[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1817-1825]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume 
consideration of S. 2248, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A Bill (S. 2248) to amend the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the 
     provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Rockefeller-Bond amendment No. 3911, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Whitehouse amendment No. 3920 (to amendment No. 3911), to 
     provide procedures for compliance reviews.
       Feingold amendment No. 3979 (to amendment No. 3911), to 
     provide safeguards for communications involving persons 
     inside the United States.
       Feingold-Dodd amendment No. 3912 (to amendment No. 3911), 
     to modify the requirements for certifications made prior to 
     the initiation of certain acquisitions.
       Dodd amendment No. 3907 (to amendment No. 3911), to strike 
     the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to 
     electronic communication service providers for certain 
     assistance provided to the Government.
       Bond-Rockefeller modified amendment No. 3938 (to amendment 
     No. 3911), to include prohibitions on the international 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
       Feinstein amendment No. 3910 (to amendment No. 3911), to 
     provide a statement of the exclusive means by which 
     electronic surveillance and interception of certain 
     communications may be conducted.
       Feinstein amendment No. 3919 (to amendment No. 3911), to 
     provide for the review of certifications by the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court.
       Specter-Whitehouse amendment No. 3927 (to amendment No. 
     3911), to provide for the substitution of the United States 
     in certain civil actions.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if people wish to come to speak today, they 
should alert the staff. We are not going to have the staff wait around 
all day for somebody who might not come. We have had a busy week. 
Staffs work very long hours. Senators--if they are going to come and 
talk--had better alert the staff or we are going to go out of session.
  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.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are back on the floor beginning the third 
week of debate on the very important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, also known as FISA. We have had a great deal of good debate. We 
have had a few votes.
  Thanks to our leadership--Senator Reid and Senator McConnell--we now 
have a plan to conclude debate and go to the critically important votes 
on Tuesday. I thank all Members for participating. I know there are 
some who have comments they wish to make today and Monday. Chairman 
Rockefeller and I have spent 2\1/2\ weeks so far on the floor, and we 
understand the importance of moving quickly to get this measure 
adopted--gain approval from the House on a measure we can send to the 
President for his signature. I truly hope we can make that.
  I express my thanks to Chairman Rockefeller, his assistant Melvin

[[Page 1818]]

Dubee, all members of the committee, Louis Tucker of my staff, and 
others for bringing us to this position.
  It is important to realize the magnitude of the danger we continue to 
face from radical Islamic terrorists. Probably no place was it better 
outlined than in testimony in open hearing by the leaders of the 
intelligence community. Director McConnell, head of the intelligence 
community, outlined the major areas of concern, backed up by CIA 
Director Michael Hayden; Defense Intelligence Agency Director General 
Maples; FBI Director Mueller, and Under Secretary of State Randy Fort 
for the INR.
  A couple things that came out may have been missed by Members who 
were not fortunate enough to hear the testimony of Admiral McConnell 
and the intelligence community. I thought I would repeat a few of them 
for you. First, Admiral McConnell made it clear that even though our 
intelligence analysts had the availability of collection, which 
indicated there had been a halt in 2003 to the weaponization program 
for nuclear weapons in Iran, the threat that Iran poses remains great. 
Admiral McConnell pointed out that there is no question Iran continues 
to try to enrich uranium, which can be used for nuclear weapon 
production. He also indicated they have the skills and the facilities 
to turn out biological and chemical weapons, and they are working on a 
missile program. The halt in 2003 came, not surprisingly, after the 
United States went in and opposed the dangerous dictator, Saddam 
Hussein.
  It was the capture of Saddam Hussein that led Muammar Qadhafi, leader 
of Libya, to decide he didn't want to be pulled out of a spider hole by 
American forces. He gave up his nuclear weaponization program. 
Personally, I think it is no accident that the same activity in Iraq 
convinced Iran that, for the time being, it was better to shut down 
their weaponization program. The top French Defense Minister indicated 
he was not sure they had not restarted their weaponization program. In 
any event, we need to continue to be concerned about Iran and its 
potential threat not just to our allies in the Middle East, 
particularly Israel, which Iran's elected leader, Ahmadi Nejad, vowed 
to annihilate.
  Specifically, regarding threats to the United States, General Hayden 
outlined for us in open hearing--and more specifically in classified 
information--the number of threats that have been avoided, the plots 
that have been deterred by our resolute action. And what helped us 
deter the threats was, first, the active, aggressive move by the U.S. 
military to disrupt the Taliban and take Afghanistan out from under the 
control of the Taliban.
  Afghanistan was a great threat and much planning was going on by al-
Qaida there. There are some on the news who continue to say Iraq had 
nothing to do with the war on terror. For those others who have looked 
at the information, that is an unbelievably naive point of view. David 
Kay, who went into Iraq to conduct a survey of our inadequate 
intelligence information, said that Iraq was a far more dangerous place 
even than we knew. Terrorists were running wild there, Abu Mus'ab al-
Zarqawi, head of Ansar al Islam was active there, and later became the 
AQI, leader of al-Qaida there. Al-Zarqawi became famous when he 
beheaded victims who didn't agree with him; he cut their heads off on 
television. Iraq has been designated time and time again by leaders of 
al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as the target for 
their headquarters. They want to establish the land between the 
rivers--the Tigris and Euphrates--as their caliphate. They stated that 
is their objective.
  Were we to leave Iraq precipitously, not only would it lead to chaos, 
genocide, and possible Mideast sectarian wars, but also it would ensure 
that al-Qaida would have the opportunity to reestablish their 
headquarters with recruitment, training, and command and control that 
would significantly increase the threats to the United States.
  This is why it is essential to continue our military support in the 
war against terror and also provide the intelligence tools to the 
intelligence community needed to keep our country safe.
  I thought it might be helpful to repeat a few comments that were made 
at that hearing. Director McConnell, along with FBI Director Mueller, 
outlined terrorist threats here at home--most recently, in New Jersey, 
Illinois, and abroad in Spain, Denmark, France, Germany, and the United 
Kingdom. Admiral McConnell also said:

       Al-Qaida remains the preeminent terror threat against the 
     United States, both at home and abroad. Despite our successes 
     over the years, the group has retained or regenerated key 
     elements of its capability, including its top leadership, 
     operation lieutenants, and de facto safe haven . . . in the 
     Pakistani border area with Afghanistan known as the Federally 
     Administered Tribal Areas or FATA.

