While we are debating how best to do that, my 
fear is that we are about to adopt legislation that will deviate from a 
30-year history of actually achieving that sense of balance, by and 
large with the almost unanimous support of Members who have served here 
during that 30-year period.
  I spoke yesterday about a crime that may have been committed against 
millions of innocent Americans: their phone calls, their faxes, their 
e-mails, every word listened to, copied down by Government bureaucrats 
into a massive database. I spoke about how our largest 
telecommunications companies leapt at the chance to betray the privacy 
and the trust of their own customers. That spying didn't happen in a 
panic or short-term emergency, not for a week, a month, or even a year. 
It went on relentlessly for more than 5 years. If the press had not 
exposed it, it would be going on at this very hour. This was not a 
question where a program started up and someone realized they had done 
something wrong, shut it down, and we discovered it later. This program 
has been ongoing and would have been ongoing arguably for years had the 
New York Times and a whistleblower not stepped forward to acknowledge 
its existence.
  We saw how President Bush responded when this was exposed--not by 
apologizing, not even by making his best case before our courts, but by 
asking for a congressional coverup: retroactive immunity. He asked us 
to do it on trust. There are classified documents, he says, that prove 
his case beyond a shadow of a doubt, but, of course, we are not allowed 
to see them. I have served in this body for 27 years, and I am not 
allowed to see these documents. Neither are the majority of my 
colleagues.
  And when we resist his urge to be a law unto himself, how does he 
respond? With fear. When we question him, he says we are failing to 
keep the American people safe.
  Shame on the President and shame on these scare tactics.
  I have promised to fight those tactics with all the power any one 
Senator can muster, and I am here today to keep that promise. For 
several months I have listened to the building frustration over this 
immunity and this administration's campaign of lawlessness. I have seen 
it in person, in mail, online--the passion, the eloquence of average 
citizens who are just fed up with day after day, week after week, month 
after month, year after year of this administration, in one case after 
another, trampling all over the basic rights of American citizens. They 
have inspired me more than they know, these citizens who have spoken 
up.

[[Page 859]]

  But almost every time telecom immunity comes up, there is the 
inevitable question: What is the big deal? Why are so many people 
spending so much energy to keep a few lawsuits from going forward?
  Because this is about far more than the telecom industry. This is 
about a choice that will define America--the rule of law or the rule of 
men. It is about this Government's practice of waterboarding, a 
technique invented by the Spanish Inquisition, perfected by the Khmer 
Rouge, and in between banned--originally banned for excessive cruelty 
even by the Gestapo.
  It is about the Military Commissions Act, a bill that gave President 
Bush the power to designate any individual he wants as an unlawful 
enemy combatant, hold him indefinitely, and take away that individual's 
right to habeas corpus, the centuries-old right to challenge your 
detention.
  It is about the CIA destroying evidence of harsh interrogation--or, 
as some would call it, torture.
  It is about the Vice President raising secrecy to an art form.
  The members of his energy task force? None of your business, we are 
told.
  His location? Undisclosed.
  The names of his staff? Confidential.
  The visitor log for his office? Shredded by the Secret Service.
  The list of papers he has declassified? Classified.
  It is about the Justice Department turning our Nation's highest law 
enforcement offices into a patronage plum and turning the impartial 
work of indictments and trials into the machinations of politics.
  It is about Alberto Gonzales coming before Congress to give testimony 
that was at best wrong and at worst perjury.
  It is about Michael Mukasey coming before the Senate and defending 
the President's power to break the law.
  It is about extraordinary renditions and secret prisons.
  It is about Maher Arar, the Canadian computer programmer who was 
arrested by American agents, flown to Syria, held for some 300 days in 
a cell 3 feet wide, and then cleared of all wrongdoing.
  It is about all of that. We are deceiving ourselves when we talk 
about the torture issue or habeas issue or the U.S. attorneys issue or 
the extraordinary rendition issue or the secrecy issue. As if each one 
were an isolated case. As if each one were an accident. We have let 
outrage upon outrage upon outrage slide with nothing more than a 
promise to stop the next one.
  There is only one issue here--only one--the law issue. Attack the 
President's contempt for the law at any point, and it will be wounded 
at all points. That is why I am here today. I am speaking for the 
American people's right to know what the President and the telecoms did 
to them. But more than that, I am speaking against the President's 
conviction that he is the law. Strike it at any point, with courage, 
and it will wither.
  That is the big deal. That is why immunity matters--dangerous in 
itself but even worse in all it represents. No more. No more. This far, 
Mr. President, but no further.
  More and more Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come 
to define this administration: security or liberty but never, ever 
both. It speaks volumes about the President's estimation of the 
American people that he expects them to accept that choice.
  The truth, I would say, is that shielding corporations from lawsuits 
does absolutely nothing for our security. I challenge the President to 
prove otherwise. I challenge him to show us how putting these companies 
above the law makes us safer by one iota. That, I am convinced, he 
cannot do.
  The truth is that a working balance between security and liberty has 
already been struck. It has been settled for decades. For three 
decades, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has prevented 
executive lawbreaking and protected Americans, and that balance stands 
today. In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Senate convened the 
Church Committee, a panel of distinguished Members, Republicans and 
Democrats, determined to investigate executive abuses of power. 
Unsurprisingly, they found that when Congress and the courts substitute 
``trust me'' for real and true oversight, massive law breaking can 
result. They found evidence of U.S. Army spying on the civilian 
population, Federal dossiers on citizens' political activities, a CIA 
and FBI program that opened hundreds of thousands of Americans' letters 
without warning or warrant.
  In sum, Americans had sustained a severe blow to their fourth 
amendment right to be ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' But at the same 
time, the Senators of the Church Committee understood that surveillance 
needed to go forward to protect the American people. Surveillance 
itself is not the problem: unchecked, unregulated, unwarranted 
surveillance was. What surveillance needed, in a word, was legitimacy. 
In America, as the Founders understood, power becomes legitimate when 
it is shared; when Congress and the courts check the attitude which so 
often crops up in the executive branch: If the President does it, it is 
not illegal.
  The Church Committee's final report, ``Intelligence Activities and 
the Rights of Americans,'' puts the case powerfully. Let me quote, if I 
can, from that report. The Church Committee--Republicans and 
Democrats--said:

