John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Sam Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. The American people, in public opinion polls we have seen reported in the newspapers, indicate they also want Judge Alito on the Supreme Court. Yet we are here today, after extended debate, because there are a handful of Senators who are determined to stop Judge Alito's nomination from even receiving an up-or-down vote. Hence, at 4:30 we will have a vote on cloture, whether to close debate. It is my sincere hope that at least 60 Senators will vote to close debate so tomorrow morning we can have that up-or-down vote that this nominee deserves and that the Constitution requires. There really is no pretense that this tactic of delay for delay's sake is needed for extended debate. Judge Alito was nominated months ago, and we have been debating this nomination without interruption since last Wednesday. Not only has Judge Alito been investigated by the FBI but also by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. He has been investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, and been through extended televised hearings. The fact is, even the minority leader, the Democrat leader, conceded ``[t]here's been adequate time for people to debate'' this nomination. So this is delay for delay's sake. Fortunately, there is no indication this delay tactic will succeed. Judge Alito's supporters in this body are so numerous that everyone has conceded--even the minority, who is determined to try to filibuster this nomination, concedes the filibuster attempt is futile and this nominee will be confirmed. So what could possibly be the motivation? The Senator from Missouri, who just spoke before me, alluded to this. I think it is common knowledge that it really is outside interest groups that are putting, in some cases, irresistible pressure on Senators to oppose this nomination, even though they realize the delay and the potential filibuster are futile. These are groups that have declared--and I quote, in one instance--``you name it, we'll do it'' to defeat Judge Alito. I am very sorry that some of my colleagues have fallen under the spell of some of these groups. In my view, it is wrong to place the wishes of these interest groups before the wishes of the American people. I think it is also a mistake to waste the valuable time of the Senate, time we could be using to address other real and urgent needs that no doubt the President will address tomorrow night in his State of the Union speech and which are well known to each of us here. We have more important things to do than to stage events to facilitate fundraising by special interest groups. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up against the interest groups and to put the American people first by voting against the filibuster. I also continue to be struck by the lengths some will go in order to defeat this good man and good judge. This raises the question of ``Why?'' Why do liberal special interest groups and their allies in this body oppose Judge Alito so vehemently? I believe, at bottom, the reason they oppose his nomination is because he has refused to do their bidding. After all, Judge Alito is a judge who believes in judicial restraint, who understands the differences between the roles judges and legislators--elected representatives of the people--are to play in our government. He believes judges should respect the legislative choices made by the American people through their representatives. And he believes, as I do, judges have no warrant to impose their own beliefs on the rest of us under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. It is sad but true that the prospect of a Supreme Court Justice who will respect the legislative choices of the American people scares the living daylights out of these interest groups and their allies. Why? Because the legislative choices of the American people are not the legislative choices of these interest groups. There are some in this country who are entitled to their opinion but whose views are so extreme they will never prevail at the ballot box. The only way they could possibly hope to get their views enacted into law would be to circumvent the Democratic process and pack the courts with judicial activists who will impose their views on the rest of us. What are these views? Well, one organization I think makes the point. The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. They represent child pornographers because they believe that child pornography is free speech. Yet at the same time, they litigate against schoolchildren who want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it invokes ``one nation under God.'' They believe the Constitution protects the right to end the life of a partially born child. Yet at the same time, they believe the Constitution does not protect marriage between only one man and one woman. They seem to believe that criminals have more rights than victims. And they believe that terrorists should receive special rights never before afforded to enemy combatants during a time of war. This is the hard left's version of America. It is a place where criminals and terrorists run free on technicalities, where pornographers may speak but people of faith must keep quiet, where traditional values are replaced by social experimentation. The liberal special interest groups and those who agree with them in this body to oppose Judge Alito do so because Judge Alito's America is not the hard left's America. What, then, is Judge Alito's America? Well, I found one of the best answers to that question in, of all places, the New York Times. On January 12, one of their columnists, David Brooks, wrote a column that captures perfectly the differences between Judge Alito's America and the America envisioned by some on the hard left. He wrote: If he'd been born a little earlier, Sam Alito probably would have been a Democrat. In the 1950s, the middle-class and lower-middle-class whites in places like Trenton, N.J., where Alito grew up, were the heart and soul of the Democratic party. But by the late 1960s, cultural politics replaced New Deal politics, and liberal Democrats did their best to repel Northern white ethnic voters. Big-city liberals launched crusades against police brutality, portraying working class cops as thuggish storm troopers for the establishment. The liberals were doves; the ethnics were hawks. The liberals had ``Question Authority'' bumper stickers; the ethnics had been taught in school to respect authority. The liberals thought that an unjust society caused poverty; the ethnics believed in working their way out of poverty. Sam Alito emerged from his middle-class neighborhood about that time, made it to Princeton and found ``very privileged people behaving irresponsibly.'' Alito wanted to learn; the richer liberals wanted to strike. He wanted to join the ROTC; the liberal Princetonians expelled that organization from campus. He was orderly and respectful; they were disorderly and disrespectful. Mr. Brooks continues: If there is one lesson from the Alito hearings, it is that the Democratic Party continues to repel [middle-class white] voters just as vigorously as ever. If you listened to the questions of [Republicans], you heard [Senators] exercised by the terror drug dealers can inflict on their neighborhoods. If you listened to the [Democrats], you heard [Senators] exercised by the terror law enforcement officials can inflict on a neighborhood. If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals. If you listened to [Republicans], you heard [Senators] alarmed by the threats posed by anti-American terrorists. If you listened to [Democrats], you heard Senators alarmed by the threats posed by American counterterrorists. If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the [NSA]. He concluded: Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class ethic. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest. In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent. In a culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to emote. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and authority. I read a lengthy excerpt from Mr. Brooks' column because I could not have said it better. This is Judge Alito's America. It is a place where if we err at all, we err on the side of the law, not on the side of those who break the law, where we fight terrorists, not those who try to stop those terrorists, where we work hard to get ahead, where we are more interested in getting the job done than getting credit for it. In other words, these are the middle-class traditional values of America, Sam Alito's America, and, I believe, our America. They are now apparently so foreign to many in the Democratic Party, particularly the liberal interest groups that seem to agitate for delay for delay's sake and to block an up-or-down vote on this nomination, that they will stop at nothing to oppose someone such as Judge Alito who embodies those values. You name it, whether smears, distortions or even denying the decency of an up-or-down vote, and some will do it. Judge Alito's treatment by this hard core of left-leaning groups and their supporters says more about them than it does Judge Alito. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also have in my other hand a series of editorials, starting with a Dallas Morning News editorial entitled ``Confirm Alito.'' These are all editorials from newspapers around the country recommending that this body confirm Judge Alito. I ask unanimous consent that these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted for the remainder of the 109th Congress to Reed O'Connor, a detailee from the Department of Justice who works on my Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Citizenship.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, before I make the remarks I have prepared about Judge Alito, I extend my gratitude to members of my staff who, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, have been so instrumental in my ability to prepare for this confirmation process. In particular, I note the contribution of Brian Fitzpatrick, who has been a member of my staff and worked on both the Roberts and Alito Supreme Court nominations. He is leaving next week after Judge Alito is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as he will be, to go teach at NYU, New York University. NYU's gain is our loss. I certainly wish Brian well in his new career. I put him on notice that the next vacancy that President Bush gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am going to be calling him and asking him to come back for another gig. Madam President, I rise today to explain why I intend to vote to confirm Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who were just listening to the eloquent words of the distinguished Democratic whip might wonder how in the world anybody could ever vote for this nominee; how Judge Alito survived for the last 15 years serving as a member of the circuit court of appeals in Philadelphia without getting impeached; how in the world his former law clerks, the people who have worked most closely with the judge, and who happened to be Democrats and have a different political view, a different world view, a different agenda, could come in as they did before the Senate Judiciary Committee and extol the qualifications and temperament of this fine public servant and this fine human being; or how, possibly, in listening to the criticisms we have heard of this nominee and of the President for having the temerity to nominate him, you can reconcile that impression with the fact that we heard on the Senate Judiciary Committee virtually all of the current