  To expand on that further, I will explain that people who think we 
are not doing enough to capture Osama bin Laden and al-Zawihiri, I 
cannot tell you how it is happening, but it is happening in 
collaboration with our allies. But we have regularly captured or killed 
the operational head of al-Qaida, the No. 3 man. Most recently, Abu 
Laith al-Libby, the operational head, was killed in some kind of bomb 
or missile strike. At the time, of course, he had a U.S. citizen with 
him, apparently, Adam Gadahn, who had been cooperating actively with 
the al-Qaida leadership. Now, it is a fact that Gadahn was a top 
terrorist target. But do you know something. Without having a FISA 
Court order, we were able to go in and kill him--inadvertently, of 
course, but we would not have been, without the FISA law--particularly 
as we have updated it--able to listen in on his conversations. That is 
the one great shortcoming we learned in Iraq when we met with the head 
of our Joint Special Operations Command, GEN Stan McCrystal. He said 
the greatest threat to our troops on the battlefield was not being able 
to listen in on their electronic communications and see what directions 
they were giving to the terrorist groups threatening our troops in 
Iraq. That is why the outmoded, old FISA law we changed with the 
Protect America Act had to be revised.
  In addition to the terrorist threat, there is no question that rogue 
nations around the world continue to seek dangerous weapons that 
threaten America's security. Admiral McConnell also said:

       The ongoing efforts of nation-states and terrorists to 
     develop and acquire dangerous weapons, and the ability to 
     deliver those weapons, constitute the second major threat to 
     our safety. After conducting missile tests and its first 
     nuclear detonation in 2006, North Korea returned to the 
     negotiating table last year.

  We see that North Korea has signed on to the six-party agreement, 
supposedly getting themselves out of the nuclear business, but some of 
us have grave doubts whether he will follow through. We need good 
information on not only the intentions of terrorist groups, such as al-
Qaida, but potentially on nations with nuclear weapons that have 
developed missiles and the ability and the potential of delivering by 
missiles the nuclear weapons against U.S. targets.
  I close on the discussion of the threats by quoting from General 
Hayden, the Director of CIA, who said:

       We face an enemy that is clearly ruthless, but it's also 
     one that's very adaptive, one who shuns traditional 
     hierarchical structures, who learns from mistakes and 
     therefore demands that we be no less resilient and creative.

  Suffice it to say that all of the members of the Intelligence 
Committee said we must have the FISA bill Senator Rockefeller and I 
negotiated and passed out of the Senate Intelligence Committee 13 to 2 
on a strong bipartisan vote. That is what we are here to pass, I hope, 
this coming week and send to the President by the end of the week.
  Admiral McConnell said:

       The authorities granted by the amendments to FISA, the 
     Protect America Act, which temporarily closed some gaps in 
     our ability to conduct foreign intelligence, are critical to 
     our intelligence efforts to protect the nation from current 
     threats. Briefly, some of those important benefits in the 
     bill that was signed last August include: better 
     understanding of international al Qaeda networks, more 
     extensive knowledge of individual networks, including 
     personnel and

[[Page 1819]]

     planning for suicide bombers; and most importantly, greater 
     insight into terrorist planning that has allowed us to 
     disrupt attacks that intended to target U.S. interests.

  He also put in a very strong pitch for the Rockefeller-Bond 
bipartisan bill to extend the FISA through the FISA Amendments Act of 
2008. He thanked us and all the members of the committee for the 
leadership and hard work, and he said:

        . . . and I would emphasize ``over many months''--in 
     drafting and passing draft legislation that governs and 
     enables this community. Your bill--draft bill provides the 
     needed updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

  He also went on to warn against dismantling that bill. He said:

       Over the past several weeks, proposals to modify your draft 
     bill have been discussed. At the request of members, the 
     attorney general and I have submitted a detail letter that 
     addresses each of those issues, and it will be delivered to 
     you this morning. I would ask members to consider the impacts 
     of such proposals on our ability to warn of threats to the 
     homeland security and on our interests abroad.

  We have received that letter. We have quoted from that letter and 
will continue to quote from that letter on amendments which have been 
proposed that the intelligence community believes would hamstring their 
efforts.
  As a sidenote, we were able, working on a bipartisan basis, to 
provide significant new protections for Americans at home and Americans 
abroad who might be engaged in terrorist activities and are working for 
foreign powers as agents or officers or employees. These threats from 
American citizens are sometimes as deadly, as dangerous as threats from 
terrorists abroad. We need to be able to listen in on them.
  Finally, speaking about the civil liability protection for carriers 
which we included, he said:

       Well, I would say, in protecting the homeland it's 
     absolutely essential. In this--it's absolutely essential that 
     we have the support, willing support of communications 
     carriers. In this day and age, our ability to gain 
     intelligence on the plans, the plots of those who wish to 
     attack us is dependent upon us obtaining information relating 
     to cell phones, the Internet, e-mail, wire transfers, all of 
     these areas. My concern is that if we do not have this 
     immunity, we will not have that willing support of the 
     communications carriers.

  That quote was from Robert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, at a hearing.
  General Hayden went on to say:

       These are very fragile relationships. We lost industrial 
     cooperation, at CIA, with partners on the mere revelation of 
     the SWIFT program in public discourse. Not because they were 
     doing anything related to the program whatsoever but just the 
     fear that the vulnerability they would have to their smooth 
     functioning of their business had caused people, who are 
     otherwise patriotic and committed, to back away from their 
     totally lawful cooperation with our agency.

  One other point. When there is talk about substituting the United 
States as a party in litigation brought against carriers alleged to 
have participated, we ought to take into account some very compelling 
comments made yesterday by the distinguished deputy majority leader, 
Senator Durbin of Illinois. He pointed out that the release of a 
supposedly confidential letter from the Department of Justice to the 
Treasury about the operation of one of the major exchanges in Chicago 
had caused a $6 billion drop in the market value of that exchange. That 
means that people holding stock, many of them through pension funds or 
individual accounts, lost a large share of money.
  As I pointed out yesterday, having the substitution of the Government 
for carriers, while it may remove them from the possibility of 
financial liability in a lawsuit, does not prevent significant damage 
to their business relationships here and abroad. The hit on any 
carriers sued under a substitution agreement, even though it is 
supposed to be reviewed in classified session by the CIA--everybody 
around here knows that if carriers are brought before the FISA Court, 
somebody will be talking about it, it will become news. They will 
suffer great harm to their business interests and potentially expose 
their employees and facilities here and abroad to violent attacks by 
terrorists or other radicals who wish to do them harm. As a result, 
those carriers that have cooperated in the past or considered 
cooperating in the past are going to be advised by their general 
counsels that they cannot do so willingly because they would be 
subjecting their employees and their shareholders to great loss. I 
think this is unacceptable. This is why I believe we have a good FISA 
Amendments Act before us, and we need to pass it.
  We look forward to the debates today and Monday and voting on the 
amendments and, I hope, passing the bill on Tuesday so the House will 
have an opportunity to act. It is critical to the defense not only of 
our interests abroad but for the protection of American citizens at 
home that, with the protections we have added in the bill that came out 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, we also have the ability of the 
intelligence community to collect vitally needed intelligence 
information.
  We have learned that tremendously valuable information has been 
collected by high-valued detainees, less than 100 of them that the CIA 
has captured. Less than a third of that 100 have been subjected to 
enhanced interrogation techniques. Three of them, as General Hayden 
outlined, were weatherboarded, and they provided in a cooperative 
spirit the most important information. Beyond that, electronic 
surveillance is the best weapon we have to defend ourselves, to defend 
major population centers, tourist attractions, sporting events, and 
outdoor events from a terrorist attack. I hope all Members will keep 
that in mind as they consider the amendments which will be brought 
before this body on Tuesday for a final vote.
  Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. 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.