       The critical question before the Committee was to determine 
     how the fundamental liberties of the people can be maintained 
     in the course of the Government's effort to protect their 
     security. The delicate balance between these basic goals of 
     our system of government is often difficult to strike, but it 
     can, and must, be achieved.
       We reject the view that the traditional American principles 
     of justice and fair play have no place in our struggle 
     against the enemies of freedom. Moreover, our investigation 
     has established that the targets of intelligence activity 
     have ranged far beyond persons who could properly be 
     characterized as enemies of freedom. . . .

  The report further states:

       We have seen segments of our Government, in their attitudes 
     and action, adopt tactics unworthy of a democracy, and 
     occasionally reminiscent of the tactics of totalitarian 
     regimes.
       We have seen a consistent pattern in which programs 
     initiated with limited goals, such as preventing criminal 
     violence or identifying foreign spies, were expanded to what 
     witnesses characterized as ``vacuum cleaners,'' sweeping in 
     information about lawful activities of American citizens.

  The Senators concluded:

       Unless new and tighter controls are established by 
     legislation, domestic intelligence activities threaten to 
     undermine our democratic society and fundamentally alter its 
     nature.

  That report is more than 30 years old. But couldn't those words have 
been written this morning? We share so much with the Senators--
Republicans and Democrats--who wrote them. We share a nation under 
grave threat--in their case, from communism and nuclear annihilation; 
in ours, from international terrorism. We share, as well, the threat of 
a domestic spying regime that, however good its intentions, finally 
went too far.
  Senators in my lifetime have already faced this problem, and I 
believe their solution stands: The power to invade privacy must be used 
sparingly, guarded jealously, and shared equally between all three 
branches--all three branches of Government.
  Three decades ago, Congress embodied that solution in the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. FISA confirmed the President's 
power to conduct surveillance of international conversations involving 
anyone in the United States, provided that the Federal FISA Court 
issued a warrant, ensuring that wiretapping was aimed at safeguarding 
our security, and nothing else.
  The President's own Director of National Intelligence, Mike 
McConnell, explained the rationale in an interview this summer: The 
United States, he said: ``did not want to allow [the intelligence 
community] to conduct . . . electronic surveillance of Americans for 
foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that was required.''
  As originally written in 1978, and as amended many times over the 
last three decades, FISA has accomplished its mission. It has been a 
valuable tool--a tremendously valuable tool--

[[Page 860]]