and former members of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who have worked closely with Judge Alito day in and day out, who to a person came in and said this is exactly the kind of judge we would want and we think the American people would have a right to expect, and urged us to favorably vote on his confirmation. It is clear to me, though, during the course of the confirmation process, that the reason I support Judge Alito his philosophy of judicial restraint is exactly the reason his detractors oppose his nomination. The sad fact is that there are some in this country who don't want judges who respect the legislative choices made by the American people. Rather, they want judges who will substitute their own personal ideological or political agenda for those choices made in the Halls of Congress by the elected representatives of the American people. There are some in this country who have views that are so out of the mainstream that they don't have any chance to persuade the American people to accept them. For example, there are some who want to end traditional marriage between one man and one woman. There are some who want to continue the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Some even want to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance. But they know if they brought some of those issues to the floor of the Senate and to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, these are not the views that would be expressed through the elected representatives of the American people because the American people themselves don't agree with these far left, out-of-the-mainstream views. For these advocates of these out-of-the-mainstream views, the only way they will ever see their views enacted into law is to circumvent the American people and pack the courts with judges who will impose their agenda on the American people. They believe in judicial activism because judicial activism is all they have. Of course, Judge Alito's detractors will never say they believe in judicial activism. They know the American people don't favor it. They know the American people believe fervently in democracy and self- determination, and they don't want unelected judges making the laws of this country. So Judge Alito's detractors are forced to oppose his nomination on the basis of certain pretexts. They are forced to grasp for any means they can to try to defeat his nomination. As one of Judge Alito's detractors put it, ``you name it, we will do it'' to defeat Judge Alito. One of their favorite pretexts--and we have heard some of it this morning--is that Judge Alito embraces this view of an omnipotent executive branch; that he believes the President's powers are without limitation. This pretext is a complete canard. It is based on the claim that Judge Alito once endorsed an academic theory called the unitary executive. But a unitary executive is not the same as an all-powerful executive. It is, after all, a theory that says there are three coequal branches of Government--executive, legislative, and judicial. And each official within that each branch is accountable to the people for the power they exercise and is delegated to them by the Constitution and laws of the country. But to show how misplaced this criticism is, according to Judge Alito's opponents, the father of the unitary executive theory is Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem they have is that the facts show that Justice Scalia does not favor an all-powerful President. No one does. We know this in particular from the decision he wrote in the Hamdi case 2 years ago. This was a case where the detention status of some of the terrorists who are kept at Guantanamo Bay was being reviewed by the Supreme Court. In that case, in the opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that the President had the power as Commander in Chief, during a time of war, to indefinitely detain even American citizens who were suspected of terrorism without filing criminal charges against them. Justice Scalia, perhaps one of the most conservative members of the Court, dissented from that, saying the President had no such power; that it was unconstitutional for him to do so. His views did not carry the day, but indeed of all of the Justices, Justice Scalia, the father of this unitary executive theory, was least deferential to the powers of the President. Judge Alito doesn't believe the President's powers are unlimited any more than Justice Scalia does. Now, one of the witnesses we had during the course of the hearing--I mentioned several former and current members of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of them who testified interestingly and relevant to the point was Judge John Gibbons who has since left the judiciary and has a law practice where he represents the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He said: The committee members should not think for a moment that I support Judge Alito's nomination because I am a dedicated defender of the Bush administration. On the contrary, I and my firm have been litigating with that administration over its treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. He said: I am confident that as an able legal scholar and a fair- minded justice, Judge Alito will give the arguments, legal and factual, that may be presented on behalf of our clients careful and thoughtful consideration, without any predisposition in favor of the position of the executive branch. That is another example of how those who know this man best simply believe that he will be a fair-minded judge and he will not be unduly deferential to the President, the executive branch, or anyone else for that matter, and that he will faithfully discharge his responsibilities under the Constitution and laws. Another favorite pretext of the opponents of this nomination is that as a replacement for Justice O'Connor, this nominee, Judge Alito, will shift the Supreme Court radically to the right. But in order to believe this or support this supposed theory, they have to radically rewrite history. It requires them to paint Justice O'Connor as some sort of liberal. But the truth is far different. For example, according to the Harvard Law Review, over the last decade, the Justice on the Court with whom Justice O'Connor agreed most frequently--over 80 percent of the time-- was former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. I think we will all acknowledge that Chief Justice Rehnquist was no liberal. Yet Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with each other more than 80 percent of the time. Indeed, in subject matter after subject matter, Justice O'Connor sees eye to eye with what Judge Alito has demonstrated on the bench and said how he will approach his job on the Supreme Court. Both believe in federalism, that Congress is not above the law and its powers are not unlimited but, rather, they are, under the Constitution, limited and enumerated, and that some powers are still reserved to the States and the people. That is not an out-of-the-mainstream view. Justice O'Connor shares that view. The Founders of this country shared that view, and I believe the American people believe that the people have retained some rights and the States have retained some rights against an all-powerful Federal Government. Judge Alito happens to believe that as well. Justice O'Connor and Judge Alito both struck down some affirmative action programs that resulted in reverse discrimination based on strict numerical quotas. And yes, both have even criticized Roe v. Wade. The truth is that if Justice O'Connor were the nominee today, she would meet with just as much opposition as Judge Alito has. The confirmation process has simply become a no-win situation. Another favorite pretext of the opponents of this nominee is that he is somehow biased against the mythical little guy. That he always rules against the little guy in favor of the big guy. The basis for this pretext is a litany of cases his opponents cite where Judge Alito has sided against a sympathetic plaintiff. This pretext suffers from a number of flaws. The first flaw is a selective reading of Judge Alito's record. Judge Alito has been a judge for 15 years. He has decided plenty of cases in favor of consumers, medical malpractice victims, employment discrimination victims, and other plaintiffs. In other words, he has decided plenty of cases for the little guy. But his opponents ignore all of these cases and focus only on the cases where he has decided against a sympathetic plaintiff. Anyone who has looked at his entire record has found the claim of bias to be completely without merit, indeed, including the Washington Post. The Washington Post did an analysis of Judge Alito's entire record and found he is no more likely than the average appeals court judge to rule for businesses, for example, over individuals. And, yes, I said the Washington Post and not the Wall Street Journal. Moreover, any notion that Judge Alito has a special bias against victims of racial discrimination is as false as it is demeaning. The people who know Judge Alito best testified at length that he applies the law in a fair and evenhanded manner without fear or favor. Indeed, perhaps most instructive is the evidence from the late Judge Leon Higginbotham. He has passed on, but his comments are part of the record. Judge Higginbotham was something of a civil rights hero, as many people know. He was president of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was appointed to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission by President Clinton. This is what he had to say about Judge Alito: Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue. Judge Higginbotham, a hero to the civil rights movement in this country, would never have made such glowing remarks if he believed for an instant that Sam Alito was guilty of some of the false charges being made against him. More fundamentally, however, the claims that Judge Alito is biased against the little guy are based on a misconception of how judges are supposed to behave. Judges are not supposed to decide cases on sympathy. Just as we ask jurors when they come into our courtrooms all across this great country to put aside their sympathies, biases, and prejudices and decide the cases based on the evidence they hear in court and the law as given to them by the judges--and they do it, day in and day out, faithfully and to really an exceptional degree--of course, we expect judges not to decide cases on sympathy. The kind of arguments we are hearing suggest that judges ought to pick out the party they like best, the most sympathetic, and rule in their favor without regard to the facts and without regard to the law. One would not know by listening to some of Judge Alito's opponents that he is a fairminded judge. In the America of his opponents, no plaintiff ever loses a case; no entrepreneur ever wins no matter how frivolous the claim of employment discrimination; police departments never win a case no matter how desperate the claim of a criminal defendant; Government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Social Security Administration, could never win a case no matter how outlandish the request for Government benefits. In their utopia, the economy is wrecked by frivolous litigation, criminals run free on technicalities, and the public Treasury is plundered. This admittedly, and thankfully, is not Judge Alito's America. He believes that no one is above the law--not the President, not the Congress, not even the little guy. That is why Lady Justice has always been blindfolded. America is a nation of laws, not of men and women, not of little guys, not of big guys, but a nation of laws. It should not matter who you are, how you pronounce your last name, what your country of origin is, your race, or any other extraneous consideration when you enter the halls of justice. We are all guaranteed, under the words that are etched over the marble leading into the Supreme Court, ``equal justice under the law.'' Everything in his record shows that these extraneous considerations don't matter to Judge Alito. This is why people of good faith from all across the political spectrum have testified and given testimonials in support of his work as a judge and on behalf of his nomination to the Supreme Court. This is also why I believe he will be confirmed by the Senate. Madam President, I could not be happier to throw my support behind this good man, this good judge, and this public servant. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act approved by the House on Thursday, December 15. This legislation increases the Government's ability to combat human trafficking and provides greater protective measures for victims of this deplorable crime. I thank my colleagues in the House for working on this legislation in an expedited fashion, and for their leadership in responding to these challenges. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act includes language from the End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act of 2005, a bill that I introduced earlier this year. That bill is important because it expresses Congress' commitment to reduce U.S. domestic demand for sex trafficking--which disproportionately victimizes women and children. It incorporates more stringent provisions to penalize human traffickers, and it enhances protective measures for the victims of trafficking crimes. This is accomplished by establishing Federal grants which could be used to focus on prosecution efforts. In addition, it strengthens and clarifies Federal criminal law, making it easier to prosecute those who transport persons who are then used for prostitution across State lines. And it includes an important oversight element: the Attorney General will be required to release an annual report on best practices for reducing the demand for unlawful commercial sex. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution states: ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'' This provision is unique to our Constitution. Many constitutional amendments protect individual rights against actions by Federal, State, and local governments. But the Thirteenth Amendment is unique because it provides that slavery and involuntary servitude cannot exist--neither in public nor private spheres. Yet, even to this day, men, women, and children are trafficked into the United States and coerced into lives ravaged by forced labor and sexual slavery. I join the administration in commending the House International Relations and Judiciary Committees who joined me to address this important issue. Indeed, this bill lays out the terrible facts: as many as 800,000 human beings are literally bought and sold worldwide into some form of slavery or involuntary servitude--approximately 80 percent are women and girls and up to 50 percent are children. Roughly 16,000 of those human beings are brought into the United States each year, coerced into lives of forced labor or sexual servitude which, of course, is slavery. The fact is the current administration has responded to the call by dramatically increasing efforts devoted to providing substantially more resources to combat human trafficking. This has been done principally under the auspices of the civil rights division at the Justice Department. The Department has initiated more than three times the number of trafficking investigations, filed almost four times as many of these cases. and doubled the number of defendants convicted for these heinous crimes than in the prior 4-year period. Mr. President, I am pleased this important piece of legislation has passed, and look forward to working with my colleagues on this very important issue in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my concern regarding the adoption of the McCain amendment as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Although I am pleased the legislation now includes important protections for the brave men and women who are interrogating terrorists around the world, I am nevertheless concerned that this legislation may hinder our intelligence collection activities. Many supporters of the amendment, including the mainstream media, claim that the legislation ``bans'' torture--leaving the impression that torture was somehow legal under our current laws. This is incorrect. Torture is prohibited under current U.S. law and treaty obligations, and President Bush has unequivocally stated that the United States will not engage in torture, and we will treat all detainees in a humane fashion. In fact, this legislation will likely prohibit current legal interrogation techniques that stop well short of torture and are providing valuable intelligence information. We all agree that in order to achieve victory in the war on terror, the United States must have the very best intelligence we can acquire through technical means and the interrogation of captured terrorists. Many of these terrorists are highly trained to resist U.S. interrogation techniques. Although I adamantly oppose torture, I believe we must use every legal means--including aggressive interrogation methods that some may find objectionable--to get intelligence that will save American lives. I voted against the McCain amendment out of a deep concern that it would potentially limit certain interrogation methods that may be necessary to save American lives. We know that aggressive--yet humane--interrogation techniques were instrumental in gaining valuable information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a key architect of the 9/11 attacks, and other terrorists in U.S. custody. We must not abandon these important and legal questioning methods for the sake of political correctness. We must send a strong signal to terrorists everywhere that if they are captured by the United States, while they will be treated humanely, we will use every legal method to force them to reveal their designs on the United States. Torture does not produce good intelligence. People who are tortured will tell their captors anything they want to hear and not the truth. More importantly, torture does not represent the values of America and all that we stand for as a Nation. However, we should not unnecessarily limit our military and intelligence agencies from aggressively interrogating those individuals who wish to kill innocent Americans. We must always remember that the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 are relentless in their efforts to destroy us. Finally, some have argued that the passage of the McCain amendment would have somehow prevented the heinous abuses that we saw at Abu Ghraib prison. This is patently false. The individuals who committed the abuses at Abu Ghraib knew their actions were against the law, yet they violated core American values. The perpetrators of these crimes are now being prosecuted, and the military has undertaken comprehensive reforms to prevent future abuses. As noted by the independent Schlesinger Panel in its report on detainee operations: ``There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities.'' Our military has detained over 80,000 individuals and the instances of detainee abuse are extremely rare and they are prosecuted when discovered. To imply that our military or intelligence services are torturing detainees as a matter of policy is a distortion of reality. In our efforts to demonstrate to the world that the United States does not torture terrorists, we must not weaken our ability to prosecute the war on terror. Our military and intelligence personnel must have the tools--including aggressive interrogation techniques--to question captured terrorists. I remain concerned that the McCain amendment, although admirable in its intent, may hinder our efforts to collect vital intelligence, and I make no apologies for endorsing all legal means of obtaining actionable intelligence that will save American lives.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the PATRIOT Act and on the National Security Agency story in the New York Times for approximately 20 minutes. Is there any limitation on my ability to do so?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since the New York Times revealed the existence of a classified program whereby the National Security Agency was conducting intelligence operations on al-Qaida and terrorist- related operatives here in the United States and overseas, there has been a lot of reaction to that revelation. First of all, we know the New York Times had been sitting on that story for approximately a year, and then for some unstated reason decided to release the story the day we were supposed to vote on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. As a result of a variety of circumstances, but I believe in part that story, we find ourselves in the very strange position of not having reauthorized the PATRIOT Act and having the PATRIOT Act expire--16 provisions of it at least--on December 31, 2005. There are some who said when they heard about the National Security Agency's surveillance of foreign terrorist suspects that this was an illegal usurpation of congressional authority by the President, or otherwise improper. Others have asked questions about the propriety of the program. Frankly, I do think there has been more heat than light generated on this subject, and what I would like to do is spend a few minutes sharing with my colleagues some of the research I have been able to do over the past few days to try to understand exactly what the President's authority is and what procedures apply to the collection of signals intelligence, telephone communications between terrorist suspects in America and abroad. The fact is that previous Presidents have also argued that they had authority that the President of the United States claims to have under the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, in 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive order 12333, which provided for warrantless searches directed against a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. That was in 1981. So it perhaps should be no surprise the President who immediately preceded the current President, President Bill Clinton, his administration, also argued specifically in testimony provided by Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, on July 14, 1994, before the Intelligence Committees, that the Clinton administration believes and the case law supports that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General. So we see there is historical precedent for the argument made by President Bush, our current President, that Presidents have some authority to act even without employing the use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect American lives and to save us against the designs of terrorists who would kill innocent American citizens. It also appears that the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on a related issue that could be interpreted to confer authority on the President of the United States. My colleagues recall that in 2001, after the terrorist attacks that occurred in Washington and in New York City and which was thwarted in the fields of Pennsylvania, this body passed a use-of-force resolution authorizing approval of the President and the executive branch's use of force to combat and win the global war on terrorism. We recall that not too long ago, when trying to determine the extent to which the President's powers extended, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. This involved Yaser Hamdi, who was being held as an enemy combatant, and claimed that his detention violated 18 U.S.C. 4001. Section 4001(a) states that ``[n}o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.'' This is analogous to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which claims that it is the exclusive method by which foreign intelligence may be obtained by use of signals intelligence. Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that the use- of-force resolution was ``an act of Congress'' that authorized Hamdi's detention, notwithstanding the argument that it violated 18 U.S.C. 4001. Her rationale, as I understand the opinion, was that because the detention was meant to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield, it was a fundamental incident of waging war in permitting the use of necessary and appropriate force. Justice O'Connor, in the plurality opinion, concluded that Congress had clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here. Thus, the question seems to me to be, by analogy, whether this use-of-force resolution, which authorizes American troops and our military to search out and to detain and, if necessary, to kill terrorists before they come to our shores and kill us--the question is, is the intelligence gathered by the use of this surveillance a fundamental incident of waging the war on terror? And it strikes me that it is. Inherent in waging war is obtaining actionable intelligence from our enemy or on our enemy. Certainly, I would believe, under the rationale in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, that this would be a fundamental incident in waging the war on terror and one authorized by the use-of- force resolution in 2001. So we see that President Clinton believed, as did President Reagan, that the President had authority, even outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but another arguable basis of that authority is the resolution that Congress itself passed in 2001. Now, there is one other authority that I think bears on this issue that is important. When the Congress created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, it created a special court to consider ex parte--that is, ``without the benefit of the other side being there''-- applications for orders to get electronic surveillance. Now, people have thought: Well, this must be similar to other courts. But the truth is, it is not an adversarial process because we do not let our enemies know we are going to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get an order so we can find out what they are doing. But, nevertheless, Congress did create this, what we call a court, for the purpose of considering those applications. But more to the point, the Congress also created an appeals court called the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Now, granted, most of the time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates in secret and does so for the obvious reasons that these are classified operations. We cannot let our enemies know what we know, so we can discover their attempts to hurt innocent American civilians. The Congress understands, and certainly the Intelligence Committees and all the Members of Congress understand, that most, if not all, of this has to operate in confidential or classified circumstances. But in November of 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review--this appellate court created by Congress under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--actually issued a public opinion, which was extraordinary. It is the first time since the creation of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that an appeal was actually brought and that the court actually issued a written opinion. Now, notwithstanding the fact that there is not an adversarial process--again, it is a one-sided process by the Government seeking permission from the judges to conduct this important surveillance against foreign agents and international terrorists--notwithstanding that fact, the court invited the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to submit briefs so they might consider their decision with the additional input of these organizations that, by their nature, would argue perhaps a more limited approach to Government power. Well, all of that I say to point out that in the absence of a controlling U.S. Supreme Court decision--and I mentioned the Hamdi case which is applicable by analogy to this situation when it comes to the authorization of the use of force--in the absence of a controlling decision on the President's inherent power to conduct these operations through a warrantless surveillance, the court created by Congress to be the authoritative decisionmaker of these matters, in 2002, said, on page 48 of this opinion: We take for granted that the President does have that Authority [that is, to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information] and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. Now, concededly, that is what lawyers like to call ``dicta.'' It is perhaps not essential to the decision of the specific issues that came before the FISA Court of Review, but it does recognize that the case law and precedent supports the President's authority to conduct warrantless surveillance in foreign intelligence and international conspiracies against the United States because of the power conferred on him under article II of the Constitution. So in summary, we see that not only did the Clinton administration believe the President had that authority, the Reagan administration believed the President had that constitutional authority under article II and, by analogy, that the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that the use-of-force resolution would authorize surveillance as a fundamental incident of waging the war on terror. So these are helpful in shedding some light on exactly what authority the President had during the course of this surveillance, which he says was essential to protecting American lives against foreign agents bent on doing Americans harm. It seems reasonable to me that the President ought to be able to rely on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review's opinion that has stated that every court that has reviewed this or similar questions has found inherent authority to conduct this type of intelligence. Certainly, I agree that it is appropriate for Congress and this Senate to have oversight hearings. I know Senator Specter has indicated his interest in doing so; Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, likewise. But we have to understand, as I know my colleagues do, that this is a classified program. There are limits to what we can talk about in public without putting in jeopardy our methods and sources of obtaining information against those people who are bent on our destruction and certainly the destruction of innocent American lives. So it is appropriate to have a hearing. But it is not appropriate for anyone, including a Member of the Congress, to leak classified information about the existence of this program. Now, some have said: Well, it is not illegal nor unconstitutional for the New York Times to write about it. And I will leave that for some court sometime, someplace. But we know for a fact it is a violation of the criminal law of the United States to leak classified information. My hope is that the Justice Department and the appropriate authorities will conduct a prompt and thorough investigation into how this information was leaked because, as a result, our enemies now know what we are doing and, to some extent, how we are doing it, in a way that undermines our ability to fight and win the global war on terror. It strikes me, when you are trying to be analytical about this, trying to figure out why is it important that the President have this authority--that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has assumed the President has and that President Reagan and President Clinton claimed to have--why is it important that authority exists outside of a typical law enforcement or criminal prosecution context? Well, of course, in an intelligence-gathering mode, we may not have a target per se of that intelligence-gathering activity. There may not really be knowledge that a crime has actually yet been committed but, rather, a reasonable belief that there are individuals who are plotting, conspiring to do innocent American civilians harm. So it is impossible to do in that context what we would ordinarily do in a criminal prosecution context, which would be to have an affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of a petition for an issuance of a warrant, which would then be filed as a public record for everybody to see. If we have learned anything as a result of 9/11, it is that we must break out of this pre-9/11 mindset, which says that terrorism must be combated as a criminal law violation alone. It is true that terrorist activity could be a crime, but our main goal is to detect and disrupt terrorist activity before people in this country or our friends and allies across the globe are injured or killed. So the fundamental goals of our national policy have to be to disrupt the information, discover it, disrupt these cells, and protect Americans in the process. So I wanted to come to the Chamber and say a few words about this issue because there have been some who have, in breathless tones, said that this is a great travesty, they cannot believe it has happened, and some have even gone so far as to suggest the President has acted illegally. I would say that, on balance, my conclusion is, based on historical precedent and based on the authorities that are invested with the power to render legal decisions on such matters, the President probably did act within his authority, but we should proceed to have hearings to further flesh that out so Congress can understand exactly what is going on. Finally, I wish to say a couple of words about the Senate's failure to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. I believe the PATRIOT Act has been one of those things that have made America safer and prevented terrorists from executing another attack on our own soil. If you look from September 11 up until this date, thank goodness, the United States of America has not suffered another attack on our own soil. We do know there have been terrorist attacks that have been disrupted but were planned in the style of 9/11 against American civilians by terrorists who care nothing about our laws or our way of life but care only for their misguided ideology and are willing to do anything, including kill innocent people, in order to accomplish their goals. It is only reasonable to assume that the PATRIOT Act has played an important part in our safety in the United States. The reason I say that is if you look out across the world, we have seen terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, and in other places around the world. I can only conclude that the PATRIOT Act has played an important role-- perhaps not the exclusive role but an important role in combating global terrorism and making sure they are not successful in attacking or killing or injuring Americans on our own soil. It is with that in mind that I am at a loss to explain how some of our colleagues could prevent a bipartisan majority in the Senate from voting on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. The fact is that some of them have said we didn't get everything we wanted in the negotiations. Well, the news is that nobody does. But the fact is the PATRIOT Act passed 98 to 1 roughly 6 weeks after the attacks of September 11. It was a bipartisan bill, obviously, because