       honoring the 98th anniversary of the boy scouts of america

  Mr. McCONNELL. Today marks the 98th anniversary of the founding of 
the Boy Scouts of America. William D. Boyce incorporated the Boy Scouts 
of America, or BSA, on February 8, 1910. Boy Scouting had already been 
established in Great Britain a few years earlier by the father of 
Scouting, General Robert Baden-Powell, when the American William Boyce 
paid a visit to that country. Legend has it that the Chicago publisher 
found himself lost on a foggy London street. A Boy Scout came to his 
aid and led him to his destination. When Boyce offered the boy a tip, 
he refused, saying as a Scout, it was his duty to do a good turn.
  Mr. Boyce was so impressed with the character of this young Scout, 
who remains unknown today, that he was inspired to learn all he could 
about the British organization and create something like it in America.
  Congress granted BSA a charter in 1916. Today, nearly 3 million boys 
and over 1 million adult leaders participate in Boy Scouting. It is one 
of our country's most vital institutions to teach character, leadership 
and civic responsibility to our children. BSA membership since 1910 
totals more than 111 million.
  With programs including Tiger Cubs, Cub Scouting, Webelos, Varsity 
Scouting and Venturing, boys from as young as 7 to as old as 20 have 
the opportunity to participate in Boy Scouting.
  With parents often serving as adult leaders, Boy Scouting is actually 
a family activity. Boys who are successful in Scouting often grow up to 
be successful in life. My colleagues in this Chamber can attest to 
that. We have 35 former Boy Scouts in the Senate of the 110th Congress, 
and 147 in the House of Representatives.
  This Senate has 10 Members who have earned Scouting's highest 
distinction, the rank of Eagle Scout. Every Boy Scout learns in his 
first meeting the Scout law, which states:

       A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, 
     courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean 
     and reverent.

  Our country is stronger because millions of boys have learned those 
words.

[[Page 1820]]

They are the values of Scouting, and they are the values of America.


                       honoring our armed forces

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a soldier who 
gave his life in the performance of his duty. On October 17, 2006, SSG 
Garth D. Sizemore of Mount Sterling, KY, was on patrol in Baghdad when 
he was targeted by a terrorist sniper attack that tragically took his 
life. He was 31 years old.
  Staff Sergeant Sizemore had permission to take some rest and 
relaxation at the base that day, but he bravely volunteered to go on 
patrol. After a first tour of duty in the strife-ridden area of 
Fallujah, Iraq, this was his second tour of duty in that desert 
country.
  For his bravery in uniform, Staff Sergeant Sizemore received numerous 
medals and awards, including the Noncommissioned Officer Professional 
Development Ribbon, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart.
  A fellow soldier once asked Staff Sergeant Sizemore how he felt about 
serving his second tour in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Sizemore replied, ``Hey 
man, I'd rather be at home with my wife, and giving my cat a hard time, 
but if fighting the enemy here in Iraq keeps the enemy from fighting me 
in my own country, then this is where I belong.''
  Staff Sergeant Sizemore had served in the U.S. Army since 1999, and 
both his mother, Carolyn Sizemore, and his father, Glenn Sizemore, are 
veterans.
  Carolyn and Glenn raised a boisterous boy who loved spending time 
outdoors, whether camping, kayaking, or rappelling. He participated in 
Future Farmers of America. He enjoyed rock music and learned how to 
play the guitar. ``He liked being active,'' says Garth's father, Glenn.
  Glenn recalls the time he and a 16-year-old Garth went to a cousin's 
farm to practice pistol shooting. On the way there, Garth told his dad 
that he had dreamed the night before that, while shooting his gun, a 
bullet got stuck in the end of it. That very day, while target 
shooting, the same thing happened to Garth's pistol.
  Glenn never forgot Garth's prophetic dream, and attributed it to his 
Native American heritage on his mother's side. An avid gun collector, 
Garth accumulated many rifles and pistols that he had gathered over the 
years.
  Garth attended Montgomery County High School and later received his 
GED. He attended Morehead State University for a while, and then chose 
to enlist in the U.S. Army as a career. Starting out with the 
mechanized infantry in Fort Hood, TX, Garth quickly advanced.
  ``I loved working with Staff Sergeant Sizemore because he took his 
job very seriously and made sure everyone else took their job seriously 
as well,'' says SSG Raja Richardson.
  ``When young soldiers arrived to the unit, Staff Sergeant Sizemore 
would always remind us by saying, `These young privates don't know 
nothing but what we teach them.' ''
  Staff Sergeant Sizemore took the responsibility of training the men 
under his command very seriously. But that didn't mean his naturally 
engaging personality did not shine through.
  Staff Sergeant Sizemore ``possessed a perfect balance of a work-play 
attitude, which was exactly what the young soldiers of his squad needed 
in training and in combat,'' CPT Michael Baka, his commanding officer. 
``He cared deeply for each and every member of his platoon, soldiers, 
peers and leaders alike.''
  Staff Sergeant Sizemore served with the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry 
Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, based out of 
Schweinfurt, Germany. While stationed in Germany, Garth met Elena, who 
became his bride.
  Sadly, Elena and Garth were married only 18 months before his 
passing.
  My prayers are with Staff Sergeant Sizemore's loved ones today, 
including his wife Elena; his mother Carolyn; his father Glenn; his 
grandmother Alliene Sizemore; his grandmother Dora Caldwell; and many 
other beloved family members and friends.
  Garth's unit, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, was 
known as ``The Dagger Brigade,'' they had endured some of the roughest 
battles in Iraq. Yet Garth never flinched from his duty.
  The Sizemore family held Garth's funeral service in Greenup County, 
KY. Today, his wife Elena has embraced both the State and the Nation 
her husband called home by enrolling at the University of Kentucky and 
making plans to complete an ROTC program and join the U.S. Army.
  This U.S. Senate expresses its deepest gratitude to SSG Garth D. 
Sizemore for his service and sacrifice. Our Nation owes his loving 
family, who still grieve for his loss, a debt that cannot be repaid.