for conducting surveillance of terrorists and those who would harm our 
country.
  Every time Presidents have come to Congress openly to ask for more 
leeway under FISA, Congress has worked with them; Democrats and 
Republicans have negotiated; and together, Congress and the President 
have struck a balance that safeguards America while doing its utmost to 
protect privacy.
  This summer, Congress made a technical correction to FISA, enabling 
the President to wiretap, without a warrant, conversations between two 
foreign agents, even if those conversations are routed through American 
computers. For other reasons, I felt this summer's legislation went a 
bit too far, and I opposed it. But the point is that Congress once 
again proved its willingness to work with the President on FISA.
  Shouldn't that be enough?
  Just this past October and November, as we have seen, the Senate 
Intelligence and Judiciary Committees worked with the President to 
further refine FISA and ensure that, in a true emergency, the FISA 
Court could do nothing to slow down intelligence gathering.
  Shouldn't that be enough?
  And as for the FISA Court? Between 1978 and 2004, according to the 
Washington Post, the FISA Court approved 18,748 warrants--18,748 
warrants. It rejected five, between 1978 and 2004. Let me repeat the 
numbers. They granted 18,748 warrants, and rejected 5 of them over that 
almost 30-year period.
  The FISA Court has sided with the executive 99.9 percent of the time.
  Shouldn't that be enough? One would think so. Is anything lacking? 
Have we forgotten something? Isn't all of this enough to keep us safe?
  It took three decades, three branches of government, four Presidents, 
and 12 Congresses to patiently, painstakingly build up that machinery. 
It only took one President to tear it down. Generations of leaders 
handed over to President Bush a system that brought security under the 
law, a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could 
possibly conceive or think of. And he responded: No, thank you; I'd 
rather break the law.
  He ignored not just a Federal court but a secret Federal court; not 
just a secret Federal court but a secret Federal court prepared to sign 
off on his actions 99.9 percent of the time. And he still has not given 
us a good reason why. He still has not shown how his lawbreaking makes 
us safer.
  So I am left to conclude that, to this President, this is not about 
security. It is about power: power in itself, power for itself.
  I make that point not to change the subject, but because I believe it 
solves a mystery. That is: Why is retroactive immunity so vital to this 
President? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy; and 
secrecy, to this administration, means power.
  It is no coincidence that the man who declared ``if the president 
does it, it's not illegal''--Richard Nixon--was the same man who raised 
executive secrecy to an art form in an earlier generation. The Senators 
of the Church Committee expressed succinctly the deep flaw in the 
Nixonian executive. I quote from them: ``Abuse thrives on secrecy.'' 
And in the exhaustive catalog of their report, they proved it.
  This administration shares a similar level of secrecy, and a similar 
level of abuse, I would add. Its push for immunity is no different. 
Secrecy is at its center. We find proof in their original version of 
retroactive immunity. Remember, this was their idea: a proposal not 
just to protect the telecoms but everyone involved in the wiretapping 
program. That is what they sought of the Intelligence Committee. 
Everyone involved in that program was to be protected. In their 
original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.
  Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: 
their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the 
years to come they would be found liable or convicted. They knew better 
than anyone else what they had done. They must have had good reason to 
be afraid.
  Thankfully, immunity for the Executive is not part of the bill before 
us. But the original proposal--the original proposal--to immunize 
everyone involved ought to be instructive to Members here. Why did they 
seek such broad authority to immunize every individual? Why? What was 
behind that proposal? This is, and always has been, a self-preservation 
bill.
  Otherwise, why not have the trial to get it over with? If the 
President believes what he says, the corporations would win in a walk. 
After all, in the administration's telling, the telecoms were ordered 
to help the President spy without a warrant, and they patriotically 
complied.
  Read Justice Robert Jackson's briefs after Nuremberg. The 21 
defendants at Nuremberg made that case, that they were only complying 
with orders they were given. And the court in the Nuremberg trials, in 
1945, rejected that argument. Robert Jackson reminded us, in subsequent 
decisions he handed down as a Supreme Court Justice, that that 
argument, ``we were ordered to do it,'' is not a legitimate defense 
when you know what you are doing is wrong.
  And when you hear the President's story, ignore for a moment that in 
America we obey the laws, not the President's orders. Ignore that the 
telecoms were not unanimous; one, Qwest, wanted to see the legal basis 
for the order. They never received it, of course, and so they refused 
to comply. Ignore that a judge presiding over the case ruled that--and 
I quote--``AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in 
its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was 
legal.''
  Ignore all of that. If the order the telecoms received was legally 
binding, they have an easy case to prove. The corporations only need to 
show a judge the authority and the assurances they were given, and they 
will be in and out of court in five minutes.
  If the telecoms are as defensible as the President says, why doesn't 
the President let them defend themselves? If the case is so easy to 
make, why doesn't he let them make it?
  It can't be that he is afraid of leaks. The Federal court system has 
dealt for decades with the most delicate national security matters, 
building up expertise in protecting classified information behind 
closed doors--ex parte, in camera. We can expect no less in these 
cases, as well.
  No intelligence sources need to be compromised. No state secrets need 
to be exposed. And after litigation at both the district court and 
circuit court level, no state secrets have been exposed.
  In fact, Federal District Court Judge Vaughan Walker, a Republican 
appointee, I might add, has already ruled that the issue can go to 
trial without putting state secrets in jeopardy. Judge Walker 
reasonably pointed out that the existence of the President's 
surveillance program is hardly a secret at all. I quote from him. He 
stated:

       The government has [already] disclosed the general contours 
     of the ``terrorist surveillance program,'' which requires the 
     assistance of a telecommunications provider.

  That is from Judge Walker. In his opinion, Judge Walker argued that 
even when it is reasonably grounded:

     the state secrets privilege [still] has its limits. While the 
     court recognizes and respects the executive's constitutional 
     duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes 
     seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes 
     that come before it. To defer to a blanket assertion of 
     secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly 
     because the very subject matter of this litigation has been 
     so publicly aired.