it enjoyed overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. There is literally nothing that has changed other than additional concessions being made to address the concerns of those who claim there are civil liberty concerns in the PATRIOT Act. Rather than allow us to have that vote, unfortunately, there is a minority in the Senate that is filibustering and preventing us from having an up-or-down vote. Ultimately, in the interest of the safety of the country, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their obstruction and denial of our ability to have that vote. We know that 16 provisions are going to expire December 31 unless we do. There are those who say that what we need is a 3-month extension. Well, that is a phony deal, Mr. President, I suggest. We have been debating this PATRIOT Act since it was originally passed in October 2001. I think everybody has a pretty good idea where they stand. I believe every issue that could be debated has been debated, and every issue that could be negotiated has been negotiated. There has been an attempt to reach out and define common ground. Indeed, I believe the conference between the House and Senate did exactly that. It would be a terrible shame under the guise of, Well, we just need 3 more months to further dilute the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have made America safer. Unfortunately, that is what I see happening with the unwillingness of the minority Senators to have that up-or-down vote and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. So I implore them not to make these offers of just 3 more months because we know all they are trying to do is use that for additional leverage to water down the strong protections of the PATRIOT Act. What they ought to do is reconcile themselves to the fact that they are not going to get everything they want, just as I didn't get everything I wanted. I would like to strike all sunsets in the PATRIOT Act and make it permanent. I advocated for provisions for administrative subpoenas, and that didn't make it into the bill. There are other things I would have liked to see in the bill that are not in the bill, but in the interest of trying to find common ground and in the interest of trying to pass a bill that will keep America safe, I have been willing to make those concessions. I ask all of our colleagues, when it comes to passing this legislation, to try to find a way to allow us to have that up- or-down vote so we can reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and the American people will know we have done everything within our power to try to keep them safe, which is, in fact, the No. 1 obligation of the Federal Government--our national security. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alabama he is precisely correct. One of the things that has been carefully taken into consideration in this legislation is to make sure whoever the individual is or whoever's rights are at issue, that there is an opportunity to go to a judge--in this case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a specialized court with jurisdiction over national security cases--and to ask an impartial judge to intervene. But some of our colleagues, it seems, have these fantasies about rogue law enforcement personnel with nothing better to do than running roughshod over the rights of American citizens. These are serious professionals. I know my colleague from Alabama, being a former U.S. attorney, has worked closely with the FBI and other Federal law enforcement officials. I ask him--and then I will certainly yield the floor to him for any other remarks he cares to make--is there any basis to this idea that Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the intelligence agencies, have nothing better to do or have so little disregard for our laws and Constitution that they look for opportunities to trample on the rights of innocent American citizens?

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. CORNYN. Then there is the Jose Padilla plot in May 2002. The United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up an apartment building in the United States using a dirty bomb or a radiation dispersal device. In mid 2004, the United States and our partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites. Then there was a plot in Karachi, a plot at Heathrow Airport in London, another UK plot in 2004, another Arabian Gulf shipping plot, one in the Straits of Hormuz in 2002, and a tourist site targeted by al-Qaida. In 2003 there have been at least 10 disrupted terrorist attacks as a result of the concerted efforts of our law enforcement and intelligence personnel, at least 3 on American soil since September 2001. I ask my colleagues who are blocking the vote on the renewal and reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act: What could they possibly be thinking to believe that we ought to voluntarily relinquish the tools that have in part made it possible to keep us safe and to protect Americans from these terrorist attacks? I know, Mr. President, there are others in the Chamber who want to speak on this or related issues. I want to close on one last red herring that has been raised. As the New York Times reported, the President of the United States has authorized, after counseling with the Department of Justice and various legal authorities, as well as consulting with Congress on up to 12 occasions, the use of intercepted messages from the National Security Agency as part of our ongoing counterterrorism efforts. The New York Times suggested that this was a secret way to threaten the civil liberties of Americans. The fact is, as is now being revealed, Congress was consulted at least 12 times since September 11th about the President's authorization of these interceptions of communications, interceptions which were not solely within the United States but were from known links to international terrorism in the United States and known links with international terrorism overseas. It is perhaps not a coincidence that just before the vote on cloture on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, the New York Times released this story. Indeed, at least two Senators--I heard with my own ears-- cited this article as a reason why they voted to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. As it turns out, the author of this article had turned in a book to his publisher 3 months ago. The paper failed to reveal that the story was tied to a book release and sale by the author James Risen. The title of the book is ``State of War, the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.'' It is about to be published by the Free Press in the coming weeks. It is a crying shame that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the PATRIOT Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release, on the night before the vote on the reauthorization of the Act, and as part of a marketing campaign for selling the book, something that is blatantly misrepresentative of the facts and appears to be an attempt to strike terror or perhaps paranoia into Senators and others out of some unrealistic and inaccurate concern for invasion of civil liberties. It is appropriate that Congress have hearings to look into this, but the fact is, the President and his administration have briefed high ranking Members of Congress on 12 occasions since this so-called secret program of intercepting communications between known terrorist contacts in the United States and overseas occurred. When I came to Washington to serve in the Senate almost 3 years ago, someone jokingly referred to it as a logic-free zone where perception is reality. We all got a good laugh out of that. But the hysteria over the USA PATRIOT Act and the fact that people have, in too many instances, not focused on the hard-fought attempts to balance our security with civil liberty concerns by hammering out thoughtful and useful provisions is a disservice to the American people. It is not a typical policy disagreement that we sometimes have about taxes or some other issue. This is one that has the grave potential of endangering American lives because we know the terrorist threat exists. This threat continues to this day. September 11, while it was 4 years ago, is not an isolated event, as the listing I provided details. Terrorists will, if we let our guard down, hit us again. Then I ask: Where will the blame lie? If we have failed to do everything within our power to protect the American people, we will have failed to discharge our duty in this body. I hope our colleagues who are blocking a bipartisan majority from casting a vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act which will prevent the expiration of these 16 provisions will reconsider their decision. It is unthinkable to me that anyone would allow these provisions to expire. I realize there are differences of opinion. I am happy to have this debate. I understand that people have conscientiously held opinions that are different than mine about the importance of this Act, but to block a bipartisan majority from having the chance to vote is incredible.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unless the Congress acts, on December 31, 2005, 16 different provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. Two days ago we had a vote to determine whether a minority in the Senate would allow a bipartisan majority the chance to have an up-or- down vote on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. As everyone knows, that vote failed. Fifty-two senators voted to close off debate. There being a requirement of 60 votes to cut off debate, that threshold was not met so we did not reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. So here we are with the clock ticking, with America's security at risk. We find ourselves in the incredible position of seeing certain ordinary law enforcement tools that are used everyday in State and Federal courts all across this country will, in about 2 weeks, no longer be available in the case of international terrorists or spies or cases involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Perhaps the one provision of the PATRIOT Act that will expire that causes most concern is the so called wall. That, of course, is the term used to describe what previously--before October of 2001--was a wall that separated the sharing of information between our law enforcement personnel and our intelligence authorities. It is clear, as the 9/11 Commission demonstrated, that this wall made us less safe. It was not required by the Constitution. It was not required by any provisions passed by this Senate and signed by the President. It was simply a choice made by the Department of Justice to prevent the sharing of information. We learned from the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and its investigation, as well as from by the terrible events of September 11, the 9/11 Commission concluded this wall, which was not constitutionally required, prevented the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence authorities and this prohibition contributed to the terrible events on September 11. It was imperative the Congress act as quickly and as carefully as possible to remove any impediments that were not otherwise mandated by the Constitution from investigating and preventing future terrorist attacks against this country. Those who have opposed this up-or-down vote in the Senate with regard to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act are asking us to make a false choice. In other words, they are saying if the PATRIOT Act is reauthorized, somehow Americans' civil liberties will be in jeopardy. They are asking us--or telling us--that we have to choose