                        sergeant robert w. ehney

  Mr. President, I rise to speak today about a son of Kentucky who was 
lost to us in the desert sands of Iraq. On April 23, 2006, SGT Robert 
W. Ehney of Lexington, KY, perished from injuries sustained when an 
improvised explosive device set by terrorists went off under his Humvee 
in the Iraqi town of Taji. He was 26 years old.
  Sergeant Ehney was serving as the gunner in that Humvee. It was his 
second tour of duty in Iraq; he had served in the U.S. Army for 3 
years. For bravery in time of service, Sergeant Ehney received numerous 
medals and awards, including the Noncommissioned Officer Professional 
Development Ribbon, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Purple Heart.
  ``I am very proud of the man he became,'' says Mary Beth Ehney, Rob's 
mother. ``He was proud of being a good soldier, he was a good father, 
he was a good son, a good brother.''
  Rob's father, William Ehney, worked for Federal Express, and so the 
Ehney family moved around quite a bit when Rob was young. Rob attended 
school in Centennial, CO, among other places.
  Rob took up target shooting as a boy, and continued to enjoy it into 
adulthood. He played baseball, golf and soccer, rode motorcycles and 
was good with computers. Rob loved to listen to music, and before he 
was deployed his family gave him an iPod to take with him as a gift.
  Most of all Rob loved playing with his young son Will, who is now 6 
years old.
  Rob received his GED and then enlisted in the Army in 2003. He 
entered boot camp at age 23, a few years older than most of the other 
recruits, who were 18 or 19. Soon his fellow soldiers gave him the 
affectionate nickname ``Pops.''
  The nickname didn't just refer to Rob's advanced years--Rob took on 
the responsibility of looking after his fellow soldiers. Both his 
mother and dad describe Rob as a caring person who saw his leadership 
skills blossom in the Army.
  ``He told my wife and I that he was concerned about the young guys,'' 
says his father, William.
  ``He wanted to be all macho on the outside but a marshmallow on the 
inside,'' Rob's mother, Mary Beth, adds. ``He was just a kind person.''
  Marshmallow or not, Rob had the bravery befitting a soldier. Once 
when he called his mother from a deployment, Mary Beth could hear 
``ping, ping, ping'' sounds over the phone. ``Oh, that's just snipers 
shooting at us,'' Rob told his mother when she inquired about the 
noise.
  ``Do you want to call me back at a better time?'' Mary Beth asked. 
``No,'' her son replied. ``They can't hit anything anyway.''
  After Rob's death, William and Mary Beth received a letter from 1LT 
James E. Harris IV, Rob's platoon leader in Iraq, telling them just how 
much their son strengthened the entire unit.
  ``He was a rock in this storm we face daily over here,'' First 
Lieutenant Harris wrote. ``It was apparent that many of the younger 
soldiers found calm looking up to `their sergeant' after he lifted 
their spirits and encouraged them to drive on.''
  ``More often than not I would walk away [after talking with Rob], 
ribs hurting from laughing so much,'' First Lieutenant Harris adds. 
``He was the morale of this platoon.''
  Rob had a fiance, Amanda Applegate, and they planned to marry after 
he left active service. Both Rob and Amanda fell in love with Jessamine 
County,

[[Page 1821]]

KY, just south of Lexington, and wanted to make their home there. Rob 
hoped to become a Jessamine County police officer.
  Rob's family held his funeral service in Lexington. The minister for 
the service was the same man who had baptized him, and he told the 
story of how the 6-foot-3 Rob had had to double over in the tank to be 
baptized, and his knees never got wet.
  Mr. President, Rob's loved ones have my deepest sympathies on their 
tragic loss. We are thinking today of his son Will, his mother Mary 
Beth, his father William, his sister Casey, his maternal grandmother 
Bobbi Holst, his maternal grandfather Nicholas Reams, his fiance Amanda 
Applegate, and many other family members and friends. Rob was 
predeceased by his paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. William Ehney, 
Sr.
  Sergeant Ehney's devotion to his duty and his fellow soldiers cannot 
be denied. First Lieutenant Harris expressed this best in his letter to 
Rob's parents. This is what he had to say:
  ``Even though [Rob] did not pass away with his genetic family by his 
side, please know that his brothers were all by his side telling him 
they loved him and that they would carry on for him.''
  Referencing Shakespeare's ``Henry V,'' First Lieutenant Harris 
continued, ``[Rob] believed in the quote, `We few, we happy few, we 
band of brothers . . . for he who sheds his blood with me today shall 
be my brother, and I his.' ''
  No words can make up for the loss that Rob's family, fellow soldiers, 
and dear friends have suffered. But I hope the knowledge that Rob loved 
those who were closest to him--his ``band of brothers''--and that they 
loved him in return provides some relief and comfort.
  This United States Senate bows to SGT Robert W. Ehney's devotion and 
sacrifice. And we offer our deepest gratitude to him and his family for 
all they have given our Nation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