  That is Republican appointee Vaughan Walker speaking to the 
administration. He further goes on to say:

       The compromise between liberty and security remains a 
     difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would 
     sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

  That ought to be the epitaph of this administration: sacrificing 
liberty for no apparent enhancement of security. Worse than selling our 
soul, we are giving it away for free.
  The President is equally wrong, I would suggest, to claim that 
failing to grant this retroactive immunity will make the telecoms less 
likely to cooperate with surveillance in the future.

[[Page 861]]

The truth is that since the 1970s, FISA has compelled 
telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance when it is 
warranted. And what is more, it immunizes them. It has done that for 
more than 25 years.
  So cooperation in warranted wiretapping is not at stake today. 
Collusion in warrantless wiretapping is. And the warrant makes all the 
difference, because it is precisely the court's blessing that brings 
Presidential power under the rule of law.
  In sum, we know that giving the telecoms their day in court--giving 
the American people their day in court--would not jeopardize an ounce 
of our security. The conclusion, I again repeat, is clear: The only 
thing that stands to be exposed if these cases go to trial is the 
extent of the President's lawbreaking, of the administration's 
lawbreaking. That, he will keep from the light of a courtroom at all 
costs.
  This is a self-preservation bill. And given the lack of compelling 
alternatives, I can only conclude that self-preservation--secrecy for 
secrecy's sake--explains the President's vehemence.
  Well, you might say, he will be gone in a year. Why not let the 
secrets die with this administration and start afresh? Why take up all 
the time on this matter?
  Because those secrets never rightfully belonged to him. They belong 
to history, to our successors in this Chamber, to every one of us. 
Thirty years after the Church Committee, history repeated itself. If 
those who come after us are to prevent it from repeating again, they 
need the full truth. We need to set an unmistakable precedent. 
Determining guilt or innocence belongs to the courts, not to 51 
Senators who may carry the day by a vote here, or the President, for 
that matter--that is what the courts are for. Lawless spying will no 
longer be tolerated. And, most of all, the truth is no one's private 
property.
  Which brings us, unfortunately, to economics. Because once the 
arguments from state secrets and patriotic duty are exhausted, 
immunity's defenders make their last stand as amateur economists.
  Here is how Mike McConnell put it:

       If you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it 
     would bankrupt these companies. So . . . we have to provide 
     liability protection to these private sector entities.

  To begin with, that is a clear exaggeration. We are talking about 
some of the wealthiest, most successful companies in America. Let me 
quote an article from Dow Jones MarketWatch. The headline reads: 
``AT&T's third-quarter profit rises 41.5 percent.'' I will quote the 
article:

       AT&T, Inc. on Tuesday said third-quarter earnings rose 41.5 
     percent, boosted by the acquisition of BellSouth and the 
     addition of 2 million net wireless customers. . . . Net 
     income totaled $3.6 billion . . . compared with $2.17 . . . a 
     year ago.

  I should note that AT&T has posted these record profits at the same 
time of this very public litigation.
  Now, granted, that is only one quarter, and I understand that AT&T's 
most recent earnings aren't as large as the ones I have just quoted; 
but I think the point still stands. A company of that size, capable of 
posting a $3 billion quarter, couldn't be completely wiped out by 
anything but the most exorbitant and unlikely judgment.
  To assume that the telecoms would lose and that their judges would 
hand down such backbreaking penalties is already taking several leaps. 
The point, after all, has never been to financially cripple our 
telecommunications industry; the point is to bring checks and balances 
back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a 
crippling judgment.
  It is much more troubling, though, that the Director of National 
Intelligence has begun talking like a stockbroker, pronouncing on 
``liability protection for private sector entities.'' How does that 
even begin to be relevant to letting the case go forward? Since when 
did we throw out entire lawsuits because the defendant stood to lose 
too much?
  Translate the point into plain English, and here is what Admiral 
McConnell is arguing: Some corporations are too rich to be sued. Even 
bringing money into the equation puts wealth above justice, above due 
process. I have rarely in public life heard an argument as venal as 
this one.
  But this administration would apparently rather protect the telecoms 
than the American people. In one breath, it can speak about national 
security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state 
clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more 
lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the 
Republic. So at the rock bottom of its justifications, the 
administration is essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.
  The truth is exactly the opposite, in my view. The larger the 
corporation, the greater potential for abuse. Not that success should 
make a company suspect at all. Companies grow large and essential to 
our economy because they are excellent at what they do. I simply mean 
that size and wealth open the realm of possibilities for abuse far 
beyond the scope of the individual. After all, if everything alleged is 
true, the President and the telecoms have engineered one of the most 
massive violations of privacy in American history. A violation such as 
that would be inconceivable without the size and resources of a 
corporate behemoth behind it.
  If reasonable search and seizure means opening up a drug dealer's 
apartment, the telecoms' alleged actions would be the equivalent of 
strip-searching everyone in the building, ransacking their bedrooms, 
and prying up all the floorboards. That is the massive scale we are 
talking about, and that massive scale is precisely why no corporation 
must be above the law.
  Ultimately, that is all I am asking--not a verdict of guilty or 
innocent. I have my own views, but I don't have a right to pronounce 
those views. That is why there is something called the third branch of 
Government. It is called the courts--the courts. A simple majority of 
this body doesn't get the right to decide the guilt or innocence in 
this particular case. But when the day in court comes, I have 
absolutely no investment in the verdict either way. Just as it would be 
absurd for me to declare the telecoms clearly guilty, it would be 
equally absurd to close the case today without a decision. But their 
day in court, as far as I am concerned, is everything.
  Why? Because surveillance demands and deserves legitimacy, and the 
surest way to throw legitimacy away is to leave all of these questions 
hanging.
  Few things are as vital to our national security as giving domestic 
surveillance the legitimacy it deserves and needs to sustain public 
support. Because ``the threat to America is not going to expire.'' 
``Staying a step ahead of the terrorists who want to attack us'' is 
``essential to keeping America safe.'' In the end, ``Congress and the 
President have no higher responsibility than protecting the American 
people from enemies who attacked our country and who want to do it 
again.''
  Those aren't my words; they are George Bush's words. He says all of 
this, yet he says he will veto the entire bill--this vital bill, this 
bill which is essential to protecting our very lives--all to keep a few 
corporations safe from lawsuits.
  There, at last, as honest as you will ever hear them, are this 
President's true priorities: secrecy over safety, favors over fairness. 
Marry those priorities to a contempt for the rule of law, and the 
results have been devastating. I don't have to repeat them. They aren't 
secret anymore.
  No, Mr. President we can't go back. We can't un-pass the Military 
Commissions Act. We can't un-destroy the CIA's interrogation tapes. We 
can't un-speak Alberto Gonzales's disgraceful testimony. We can't un-
torture those who have been apprehended and held wrongfully. We can't 
undo all this administration has done in the last 6 years for the cause 
of lawlessness and fear.
  But we can do this: We can vote down this immunity. We can do this: 
We can grab hold of the one thread left to us here and pull until the 
whole garment unravels. We can start here.
  And why not here? Why not today?