between our national security and our civil liberties. That, to repeat, is a false choice. The fact is, we can have a balanced reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act that will protect America from future terrorist attacks. We can continue to disrupt the terrorist cells both here at home and abroad that endanger us and protect our civil liberties at the same time. This country was founded upon a belief in individual freedom and the protection of individuals against the overwhelming power of the Government. And we have, for more than 200 years, written into our laws--not to mention the Constitution--various protections to make sure our civil liberties and our individual freedoms are protected. But the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep us safe. There is no other responsibility that comes anywhere close to that imperative. That is why I believe the PATRIOT Act must be reauthorized, and if we fail to act before these provisions expire on December 31, 2005, we will not have met our responsibilities. Indeed, we will have contributed to making this country much more dangerous than it would otherwise be. Now, as we recall, after the terrible events of September 11, Congress, for 6 weeks, debated the original passage of the PATRIOT Act and, in a vote of 98 to 1, passed the PATRIOT Act. It provided that these 16 provisions would expire at the end of this year. The vote to enact this legislation was 98 to 1 in the Senate, after 6 weeks of debate. In the House, the vote was 365 to 66, again not quite as overwhelming as in the Senate, but it was a lopsided vote in favor of passing the PATRIOT Act. And it was signed into law on October 26, 2001. Now, I have been surprised at how much misunderstanding there is surrounding the PATRIOT Act, how much outright mythology and disinformation there has been by those who are not just concerned about civil liberties, but those who are actually engaging in almost paranoid delusions about what it is that the PATRIOT Act provides in terms of the authorities to combat and to break up terrorist activities. The fact is, anyone who has been involved with or even remotely acquainted with our criminal justice system knows and will recognize that the provisions of the PATRIOT Act merely extended to national security cases many of the tools that are used every day in courts all across the Nation and throughout the States. So this breathlessness, this sense of the existence of conspiracy theories, about the Federal Government deciding to suspend the civil liberties of the American people in pursuit of terrorists, is pure fantasy. I want to talk about the provisions that are being discussed so I think at least those who are listening can understand there has been careful thought and careful negotiations between the House and the Senate and there has been an awful lot of effort put into trying to strike the right balance. But what the critics are asking us to do is engage in a willing suspension of disbelief. It is almost unthinkable to me that here we are, some 4 years after the terrible events of September 11th, debating these common sense tools almost as if some have forgotten the lessons we learned and lessons we should remember for the rest of our lives. I was not here in Washington on September 11. I was merely a candidate for the Senate and the attorney general of my State in Texas at the time. I was in Austin, Texas when those planes hit the World Trade Center. We all recoiled in shock and in horror at those terrible events. But I remember, since I have been here in Washington, the number of occasions where we have had warnings of intrusions into the airspace around this Capitol, where people here were running out of the Capitol, some in tears, out of fear that we were going to have another attack here at the Capitol. As we know, but for the brave acts of some passengers on an airplane who caused that plane to crash in Pennsylvania, it could have been that plane was meant for the White House or the U.S. Capitol, which would have resulted in tremendous additional loss of human life. So it is amazing to me--and I guess in some ways it is a sign of the times--that our memories are so short and that we need to be reminded about the seriousness of the threat that still remains. We need not let our guard down, instead we need to continue to do everything that is humanly possible to protect the American people against future terrorist attacks. I know there are some who scoff at it and ridicule the threat, but I would ask them to go back and to read the newspaper accounts, to see the video replays of the terrible events of September 11, and then to reconsider. Those who fear that Government has turned into ``big brother'' and is simply invading our bedrooms and our libraries and our personal lives in ways that would shock all of us are engaging in, I think, a fantasy. When you look at the facts--and I would suggest facts are stubborn things--we ought to look at the facts and the provisions that are being debated and then ask ourselves: Aren't these the kinds of tools we would want our law enforcement personnel to have to keep us safe? I think the American people--when they understand, as they will before this debate has concluded, what is at stake here--would want us to act responsibly to extend and continue to provide these ordinary sorts of law enforcement tools to national security cases. There is no doubt in my mind that a bipartisan majority of the Senate would pass this reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act if allowed to do so. But, indeed, what we are seeing is a filibuster by a willful minority that is blocking a bipartisan majority from even having the right to cast that vote. I recognize there are some people who have sincere beliefs that reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act is not the right thing to do. While I strenuously disagree with them--and I would welcome a chance to debate with them here on the Senate floor the wisdom of that decision--I respect their right to hold that opinion. But I do not respect the minority when they block a bipartisan majority from having the chance to vote on tools that, if not extended, will leave this country vulnerable to attack. Again, I am confident that if we had a vote a bipartisan majority of the Senate would see fit to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act and continue these important protections for the American people. But we find ourselves with the clock ticking, time running out, and America potentially endangered, if on December 31, 2005 these important provisions expire because we in the Senate did not act. A direct consequence of this action, or inaction, will endanger our country. I would ask my colleagues: What has changed since that 98-to-1 vote in the Senate when, in October 2001, after 6 weeks of debate, the PATRIOT Act was passed? Are there reports of rampant abuses of the PATRIOT Act? No. Are there examples where Members can come to the floor and explain to us, that this is too much power for the Government to have, or that somehow we have an imbalance in the power given to the Government, and that we need to strike a right and better balance? The fact is, Mr. President, all of the skeptics have is speculation, conspiracy theories, and outright fantasy when it comes to the potential of abuse under any of these provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I am convinced that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Senator Specter, and the conferees in the House and Senate have done their very best given the nature of negotiations and compromise to strike the best balance between civil liberties and the protection of the American people. It would be a failure of responsibility and duty for us not to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. But I ask again, what has changed since September 11, 2001? What has changed since October of 2001 to now lead some of our colleagues to say that these provisions are unimportant, are not useful, or are no longer needed? Has the threat of international terrorism receded? Has it gone away? I looked on the Internet before I came here for a listing, because I wanted to make sure I had all of them, of suspected al-Qaida terrorist attacks across the globe since September of 2001. In December 2001, a man tried to detonate a shoe bomb on a flight from Paris to Miami. I believe his name is Richard Reid. There was an explosion in April of 2002 at an historic synagogue in Tunisia that left 21 dead, including 14 German tourists. In May of 2002, a car exploded outside a hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens. In June 2002, a bomb exploded outside the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12 people. In October 2002, a boat crashed into an oil tanker off the Yemen coast killing a single individual. Then there were the nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, that killed 202 people, mostly Australian citizens, in October of 2002. Then there was a suicide attack in Mombasa, Kenya, killing 16 in November of 2002. In May of 2003, suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans at housing compounds for westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In May 2003, 4 bombs killed 33 people, targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco. In August 2003, suicide car bombers killed 12 people and injured 150 more at the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. In November 2003, explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound killing 17. In November 2003, suicide car bombers simultaneously attacked two synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 and injuring hundreds more. In November 2003, truck bombs detonated at a London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killed 26. In March 2004, 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 202 and injuring more than 1,400 people. In May 2004, terrorists attacked a Saudi oil company office in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22. In June 2004, terrorists kidnaped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Then in September 2004, car bombs outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9. In December 2004, terrorists entered the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9. In July 2005, bombs exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52. In October 2005, 22 were killed by 3 suicide bombs, again in Bali, Indonesia. Then most recently in November 2005, 57 were killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan, including at a wedding party. Mr. President, I go through this list not to just bore my listeners but rather to recount in horrific detail the threat that still exists to America and American citizens and people all around the world by international terrorists. These are examples of what could happen on our own soil again if we let our guard down as we did before September 11. Just to remind my colleagues what we have been able to do because we have been on our guard, because we have the PATRIOT Act, because we have equipped our law enforcement and intelligence personnel with the tools necessary to identify and investigate and disrupt terrorist activities, because we have been on the offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq disrupting the ability of terrorists to train, recruit, and then export their terrorist activities, because we have done all of those things, America has not sustained another terrorist attack on our own soil since September 11, 2001. But it is far from certain that it will not happen again. Some have said it is a matter of when, not if, America will be hit again. But, thank goodness, because