               Florida and Michigan Democratic Delegates

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have two subjects I wish to 
discuss for the Senate. The first is, with the dramatic events shifting 
as we select the nominees for President from our two great parties, we 
potentially have a significant train wreck that may start occurring in 
the Democratic Party as a result of a divisive issue of seating the 
Michigan and Florida delegations to the National Convention because the 
Florida legislature, a legislature that is controlled by the Republican 
Party, passed a bill that moved the Florida primary earlier than the 
date allowed by the Democratic National Committee. In fact, it moved 
it, instead of the deadline of February 5, 1 week earlier to January 
29. The Democratic National Committee then stripped all of Florida's 
delegates to the National Convention.
  Mind you, the bill that was passed was an election reform bill. While 
it was being deliberated in the State legislature of Florida, in fact, 
the Democratic leader of the State senate offered an amendment to take 
out January 29 and instead put it back to February 5, which would have 
complied with the Democratic National Committee's request and rules. 
That amendment by the Democratic leader of the State senate was 
defeated. The bill then went on to pass because it was an election 
reform bill having to do with the functioning of election machines in 
Florida, something about which we are quite sensitive in our State as a 
result of our electoral history.
  As a result, the Democratic National Committee took great umbrage at 
this and instead of their rules providing that they would take away 
half of Florida's delegates to the National Convention, they took away 
all of Florida's delegates and, in fact, the first four privileged 
States that were allowed to have primaries or caucuses prior to 
February 5--namely, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina--
extracted a pledge from all the Democratic candidates for President 
that said they would not campaign in the State of Florida. They honored 
that pledge.
  The election was held pursuant to State law, a law passed by the 
legislature and signed into law by a Governor who happens to be 
Republican. Because of that, Florida is being penalized by the national 
committee by not having any delegates.
  In the meantime, the State of Michigan, under a Democratic 
legislature, signed into law by a Democratic Governor, moved their 
primary up to January 15. They had their primary January 15. Likewise, 
the Democratic National Committee took away their delegates to the 
National Convention. But the difference was that only a couple of the 
Presidential candidates' names were on the ballot because of a Michigan 
law that allows the candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot 
when, in fact, the Florida law does not allow that. The Florida 
election, on January 29, had all of the candidates on the ballot.
  Here is the coming train wreck: If one of our two leading candidates 
does not get a majority by the time all the primaries and the caucuses 
are over, with the last one being the South Dakota primary on June 3, 
if that does not decide who is the winner of the Presidential 
sweepstakes of being the Democratic nominee, then we go into a period 
during June, July, and all the way to the end of August at the 
Democratic National Convention, a period of enormous uncertainty and 
turmoil--first of all, the turmoil of whether the superdelegates, who 
are generally the members of the DNC, the congressional delegations, 
both House and Senate, and the Governors, who are all unpledged as for 
whom they would vote, so they would be getting in their back rooms and 
deciding, and the turmoil of what to do with Florida and Michigan's 
delegations.
  Why is this important? It is certainly important to this Senator, the 
senior Senator from Florida, because in fact, not only did Florida 
voters turn out on January 29 for the primary, they turned out in 
record numbers. About 1.8 million Florida Republicans turned out, and 
the Republican National Committee was penalizing Florida Republicans, 
not by taking away all of the delegates to the National Convention but 
by only taking away half. Over 1.7 million Florida Democrats turned out 
to vote, and they expressed their will.
  The turmoil is what to do about the seating of the Michigan and 
Florida delegations. Just recently, the chairman of the Democratic 
National Committee, an esteemed, very distinguished former Governor of 
Vermont, Governor Dean, our chairman of the party, as reported in the 
New York Post a couple of days ago, was proffering maybe having a new 
caucus in Michigan and Florida as a way of selecting the delegates to 
the National Convention from those two States. But, Mr. President, you 
cannot undo an election with a caucus, and especially you cannot undo 
an election where 1.7 million Florida Democrats have gone to vote in a 
secret ballot and replace it with a caucus that maybe 50,000 people 
would show up. It is a basic underpinning of our democracy, and it is a 
basic underpinning of a constitutional right to vote and to have that 
vote counted.
  So what do we do? I am certainly amenable for anyone who has a 
suggestion to get us out of the potential train wreck because the 
potential train wreck could well be that if the Florida and Michigan 
delegations are not seated at the National Convention in August, those 
are two key States that only 2 months thereafter would be voting on who 
is going to be the next President of the United States.

[[Page 1822]]

  So with this speech, I am making a plea to all of our colleagues in 
the Senate and beyond to try to find an accommodation in which the 
right to vote and to have that vote counted can be respected, 
especially in the State of Florida where all of the candidates' names 
were on the ballot.
  That is the first issue about which I wanted to talk.


                      International Space Station

  The second issue about which I want to talk, and I want to put on my 
hat as the chairman of the Space Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, is the importance of the International Space Station of 
which the space shuttle launched yesterday successfully. And it was a 
magnificent launch. They are now closing in on orbit onto the 
International Space Station. They are taking up a European module that 
will be an important component of this International Space Station. 
This International Space Station is two football fields long--this 
thing is huge--about 325 miles up, orbiting the Earth at 17,500 miles 
per hour.
  The International Space Station was created as a multibillion-dollar 
facility to do research internationally. One of the major experiments 
for which NASA has yet to find space on the space shuttle to fly and be 
attached to the space station is the alpha magnetic spectrometer. This 
is an international consortium of some 20 countries and 50 universities 
around the world. It is being built as we speak. It is almost 
completed. It is being built in Geneva, Switzerland. It is looked upon 
as a scientific experiment that possibly several Nobel prizes will come 
as a result.
  But we have to get it up there, Mr. President. And the NASA 
Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, is saying: No, we don't have space 
on the space shuttle. This alpha magnetic spectrometer was designed to 
fly in the cargo bay of the space shuttle. It takes up about 25 percent 
of the cargo bay of one space shuttle flight. The Administrator, in 
detailed testimony in front of our committee, with this Senator 
questioning him, said he doesn't have space. He said he had a couple of 
contingency flights, after all the other flights are allocated.
  Remember, the Administrator of NASA says his plan is to shut down the 
space shuttle in September of 2010--and oh, by the way, we don't have a 
rocket ready that can start flying thereafter. The latest estimate is 
there would be a 5-year gap, until 2015, in order to fly an American 
rocket with humans--called Aries--with a capsule called Orion.
  Well, what do we do in the meantime? NASA is planning that we are 
going to pay for Russian Soyez vehicles. Well, what is the geopolitics 
going to be in the year 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, before we 
will have a human-capable rocket to get to the international space 
station? We are going to pay for Russian vehicles? In other words, we 
are going to lay off NASA employees and contractors in order to buy 
Russian vehicles in a geopolitical setting, and we don't even know what 
our relationship with Russia is going to be in the year 2011. If it 
isn't particularly good, what is the cost of that, or what is the 
ability of them to say: Nyet, we are not going to sell you a ride on a 
Russian Soyez vehicle. Now, that is the danger.
  So NASA is going to complete the construction of the space station. 
It has two contingency flights. I said: Well, why are they contingent?
  I asked that of Dr. Griffin, the Administrator of NASA, and he said: 
Well, they have additional equipment for the space station, and they 
have extra spare parts we want to put up.
  So I said: Well, then, you mean they are not contingent.
  He says: Yes, I guess you are right, they are not contingent. But he 
says: We don't have space to fly the alpha magnetic spectrometer.
  What does this experiment do that all of these universities and all 
of these nations are so interested in getting it up there so they can 
go to work? What it does is it identifies the origin of cosmic rays, 
and that means it can help us understand the origin of the universe. 
This is not just an American experiment, this is an international 
experiment of countries around the world. This is a part of us wanting 
to understand our beginnings. This is a part of our nature, as a 
people, to want to explore the heavens and understand the universe.
  This is an essential part of our space program, but the NASA 
Administrator says he doesn't have space to fly it on the space shuttle 
and he is going to shut down the space shuttle in September or October 
of 2010. He said: You will have to put it over onto an expendable 
rocket, and that won't be for another 5 years. And instead of it being 
25 percent of the cargo bay of a space shuttle, for an additional cost 
of about $100 million, he is putting it over here on an expendable 
rocket, 5 years later, that is going to cost between $500 million and 
$800 million. Now, that is not a good tradeoff.
  So how do we get it onto the space shuttle before they shut down the 
space shuttle? There are three flights where this could be done. STS-
129, which is set to go in August of 2009, has two express logistics 
carriers. In fact, you could reconfigure that flight or another flight 
in July of 2010. You could reconfigure those two flights by taking some 
of the payloads on those express logistics carriers and creating space 
of 25 percent of the cargo bay and put on this critical experiment--the 
alpha magnetic spectrometer; or in the flight that is to go on February 
2010, STS-131, you could take the integrated cargo carrier vertical 
light deployable and a docking cargo module, you could take that flight 
and you could reconfigure that integrated cargo carrier vertical light 
deployable and create space for the alpha magnetic spectrometer. That 
would allow the space shuttle to launch 8,800 pounds of these orbital 
replacement units, plus the ICCVLD to the international space station 
on the same flight as this critical experiment--the alpha magnetic 
spectrometer.
  Now, why am I saying this? Because these are the specialists at the 
centers of NASA around the country who are saying this can be done. The 
Administrator tells our committee it can't be done, but it can. So I am 
making a plea. And it is not just this Senator because seated right by 
me is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, during that hearing late 
last year, making the plea as well. In a bipartisan way, we made the 
plea to NASA to reconfigure those last several flights to find room for 
the AMS because if you don't, Dr. Griffin, if you don't, NASA, you are 
going to kill this experiment that has enormous support in the 
international scientific community, all of which is the very reason for 
having an international space station up there in the first place--to 
do scientific research.
  I hope all of the management of NASA will do a recomputing. My 
tremendous congratulations to them. And Dr. Griffin knows I have been a 
supporter of his as he has turned around NASA, as he has taken very 
difficult times after the destruction of the last space shuttle 
Columbia, and he has brought back NASA with a professionalism that is 
the hallmark of NASA. The launch yesterday was another example of that 
professionalism, with that space shuttle closing in, as I speak, on the 
international space station to rendezvous, to dock, to deliver that 
European module, and to continue to equip that international space 
station to do what it was designed to do--scientific research.
  Let's complete that task before the space shuttle is shut down by 
finding space on the manifest to fly the AMT--the alpha magnetic 
spectrometer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.