[[Page 862]]

  Why not provide for the protections we need, the surveillance we 
need, but without this grant of immunity? It is unwarranted, it is 
unneeded, it is unfair, it is wrong, and it is dangerous.
  So, on Monday, I hope my colleagues will reject the motion on 
cloture, allow these amendments to go forward, allow us to have a 
debate and a discussion, and then send a clean bill to the President--
one that enhances our security and protects our civil liberties.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that when I finish with my 
remarks, the Senator from Texas be recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Republican Retreat

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from 
Connecticut, welcome back. We are glad to have him here. He has 
traveled some roads that I know pretty well. We have missed some of his 
vigor and passion.
  Sometimes the American people say they don't like to see us engage in 
partisan bickering, and I am going to say something about that in just 
a minute. But what I think they do like to see us do, if I may say so, 
is what the Senator from Connecticut was doing just then and what the 
Senator from Arizona did on Friday: They were debating the balance of 
each American individual's right to liberty versus each American 
individual's right to security--coming to different conclusions but 
having a serious discussion about an issue that affects every single 
American in this country. That is what the people expect of the Senate.
  I come to a different conclusion than he does. We are moving to vote 
on cloture on a bill on Monday that has come out of the Intelligence 
Committee by a bipartisan majority of 13 to 2. But this is the kind of 
debate the Senate ought to have, and I am glad I got to hear his speech 
even though I disagree with much of it.
  The Republican Senators gathered in a retreat at the Library of 
Congress on Wednesday. This is something we do each year, and the 
Democratic side does it each year as well. We think about our 
responsibilities, and we look forward to the future. Many of our 
Members have said to me that this was one of our best days of retreat. 
In the first place, it was very well attended: 44 out of 49 of us were 
there, and 3 of those absent were campaigning in Florida, and 1 was 
ill. So we had virtually perfect attendance. Most of those attending 
spoke and participated and made proposals. Every single Republican 
Senator with whom I have talked since that meeting on Wednesday has 
told me he or she felt rejuvenated and looks forward to this year. I 
believe the reason for that is because of the way we conducted the day.
  It takes me back to what I just said a moment ago. Unless we are 
tone-deaf, I think we can hear what the American people are saying to 
us, especially through the Presidential campaign, which is that they 
are tired of the way we are doing business in Washington, DC, and they 
want us to change it. They want us to take the playpen politics and 
move it off the Senate floor and put it in the national committees or 
in the nursery where it belongs, and spend our time on big issues that 
affect our country--maybe in vigorous debates of the kind Senator Dodd 
and Senator Kyl would have on the intelligence bill, but spend our time 
on the serious issues facing our country. Then, after we have had our 
debate, work across the aisle to get a result.
  There are only two reasons to work across the aisle to get a result. 
One is, it is the right thing to do for our country. This is our job, 
and that is why they pay us our salaries. That is why they sent us 
here. No. 2, if you can count, it takes 60 votes to get anything 
meaningful done in the Senate. So if you want to get a result, you have 
to work across party lines because neither side has more than 60 votes.
  So what we Republicans did on Wednesday was say this: We have heard 
the talk that this is a Presidential year and we may get nothing done 
in Congress, and we reject that.
  Our leader said--Mitch McConnell--on Tuesday when he spoke:

       Republicans are eager to get to work on the unfinished 
     business from last year. We are determined to address the 
     other issues that have become more pressing or pronounced 
     since we last stood here. We have had a presidential election 
     in this country every 4 years since 1788 we won't use this 
     one as an excuse to put off the people's business for another 
     day.