                      Russians Help Build Reactor

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is great to be with my colleague, 
Senator Nelson. His great knowledge of space and military defense 
issues is very valuable to this country. He chairs the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces in the Armed Services Committee, in addition to his 
NASA work on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. I 
value his leadership and expertise, and I am going to share some 
thoughts that dovetail nicely with one of the points he was making 
about U.S. reliance on Russia as a legitimate partner.

[[Page 1823]]

  We desired and hoped as a nation that the fall of the Soviet Union 
would usher in a new period of cooperation with Russia. We hoped they 
would be a legitimate partner with us in improving both of our nations, 
and the world. We have the capability to create a partnership that can 
foster progress, prosperity, and peace in the world. But the reality is 
that a lot of things are happening to cause us great concern. We as a 
nation are going to have to face up to the fact that the Russians are 
not reliable. They may not be reliable as a partner in space; they 
certainly are not reliable in helping to contain the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons.
  So we have some big issues facing us, and I thank the Senator from 
Florida for at least raising that point about space.
  Let me quote from yesterday's New York Times, an article by Matthew 
Wald entitled: ``U.S.-Backed Russian Institutes Help Iran Build 
Reactor.'' The headline alone is hard to believe.
  This article begins:

       The Energy Department is subsidizing two Russian nuclear 
     institutes that are building important parts of a reactor in 
     Iran whose construction the United States spent years trying 
     to stop, according to a House committee.

  The article goes on:

       The institutes, both in Nizhny Novgorod, gave American 
     officials copies of sales presentations that listed the 
     Bushehr reactor, which Russia has agreed to fuel, as one of 
     their projects. One institute is providing control systems, 
     including control room equipment, and the other hundreds of 
     pumps and ventilation fans. The Energy Department is 
     subsidizing the institutes under the Initiatives for 
     Proliferation Prevention, a program set up in 1994 after the 
     collapse of the Soviet Union. The program was intended to 
     prevent newly impoverished scientists and their institutions 
     from selling expertise to States or terrorist groups that 
     want nuclear weapons.

  A good goal, for sure.
  The article goes on:

       The United States supplements the salaries of scientists 
     and pays overhead at those institutes, according to the House 
     Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. It was not 
     immediately clear whether the Energy Department was 
     contributing to the salaries of the very scientists involved 
     in the Bushehr reactor project. Two Michigan Democrats--
     Representatives John D. Dingell, chairman of the House 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak, chairman 
     of the Committee's Oversight and Investigations 
     Subcommittee--asked that question in a letter sent on 
     Wednesday to the Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

  The article quotes their letter saying this:

       What policy logic justifies the Department of Energy 
     funding Russian institutes which are providing nuclear 
     technology to Iran?

  Pretty good question. It goes on to ask this additional question:

       How does this advance our nonproliferation goals?
  So I salute our House colleagues, Democratic Chairman Dingell and 
Congressman Stupak for asking these questions. The U.S. is going to 
have to grow up and acknowledge some things are happening within Russia 
that are not positive. We wish it were not so. We wish we could be in 
better shape with Russia today, and it is most discouraging and 
troubling that we are not.
  I had the opportunity to visit the Nizhny Novgorod region in the 
early 1990s before I was a Senator. We spent about 2 weeks there living 
with some wonderful Russian people. It was an exceedingly informative 
and wonderful trip and I value the relationships we built at that time.
  But the Government of Russia is on a dangerous track now, I am 
afraid. We might as well begin to talk about it. Congressmen Dingell 
and Stupak's letter notes that in October 2007, the National 
Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded:

       Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of 
     technical capabilities that could be applied to producing 
     nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so.

  If we will remember, the National Intelligence Estimate was written 
by a committee headed by State Department persons, not professional 
intelligence officers, who concluded that the Iranians were not 
attempting to build a nuclear bomb. But in that report they did note 
that Tehran is pushing forward aggressively with creating a nuclear 
reactor to generate electricity, despite the fact that Iran sits on an 
untold wealth of natural gas and oil. Also, the report buried the fact 
that learning how to enrich fuel for use in nuclear reactors is by far 
the most important step in building a nuclear bomb. If you can handle 
that problem, it takes you very little time to create a nuclear weapon.
  Mr. Dingell and Mr. Stupak go on to quote Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice in 2006 saying:

       The United States faces no greater challenge from a single 
     country than from Iran.

  So the Congressmen say this in their letter to Secretary of Energy 
Bodman:

       Given these dire warnings, it is troubling that the 
     Department of Energy would subsidize or otherwise support 
     Russian entities providing technology and services to the 
     Iranian nuclear program.

  I would agree. This is not the first time this issue has been 
discussed. In December 21 of last year, Henry Sokolski, executive 
director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, wrote in the 
Weekly Standard online that:

       Perhaps the only thing more disappointing than Moscow's 
     shipment this week of lightly enriched uranium to fuel the 
     power reactor in Bushehr in Iran was Bush's endorsement of 
     it.