  So there is no excuse for Congress to take this year off, given the 
serious issues facing our country. We want to change the way Washington 
does business, and we know how to do it; that is, get down to work on 
serious issues facing our country, propose specific solutions that 
solve problems, and then work across the aisle to get a result. We are 
not here to do bad things to Democrats; we are here to try to do good 
things for our country.
  That was the spirit of our retreat on Wednesday. I believe that is 
the way most Members on the other side feel. The more of that we do, 
the better. I would submit the approval rating of the Congress and of 
Washington, DC, will gradually go up if we were to do that.
  Let me say a word about exactly what we talked about on Wednesday--
the kind of approach that one can expect from Republican Senators this 
year.
  First, of course, is that we are here and ready to go to work on 
these specific solutions based on Republican principles, and we are 
either looking for bipartisan support or already have bipartisan 
support on many issues. Of course, to begin with, we know Americans are 
hurting and anxious because of the housing slump, because of gasoline 
prices, because of rising health care costs, and we are ready to work 
with the House and the President, across the aisle, to find the 
appropriate action to take to try to avoid an economic slowdown.
  I imagine the Senate will have some of its own views about its 
proposals when the House brings its proposal here. But we want a 
result. I, for one, would like to see--and I believe most of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle would like to see--a proposal that 
grows the economy and not the Government. But we will have a debate 
about that. That is not partisan bickering; that is the Senate in its 
finest tradition addressing an issue that is central to every single 
family in this country.
  We know we need to intercept the communications of terrorists so we 
can keep our country safe from attack. We know when we do that, we have 
to carefully balance each of our right to liberty versus each of our 
right to security.
  Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor, once wrote--he was 
President of the American Political Science Association--that most of 
our politics is about conflicts between principles or among principles 
with which almost all of us agree. That is important to Americans 
because what unifies us, other than our common language, is these few 
principles, security and liberty being two.
  Republicans support the Rockefeller-Bond bipartisan proposal which 
passed 13 to 2 by the Intelligence Committee. We want to make sure 
those companies which help us defend ourselves aren't penalized for 
helping to make the country secure, while at the same time protecting 
individual liberties.
  We know there are 47 million Americans who don't have health 
insurance, and Republican Senators said in our retreat on Wednesday 
that we are ready to go to work this year to make sure every American 
is insured. Some say put it off a year. Well, perhaps we can't get it 
all done in 2008, but we can surely start. Senator Byrd and Senator 
DeMint and Senator Bennett and Senator Corker, among others, spoke at 
our retreat on this issue. We would like to get going now. We could 
begin with the Small Business Health Insurance Act, which would permit 
small companies to pool their resources and offer

[[Page 863]]

more health insurance at a lower cost to their employees. That would be 
a beginning.
  Many of us on the Republican side have sponsored a bipartisan bill--
one of two or three that have the same general approach to reforming 
the Tax Code, to put cash in the hands of American families and 
individuals so they can afford to buy their own private insurance, 
putting together four words that usually don't go together: ``Universal 
access'' and ``private insurance.'' Those are based on principles we 
Republicans agree with: Free market and equal opportunity. We know on 
this side of the aisle--and I suspect many over on that side know as 
well; I know they do--if we don't do something about the runaway growth 
of Medicare and Medicaid--entitlement spending, in other words--we will 
bankrupt our country. Every year that we wait to deal with that is a 
year that makes the solution harder.
  So Senator Gregg, at our retreat, talked about his proposal with 
Senator Conrad, a Democratic Senator, to create a base-closing-task-
force-type task force for the sole purpose of recommending to the 
Congress a way to control entitlement spending and force an up-or-down 
vote on that. That is the principle of limited government. That is a 
principle that most Republicans and a proposal that many Democrats can 
support.
  We know there is a great force in Washington, DC, to spend more 
money, to issue more regulations and rules, and there are almost no 
countervailing forces to spend less money, repeal rules, and revise 
regulations. So Senators Domenici, Isakson, and Sessions, among others, 
have proposed an idea to change our budgeting and appropriations 
process from 1 year to 2 years. That may help us get appropriations 
bills done on time so we can save money in our contracting in the 
Defense Department and Department of Transportation, for example. But 
more important to me, and to many on this side of the aisle, it would 
create a countervailing force of oversight so that every other year we 
would spend most of our time on oversight, meaning we could review, 
repeal, and change and improve laws, regulations, and rules that have 
been in place for a long time.
  We want to keep jobs from going overseas, and we believe we know how 
to do it. Last year, we worked with Senator Bingaman and others on the 
other side to pass the America COMPETES Act. This is an extraordinary 
response to our challenge to keep our brain power advantage so we can 
keep our jobs, in competition with China and India. Senator Hutchison 
has been a leader on this issue. She, with Senator Bingaman, began the 
effort to fully fund advanced placement courses so more children could 
take those courses. So we are ready--many on this side of the aisle--to 
implement the advanced placement provisions in the America COMPETES 
Act. That will help 1.5 million children to have those opportunities.
  We are ready to implement the provision that would put 10,000 more 
math and science teachers in our classrooms. Many of us are ready to 
implement the recommendation that we pin a green card to every single 
foreign student legally here and who graduates from an American 
university in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Some 
proposals ought to be bipartisan, but they are not--or at least they 
weren't. I made one, and we talked about this for a while on Wednesday.
  In order to encourage unity in this country, we need a common 
language. That seems to be common sense. Therefore, we ought to pass a 
law making it clear that the Federal Government should not be suing the 
Salvation Army, telling them they cannot require employees to speak 
English on the job. We got it through the Senate and to the House, 
where the Speaker stopped it. Now Senator Conrad has joined in support, 
as have Senators McConnell, Byrd, Landrieu, and Nelson of Nebraska. So 
now we have a bipartisan approach on another important issue.
  We talked about the idea and the problem of the number of rural women 
in this country who are pregnant and cannot get the proper prenatal 
health care. OB/GYN doctors are leaving rural areas because runaway 
malpractice lawsuits are running malpractice insurance over $100,000 a 
year. So the pregnant women are having to drive 70 miles to Memphis or 
other big cities to see a doctor and get the prenatal health care they 
need and to have the baby. We have proposals to stop it in the way 
Texas and Mississippi did. We invite bipartisan proposals on that.
  Mr. President, the Republican agenda will emerge over time. What I 
would like to say to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and 
to the American people is, we want to change the way Washington does 
business, and we believe we know how. The way is to stand up every 
single day and week with new specific proposals on real issues and have 
a debate where one is needed. Let Senator Dodd and Senator Kyl have a 
principled argument about security versus liberty. That is in the 
finest tradition. Let's cut out the playpen politics. Let's don't have 
that, and let's earn back the confidence of the American people by 
dealing with specific solutions. That is what you are going to hear 
from Republican Senators.
  No sooner had I heard some encouraging remarks from the majority 
leader, out comes this release from the Senate leadership and majority 
leader Harry Reid:

       For immediate release. Democratic policy experts discuss 
     President Bush's legacy of broken promises.

  That was announced. This is playpen politics. I am sure we do it here 
sometimes, but I will do my best as the Republican conference chairman 
to make the political reward for this playpen politics so low that this 
kind of release and activity is moved into the nursery school where it 
belongs, over to the national committee where it belongs, whether it is 
the Democratic playpen or the Republican playpen, and that we devote 
ourselves to the issues facing our country.
  How can we help the economy? How can we help every American be 
insured? How can we stop the terrorists? How can we implement the 
America COMPETES Act? Those are the debates we ought to have. I hope 
that is clear to the American people and to our colleagues. We are 
looking forward to this year. Republicans are ready for change in the 
way we do business in Washington. The people of this country are ready 
for that, too. I look forward to it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator 
Alexander, my colleague from Tennessee, for his comments and for his 
leadership. We decided it would be helpful to come to the floor and 
talk a little bit about the retreat that Senator Alexander laid out and 
our reasons for believing that it is important that we not take the 
year off just because it is a Presidential election. I think Senator 
McConnell most recently pointed out that we have had elections in this 
country every 2 years since 1788. So if we are going to use that as an 
excuse for not getting things done, we will never get anything done. We 
have a lot of important issues we need to address, and we will.
  The month or so that we were in recess, from the Wednesday before 
Christmas until we came back the day after Martin Luther King's 
national holiday, I enjoyed being at home in Texas. As always, I 
traveled around the State and talked to a lot of people. But I also 
listened. What I heard from my constituents is the same thing I bet 
virtually every single Senator heard, and that is that people are sick 
and tired of the bickering and partisanship. They are sick and tired of 
seeing Congress not solving problems that only Congress can solve. 
Frankly, they are beginning to feel more and more like Congress is 
irrelevant to their daily lives. I think that is what accounts for the 
historically low approval rating we have seen of the Congress in the 
last year.
  The problem is--and the occupant of the chair knows as well as I do--
that I