  Mr. Sokolski quoted President Bush as saying:

       If the Russians are willing to do that, [supply the 
     uranium,] which I support, then the Iranians do not need to 
     learn how to enrich.

  So this apparently is a continuation of a State Department tendency 
to excuse problems with Iran and Russia. And the President apparently 
was making a comment consistent with that view. The article goes on to 
state:

       Technically, this will only bring Tehran closer to getting 
     a bomb. If the fuel is diverted and used as fresh feed for 
     Iran's uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz it could 
     dramatically reduce the time and effort needed to make a 
     bomb's worth of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

  Russia shipped 82 tons of lightly enriched uranium. At any time while 
it is loading the fuel, Tehran can seize it and have enough uranium to 
feed its centrifuges at Natanz to make up to 150 crude nuclear weapons.
  Former Under Secretary of State, John Bolton, repeatedly detailed his 
concern over Russo-Iranian cooperation in testimony and speeches. Now 
that he has left the Department, it looks as though people have decided 
to sweep the matter under the rug.
  For an illustration of how dramatically our policy as shifted since 
Mr. Bolton's departure, listen to this statement from a State 
Department press briefing in January 2003:
  ``We believe that President Putin shares our deep concern at the 
prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We have made clear to Russia that any 
further nuclear cooperation with Iran, including construction of 
additional power reactors, will assist directly or indirectly Iran's 
ambitious request for nuclear weapons.''
  So back in 2003, we were more alert to the danger posed by the 
Bushehr project, and we were stating the unvarnished facts about it. 
This kind of activity could only assist, directly or indirectly, Iran's 
ambitious quest for nuclear weapons.
  The State Department spokesman went on to say:

       We underscored to Russia that an end to Russia's nuclear 
     assistance to Iran would allow the United States and Russia 
     to reap the full promise of our new strategic relationship, 
     benefitting Russia economically and strategically far more 
     than any short-term gain from construction of additional 
     reactors or other sensitive transfers to Iran.

  And then he went on to suggest and state:

       If the Russians end their sensitive cooperation with Iran, 
     we have indicated we would be prepared to favorably consider 
     such transfers of spent fuel back to Russia--

  That now cannot be done legally without our accord--

     an arrangement worth potentially several billion U.S. dollars 
     in revenue to Moscow.

  So we had a carrot and a stick there. It looks as if it was not a 
very good offer because the Russians did not accept it. They completed 
their work at Bushehr.
  Now, with regard to the question of the National Intelligence 
Estimate on Iran, I believe that it created the very damaging false 
impression that the Iranians had no interest in going forward

[[Page 1824]]

with creating a nuclear weapon. That was the headline that the press 
drew out of it. The Estimate, I believe, was written and designed to 
create that headline. And the people who wrote it should be held to 
account for the misapprehension they have created.
  The NIE was done by a team under Director of National Intelligence, 
Admiral Michael McConnell, and I guess he did review it, as did General 
Michael Hayden at CIA. But neither one of them personally signed it as 
an absolute position of the DNI or the CIA. Admiral McConnell testified 
about this report at a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing 
the day before yesterday. He said this:

       If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would 
     change a few things.

  He later added:

       I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear 
     program. I would have included that there are the component 
     parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, 
     had halted.

  The portion of their nuclear weapons program that was halted was the 
portion which the intelligence community deemed least important; the 
most important part is still ongoing. I say that to say we are not in 
some academic exercise here. We are dealing with a rogue state, Iran, 
that has been determined to obtain nuclear weapons and has been working 
on it for years. The Iranians are receiving assistance from the 
Russians who, in turn, are receiving support and cooperation from us.
  We are going to have to talk about this a good bit more as time goes 
by. But a lot of things are happening that are very troubling. As I 
said, I wish it were not so. For example, the Iranians tested a 
satellite launch vehicle earlier this week. On February 4, the 
Jerusalem Post reported that a successful satellite launch by the 
Iranians would lead to ``a dramatic improvement in their missile 
capability.'' Ahmadinejad was present at the launch site and gave 
orders to launch the rocket himself.
  This is what he said:

       Our presence in space is a necessity. Any country that 
     respects itself should control the most advanced technology.

  Does that include nuclear weapons?

       We are grateful to God for witnessing the first and 
     determined step toward an Iranian satellite.

  The Iranians are spending a lot of their money on satellites and 
weapons systems and even nuclear weapons. That is a fact. So we are 
going to have to reevaluate our relationship with Russia in light of 
their ongoing assistance to Iran. That is a fact. I wish that things 
were different. They are not.
  It is worth noting that there has been a string of belligerent and 
unwise actions by the Russians recently.
  For example, in January of 2006, they cut off natural gas supplies to 
the Ukraine, a deliberate act to try to pressure the Ukraine's--their 
former satellite.
  In May of 2007, Russian cyber-attacks shut down the Internet 
throughout Estonia, a former Russian satellite, now independent. 
Estonia has no desire whatsoever to be back as a part of the Soviet 
Union.
  In August of 2007, Russian jet fighters invaded the airspace of the 
Republic of Georgia and dropped a missile on Georgian territory. 
Georgia is a free nation with elections and a highly intelligent 
leadership team, many of whom were educated in the United States. They 
absolutely have no desire to fall under the sway of the Russians again.
  But this is the way that Putin behaves. Russia has supported the 
Georgian separatist movement. They have actively supported anti-Western 
opposition in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. They are ramping up their 
military spending dramatically when there is no perceived increase in 
the threat to Russia. What serious argument can be suggested that 
Russia is under military threat? From the EU? We cannot even get the EU 
to pull the trigger in Afghanistan.
  Some of them will not even carry guns. They are not threatening 
Russia.
  In the summer of 2007, Russia started bomber flights outside its 
territory encroaching on the airspace of the United Kingdom, Norway, 
and Guam. In September of 2007, Russia loudly announced the test of a 
superstrength conventional bomb. In October of 2007, Putin announced a 
``grandiose plan'' to restore Russia's Armed Forces and develop new 
nuclear weapons. While we are dramatically reducing the number of 
nuclear weapons in our country, they are developing brand new weapons 
and testing missiles to evade U.S. missile defenses.
  What about their relationship with Iran? Putin visited Iran in 
October and pledged enhanced Russian-Iranian cooperation, including on 
nuclear energy. Russia resumed work on the Bushehr reactor and provided 
Iran with enriched uranium to fuel it. Moscow also conducted major arms 
sales with Iran, China, Syria, and Venezuela, including fighter 
aircraft and antiaircraft missiles. With the Chinese, Russia has used 
the threat of a veto to water down and block meaningful U.N. action on 
Iran's illicit nuclear program.
  One of the oddest Russian behaviors is their decision to trump up an 
issue over our perfectly legitimate and reasonable decision to build a 
missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin says 
that our decision to go forward with this project is a tremendous 
threat to Russia, but there will only be ten defensive missiles 
stationed there. The interceptors are not designed in any way to defeat 
a Russian attack, which would involve hundreds of nuclear weapons. But, 
no, they are trumping up a dispute between the United States and Europe 
and Russia over this. Some say it is for domestic political consumption 
to help Putin consolidate his power. Whatever the reason, it is not 
healthy. This Nation has to wake up and be able to understand that 
Russia, fueled by all this new oil money and an increasingly autocratic 
regime under Mr. Putin, is not a healthy partner. We have to ask some 
real questions. Are they going to be a legitimate partner for a better 
world?
  This article in yesterday's New York Times was very troubling to me 
and represents another example of confused thinking that may exist 
within the bowels of our Government regarding our relationship with 
Russia and with Iran. We have to be realistic and honest and accept the 
fact that things are not going well, that in many ways Russian activity 
grows darker and darker and less and less positive. They continue to 
expand their relationships with rogue states and bad actors, and 
frustrate the legitimate actions of the developing world to create a 
more prosperous economy and more peaceful world. We will probably talk 
about this more as time goes by. We might as well start right now, 
questioning how reliable Russia is as a partner.
  Should we be participating in space programs with the Russians? 
Frankly, it has cost us more than we have gained from their assistance, 
experts say. So this partnership has mainly been a good way for the 
Russians to gain insight into our technologies, but it has not been an 
advantage to our space program. If we don't watch it, we will be 
dependent on them in a way that can keep us from following through on 
our goals for space.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Waterboarding