[[Page 864]]

don't think the public differentiates between Republicans and Democrats 
when they give Congress a low approval rating, by and large. I think it 
is up to us, working together, to try to elevate that low approval 
rating by doing what our constituents expect us to do, and that is to 
work together when we can, without sacrificing our basic principles.
  Let me say a word about that. Lest anybody confuse what Senator 
Alexander and I are saying, that we are somehow taking leave of our 
principles, that is absolutely not true. In Washington, I usually tell 
folks that we have Democrats in Texas and we have Republicans in Texas. 
They are all pretty much conservative by national standards, Washington 
standards. But the fact is, my constituents expect for me to get 
something done. But that is not done by sacrificing principles. I do 
think we have important differences, and I think those should be 
debated, and then we should vote. We should be held accountable in the 
next election for our votes and for what we have done or not done.
  I think there is an important difference between standing on your 
principles and then looking for common ground to try to come together 
and solve problems. I agree with what the Senator from Tennessee said. 
We all know it is a fact of life in the Senate that you cannot get 
anything done without bipartisan support. Our 60-vote rule for cloture 
to close off debate in order to have an up-or-down vote requires it. So 
why not recognize that, sure, we can say no, no, no, but occasionally I 
think we ought to look for an opportunity to say yes where it doesn't 
sacrifice our principles, but it does find common ground to try to get 
things done on behalf of the American people.
  I have constituents who asked me, as recently as last night: Don't 
you find life in the Senate and in Washington and in the Congress 
frustrating? Many say I could never do what you do because I would be 
so frustrated by it. I think there is plenty of opportunity for 
frustration, if we dwell on that. But I prefer to look at the 
opportunities for making life better for the American people and for 
offering solutions on the difficult issues that confront us. To me, 
that is what I get up and come to work for. That is why I enjoy being 
in the Senate. I believe it gives me a chance, as one American, to do 
what I can to try to make life better and to make a difference. It is 
not about sacrificing principles. It is doing what we said in the 
preamble to the Constitution when we said:

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
     general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity. . . .

  We said that in 1787, in a document that was ratified by all of the 
States by 1790. That should be our goal still today--to be true to that 
statement of principle about what our goals are as a nation.
  The Senator from Tennessee did go through a number of concrete 
proposals and talked about what our alternative will be to the 
proposals being made on the other side of the aisle. Again, I agree 
with him, that the American people don't expect us to come here and 
split the difference on everything in order to come up with an 
agreement if they believe that outcome is devoid of principle or 
sacrifices fundamental values. There are differences between the 
parties. Those differences ought to be reflected in a dignified and 
civilized and respectful debate that highlights those differences, and 
then we have a vote on those different points of view. We will either 
pass legislation or not based on that vote. But I think it will be 
acting in the greatest tradition of the Senate, and in a way that our 
constituents back home earnestly wish we would act and, unfortunately, 
in a way that we have not always acted.
  I have to believe all Members of this body want to see our economy as 
strong as it can possibly be going forward. They want to see that our 
Nation is secure and our defense remains the best in the world; that 
all Americans have access to quality health care; that taxpayers not be 
compelled to foot the bill for wasteful Washington spending. I have to 
believe that all of our constituents, and indeed all Members of the 
Senate, believe that we need a sustainable energy policy that allows us 
to turn away from our over-reliance on imported oil and gas from 
dangerous parts of the world.
  I think, as Senator Alexander pointed out, principled differences on 
important legislation need to be debated in the Senate and voted on and 
resolved rather than be left without a solution and unaddressed.
  We do have an opportunity, I believe, this new year as we have come 
back not just to say no, no, no, to every idea that is offered on the 
floor but to say: Here are our alternative solutions to the problems 
that confront America.
  Mr. President, you will be hearing us on the floor of the Senate on a 
weekly basis not only addressing legislation offered by the majority--
and, of course, it is the majority leader's prerogative to set the 
agenda to call up bills; we will not be able to do that as Members of 
the minority--but what you will hear from us is a principled proposal 
to solve the problems that confront America on each of the big issues 
this Nation wants us to address and wants us to expend our very best 
efforts to try to solve.
  I am delighted we have seen a sort of renewed enthusiasm for finding 
solutions in a principled way. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee, 
the retreat we had I thought was one of the most hopeful retreats I 
have ever participated in as a Member of the Senate because I think 
what we saw is a recommitment to try to solve problems, to avoid the 
partisan bickering and the divisiveness that has resulted in the 
historically lower approval rating of Congress and which turns off so 
many of our constituents.
  Of course, as we all know, as elected officials, if we do not respond 
to our employer and try to address the concerns our employer has--and 
our employers are our constituents--then our employers may look for 
somebody else to do the job in the next election.
  It is up to us to be responsive to those concerns, and I think 
without sacrificing principles, by staying true to those values we 
brought with us but looking for common ground. That is the art in our 
job, and it is more art than science. I have said it before and I will 
say it again, I think compromise for compromise's sake is overrated 
because if all compromise means is sacrificing your principles in order 
to get a problem behind you, I don't think you have done your job. 
Doing your job means standing on your principles but looking for common 
ground, consistent with those principles, to solve problems. There is 
plenty of common ground to find if we will work a little bit harder and 
a little bit more in earnest to try to find it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________