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to try 
to clarify an issue that has caused a lot of concern for years now. It 
has now come to a conclusion, and I am glad it has. I am glad to learn 
waterboarding has not been used but three times by our country and has 
not been used in almost 5 years. From the reports and statements made 
by Members of Congress and extreme groups around the world, one would 
think we have had a systematic effort to waterboard people and 
otherwise torture and abuse them. Only one prisoner has died since they 
have been in U.S. custody since the beginning of the war on terror. We 
treat them very well. I have been to Guantanamo Bay on more than one 
occasion.

[[Page 1825]]

I have seen how interviews are conducted. So have large numbers of our 
body.
  As I indicated in earlier remarks, we wish the world were safer than 
it is. Unfortunately, it is not as safe as we would like. Those of us 
sitting comfortably at home forget the real threats out there. We tend 
to forget there are determined groups who want to attack the United 
States as they did on 9/11 and kill our people. This is an unpleasant 
task. When confronted on the battlefield, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we 
shoot them and we kill them and we drop bombs on them and we kill them 
because these are life-and-death matters that Congress has authorized. 
I wish that were not necessary. I know it is a failure of us in some 
form or fashion. But as a practical person, we know no other 
alternative than to defend ourselves. We are required to do that.
  I was reading an article from the Mr. R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., in the 
Washington Times today. He talks about what Admiral McConnell, the 
Director of National Intelligence, said a few days ago in hearings. 
Director McConnell said:

       The number of terrorist attacks and deaths were greater 
     than in the past six years combined.

  He was talking about the battle for Pakistan and its survival.
  The article states:

       Another [statement] from Mr. McConnell . . . is that al 
     Qaeda plans more attacks against the United States and was 
     working on a plan for attacking the White House as recently 
     as 2006. Homegrown al Qaeda cells here have been primitive, 
     but Mr. McConnell registered his concern that new, more 
     sophisticated cells might threaten us domestically in the 
     years ahead.

  And that is a fair summary, I think, of Admiral McConnell's comments.
  Since we have now openly talked about the waterboarding question, and 
Members of Congress and the public have now gotten the information, I 
think we need to make sure we know exactly how those three occurrences 
developed.
  The first thing we know is it worked. I hate to say, it worked. No. 
2, the Agency--only the CIA used water-
boarding; never the U.S. military, never the Department of Defense; not 
in Iraq, not in Afghanistan--it was never utilized by our military, but 
the Central Intelligence Agency on three occasions since September 11.
  As the article says, they utilized it only on those:

       [T]error leaders who have posed the utmost threat to our 
     [national] security, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, [who was the] 
     mastermind of [the] attack on our warship the USS Cole in a 
     neutral port.

  We had hearings in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a 
member, about that dastardly attack. And I remember about a year after 
the Cole was attacked--where we had 18 American sailors killed by this 
vicious attack; and it could have been a lot more--the Navy 
commissioned a ship down at Norfolk, VA; and as we walked out of the 
ceremony, a young sailor hollered out--and it still makes my hair stand 
up--``Remember the Cole.''
  Well, we got the perpetrator, and justice was done.

       Abu Zubaydah, [who was] the brains behind the thwarted 
     millennium attacks--

  That we were able to block--

     and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed September 11. . . .

  The attacks on September 11. KSM, that is his name now for the 
professionals, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
  So I believe the Attorney General of the United States, after 
researching this matter carefully, and after our intelligence agencies 
gave it thoughtful review, concluded we do not need to have 
waterboarding now, that these three instances were justified.
  Attorney General Mukasey, a former Federal judge--approved 
overwhelmingly by the Senate--was asked to make an opinion on 
waterboarding. He said he believed those actions were justified under 
those circumstances, and he would not say we would never ever do it 
again in the future. He said circumstances would determine how you 
handle those kinds of situations.
  Let me note, again, for a lot of people, these are not honest and 
legitimate soldiers of a nation state. The people who are subjected to 
this procedure are persons who are unlawful combatants. They are 
persons who do not fight according to the rules of war, and they do not 
wear uniforms. They deliberately attack civilian personnel. They do it 
through subterfuge and violence, and their goals are outside all rules 
of warfare. Until some recent cases, they were clearly considered not 
to be provided any protections under the Geneva Conventions.
  So I will say, Madam President, we hate to talk about these things. 
We wish we did not face the kind of threats from the diabolical 
terrorists that we do. We wish we did not have to go to war and shoot 
and kill many of them. But we, as a nation--the Congress; both 
parties--have authorized that activity. We fund that activity. Our 
soldiers are out there putting their lives on the line at this very 
moment to execute that policy, placing themselves in harm's way.
  I am glad the Attorney General has reviewed it carefully. I am glad 
he is able to say waterboarding was utilized only three times, that it 
had not been used in 5 years. But I am glad he also said he would not 
say it would never be done again. This would be unwise advice to the 
enemy we face.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk 
pursuant to the order relative to S. 2248.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2248, the 
     FISA bill.
         Harry Reid, Charles E. Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Thomas R. Carper, Ken Salazar, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, John D. Rockefeller IV, Richard 
           Durbin, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., E. Benjamin Nelson, Evan Bayh, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote occur upon disposition of 
the remaining amendments pursuant to the previous order and that the 
mandatory quorum be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________