of the diligent efforts of men and women in our law enforcement agencies, in our intelligence agencies, the men and women in our military, and so many other people working together diligently, we have protected Americans on our own soil. There have been at least 10 serious al-Qaida plots disrupted, including 3 al-Qaida plots to attack inside the United States since September 11. In mid 2002, the United States disrupted a plot to attack targets on the west coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in the events of September 11. In mid 2003, the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the east coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Alabama is absolutely correct. He serves with great distinction on the Senate Judiciary Committee, as does the current occupant of the Chair. We all know that it is not the most cohesive committee in the Senate. As a matter of fact, we have some pretty serious disagreements about important policy issues. But on the PATRIOT Act, under Senator Specter's guidance, with the ranking member, Senator Leahy, we were able to reach unanimity and pass the PATRIOT Act out of the Judiciary Committee. That would not happen, given the legal minds and the great advocates we have on the Judiciary Committee, if it were not a good bill. To now suggest, as some have, that this has not been well thought through, that it is not carefully done, flies in the face of the facts. If I may, Mr. President, through the Chair, I ask my friend from Alabama, who has been a distinguished U.S. attorney, served as attorney general of his State before coming to the Senate, and has a lot of experience in law enforcement, are the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are being debated involving wiretaps and production of business records and delayed notice search warrants, are these the sort of ordinary tools that are available to prosecutors in State and Federal courts in regular, ordinary, vanilla criminal cases?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to speak about the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. While this agreement does not give everyone all that they want, it is the result of lengthy, difficult negotiations. It represents a reasonable compromise for all parties involved, and it extends tools important to our national security, while enhancing civil liberties protections. It has been more than 4 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the days, weeks, and months since that day, the American people have braced themselves for the possibility of another terrorist attack on our homeland. After all, we know all too well that al-Qaida is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and its leadership is motivated to launch another devastating attack on American citizens and soil. Outside the United States, al-Qaida and its affiliates have continued to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous attacks, spanning the globe from Pakistan to Bali, Spain to London. It is precisely because al-Qaida is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America that I am grateful that, to date, they still have not successfully launched another attack on our soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost: the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. They are fighting the terrorist abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. Also, our efforts to strengthen antiterrorism and law enforcement tools through the USA PATRIOT Act has had much to do with this record of success and peace to date. This diligence that has kept us safe at home must continue. The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. That is why I am disappointed when we witness false reports and scare tactics about phantom civil rights violations. Such reports and tactics serve no legitimate cause--but they do a grave disservice to the American people. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly. Congress works hard to strike both a careful and wise balance between national security and civil liberties. While this is not always easy, we do so with the best interests of our Nation in mind--and we do so in a manner that is both honest and in good faith. This conference report strikes a careful balance by both preserving the provisions that have made America safer since 9/11 and increasing congressional and judicial oversight--which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the law enforcement tools endanger civil liberties. Many who oppose this agreement do so because of concerns that law enforcement will abuse these tools. While a legitimate concern, it simply has not been borne out by facts. First, the reports issued by the Department of Justice's independent inspector general have repeatedly found no systematic abuses of any of the provisions of Patriot. Second, these provisions are carried out by professional and dedicated law enforcement officers in a way that respects the rights of all Americans. It has been said that time is a great healer. And, as time goes by, the shock we all felt following the 9/11 attacks has abated, somewhat. But as we recall those terrible memories, we are reminded of the institutional failures of our Government that failed to prevent the attacks. And we as a Nation, and the Congress in particular, vowed to tear down the walls that prevented information sharing, and to enact other tools vital to defending this country. It is clear that the PATRIOT Act has played a significant role in this process, as it has been instrumental in dismantling terrorist cells from New York to Oregon. The failure to pass this conference report will cause these critical tools to lapse. It will weaken our country by reverting to September 10th-era tools. We cannot allow that to happen. We are living in profoundly different times. There are obviously deep feelings about the PATRIOT Act from all quarters. I and others support the PATRIOT Act and have been vocal about making these provisions permanent. Because not everyone agrees with this view, negotiations and compromises took place to reach an agreement that achieves the dual goals of continuing these critical authorities and enhancing congressional and judicial oversight. Some have proposed that we pass a 3-month extension to continue working on the reauthorization. I oppose that. The Congress placed a December 31, 2005, deadline for a reason. The President, the Attorney General and the House support this agreement. We should vote on this agreement, and I intend to vote for cloture and will support the conference report. However, if we are searching for alternatives, I propose the Senate take up and immediately pass legislation that I cosponsored last Congress which would strike all of the sunsets contained in the PATRIOT Act. This would eliminate the deadline we face, those in the House and those in the Senate can offer what they consider improving legislation and work to move it through the regular legislative process. That way, none of the vital authorities will be allowed to lapse and any changes that majority of the Congress supports will be implemented through the regular order. Beyond this proposal, I want to discuss some of the specific items addressed by the conference report and try to explain why I think this report should be supported, beginning with sunsets. I have stated that I oppose sunsets for this important legislation. I believe that our intelligence and law enforcement officials should never again be left wondering whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our Nation. But realizing that there are those who feel that these sunsets are important to the negotiations, I choose to support the sunsets, even though if we were going to have sunsets I would have preferred the 10- year sunsets included in the House-passed version. This conference report retains 4-year sunsets for two of the most controversial PATRIOT Act provisions, the multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps and the business records provision. It also includes a sunset for the ``Lone Wolf' provision added to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by last year's Intelligence Reform Act. This guarantees the Congress will review these provisions and continue to conduct rigorous oversight. Senator Specter and others on the conference attempted to address civil liberty concerns in many ways, for example, dealing with the delayed search warrant provision. As my colleagues know, this section is not to sunset. Nevertheless, recognizing the sensitivity to this provision certain Members had, the conference report requires the Government to now give notice of any search under this provision within 30 days of its execution, unless the facts justify a later date certain. Although the 30-day period is a few weeks longer than the 7-day time limit contained in the original Senate bill, it is considerably shorter than the 180 days permitted under the House bill. The conference report allows for extensions but only ``upon an updated showing of the need for further delay.'' Also, it limits any extensions to 90 days or less, unless the facts of the case justify a longer delay. It also adds new public reporting on the use of delayed notice warrants, so that Congress and the American people will be better informed about the use of this provision. My time is short today, but I want to briefly mention other civil liberties protections Chairman Specter negotiated. The report made explicit the ability of recipients of NSL letters and 215 orders to seek judicial review. Significantly, on both of these authorities, the conference report requires the inspector general to conduct two audits of these authorities, one audit covering 2002 through 2004; another covering 2005-2006. And, in recognition of concerns about NSLs, the conference report adds a new ``sunshine'' provision. Namely, it requires annual public reporting on NSLs, including the aggregate ``number of requests made by the Department of Justice.'' Additionally, this report gives the Senate Judiciary Committees access to significant FISA reporting currently provided to the Intelligence Committee. It also includes a provision cosponsored by Senators Specter and Leahy requiring that rules and procedures of the FISA court be supplied to Congress. It further creates new reporting requirements to Congress for the use of emergency authorities under FISA and requires new reporting on the use of emergency disclosures of communications information made under Section 212 of the PATRIOT Act. And finally, it retains a modified version of the data-mining report contained in the House- passed bill which will require the Department of Justice to submit a report to Congress on the Department's data-mining activities. I also want to mention another provision contained in the conference report because it is based on legislation that I introduced in the Senate. The Narco-Terrorism Prevention Act confronts the new reality and very real danger of the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism. Terrorists, like the old organized crime syndicates from the past, have recognized that illegal drug trafficking is a valuable source of financing and another way to threaten our country. My State is experiencing the collateral effects of a drug war being carried out by modern day narco-terrorists in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. News reports have described an ongoing battle between rival drug cartels over drug smuggling routes from Mexico into the United States. These organizations assassinate police officers and other government officials in a clear attempt to force the local government to allow these organizations to carry on their illegal activity, unimpeded. Our government needs every available tool at its disposal to combat this activity. This new provision makes it a Federal crime designed to punish the trafficking of controlled substances which are intended to benefit a foreign terrorist organization or any one else planning a terrorist attack. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone convicted. Importantly, it provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction which allows law enforcement to reach beyond our borders to arrest and deter those who intend to carry out a crime of this nature. Mr. President, I have opposed changing the core provisions of the PATRIOT Act and have opposed any increase in the burdens for terrorism or national security investigations or on terrorism or national security investigators because they should have the same tools available to them as do ordinary criminal investigators. We must remain vigilant, and we must make sure that evidentiary hurdles do not creep back into the law in terrorism and national security investigations. We should avoid moving back to a pre-9/11 mindset. I believe that the package before us today continues the reforms we have made in the post-9/11 period, and I intend to vote in favor of this package.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I talk about two subjects that are very near and dear to my heart. The first is the matter of child support enforcement. My colleagues might wonder how does that issue arise. The fact is, last night, the House of Representatives passed their version of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. As each of us knows, the purpose of that Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is to actually bring down the Federal deficit by finding cuts in the Federal budget, the Federal budget that currently comprises something in excess of $2.5 trillion a year. This is a very important exercise. This represents the first time, I believe, since 1997 when we have seen real and meaningful cuts in Federal spending. The challenge, of course, is that about a third of the money the Congress spends is discretionary spending. Half of that third is defense spending, and the rest of it is homeland security and other discretionary programs. But some of that you can tell by the mere description is hardly discretionary because it is important to our national security. My point is that two-thirds of the Federal budget is not, even under any conception or definition, discretionary spending. It is Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, and we simply have to come to grips with that so-called entitlement or nondiscretionary spending in order to draw the reins in on a Federal Government that continues to grow day by day in its scope and size and expense. I am here to say I think there are some cuts that make more sense than others and some cuts make no sense whatsoever. I consider child support money that goes to assist the States in collecting child support to fall into that last category--cuts that make no sense whatsoever. Let me explain. The House bill will cut $5 billion in Federal funds from the child support program over 5 years--$5 billion over 5 years. It will cut $15.8 billion, almost $16 billion, over 10 years. This translates into a 40-percent reduction in Federal spending for the child support program. My State of Texas would lose $258 million over 5 years and $824 million over 10 years. I ask unanimous consent that a chart prepared by the Center for Law and Social Policy which lays out the proposed cut to Federal child support funding State by State be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the year 2004, the child support program collected $ 21.9 billion, while the program costs were $5.3 billion. Let me make this clear for my colleagues. In other words, for every $1 spent by the Federal taxpayer $4.38 in child support was collected for the children who need it. This is not the typical Federal program. This is not money that once spent we see no real benefit from. Rather, this is one that for every dollar that is invested $4.38 in child support is collected for the children who need it and who are legally entitled to it. The President's 2006 budget cites the child support program as ``one of the highest rated block formula grants of all reviewed programs Governmentwide.'' This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long-term performance measures. Even there, the numbers and these sort of accolades about this program do not tell the whole story. The story is completed by the fact that many children who receive child support are thereby prevented from drawing down other Government programs. For example, child support enforcement reduces reliance on Medicaid, temporary assistance to needy families, and other social service programs. It is estimated that more than 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through child support programs in the year 2002 alone. So in addition to money that is a good return on investment, $4.38 for every dollar, this money actually avoids additional expenditures of tax dollars by creating individuals who are qualified for other Government programs at a lot more expense to the Federal taxpayer. The problem with these cuts is that they are likely to reverse dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade, and they may well force many families back on the welfare caseload. This means former welfare families and working families of modest income will lose an important source of income that now enables them to maintain financial self-sufficiency and thereby having to draw on Government resources through public assistance programs. The reason I feel so passionately about these particular cuts and the effectiveness of the child support enforcement program is that for 4 years before I came to the Senate I served as attorney general of Texas. It was my job, on behalf of approximately 1.2 million children, to see that they got the child support that they deserved, that they needed, and that they were legally entitled to. I am proud to say that my State ranks second in the Nation in terms of total collections, collections of about $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2005, and an increase of 83 percent of collections since fiscal year 2000. Now, that did not happen by accident. The reason it did happen is because of the great work being done by the men and women in the child support enforcement division of the State of Texas. It also happened because of the money that is provided by the Federal Government to help fund this necessary function. Due to the good work of these hard working men and women in the child support division, obligations, that is court orders, establishing support have risen from 55 to 82 percent of the qualifying population, and the cost-effectiveness in Texas has gone from $4.96 to $6.81. I mentioned the national average of $4.38 for every dollar spent. In Texas, we now collect $6.81 for every dollar spent. If the financial benefits, if the cost-effectiveness of this program, and if the avoidance of other costs to the Federal taxpayer were not enough, there are other intangible benefits to a strong and effective child support enforcement program. I have seen with my own eyes that too many families, when they divorce, reach a tacit agreement with regard to their children. Moms who frequently are the ones who have custody of the children sometimes reach a tacit agreement with their ex-spouse, typically the father, that if they do not exercise their visitation rights that the mother will not press the father for the financial support to which their children are legally entitled. What happens is that these children become two-time losers. Not only are they denied the financial benefits that the law says they are entitled to, they are denied contact with both parents that every child needs in order to have the best chance of success. Indeed, one of the intangible benefits of an effective child support program is not just the money collected, it is not just lifting children who would otherwise be in poverty out of poverty, it is not just avoiding the additional expenses of Government programs that would otherwise be invoked if that support was not there, it is literally the benefit of having a mother and a father both engaged, involved, and committed to the welfare of their children. I can think of no more important purpose that our efforts could serve than to reunite mothers, fathers, and children in a collective effort to improve the status of our children and their prospects for a bright future. So I hope in the conference on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 our colleagues in the House will reconsider, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate will persuade them that of all the cuts they might have chosen these were the least deserving and that the money should be reinstated. I am confident throughout the $2.5 trillion Federal budget that there are other programs, other waste, other fat, other ineffective programs that could be more effectively cut and with far less damage to the most vulnerable among us. PATRIOT Act Finally, just for a couple of minutes, maybe 5, I want to speak about another subject, and that is the USA PATRIOT Act. It has been more than 4 years since our country was hit on September 11 by terrorists who care nothing for our way of life and nothing for the laws of war. They have attacked, because they could, innocent civilians in their jihad against those who have different ways of life and different views. We know the PATRIOT Act has been largely responsible for making America safer by bringing down the wall that prevented the sharing of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, by making available to our FBI and other intelligence-gathering bodies the same sort of techniques that are currently used against organized crime members and other criminals. Simply, what this body did in the PATRIOT Act was make sure that we used every legal and reasonable means to root out terrorism, to investigate it, and to stop it before it killed other innocent Americans. The PATRIOT Act was passed shortly after September 11 by a strong bipartisan vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House. As I said, the PATRIOT Act enhanced law enforcement and intelligence agencies' ability to gather and analyze intelligence information and to use the most modern communications technologies, such as e-mail, cellular telephones, and the Internet, and it strengthened criminal laws and penalties against terrorists. As always, we must be concerned with the right balance between the need to protect innocent American lives and the need to preserve our civil liberties. Despite the dire predictions of some groups, the PATRIOT Act has not eroded any of our rights that we hold near and dear as Americans. To the contrary, the PATRIOT Act has enabled the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate and to share information and thereby save American lives and protect what is perhaps the most important civil liberty of all, and that is freedom from future terrorist attacks. I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and we have held 25 oversight hearings to date within the Judiciary Committee to ensure that we have both the tools we need and that we struck the right balance between civil liberties and our need to be secure. As all of our colleagues know, several sections of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire, sections 203 and 218, on December 31, 2005. These are the very provisions that have been instrumental in bringing down this wall that has previously separated different agencies of the Federal Government in getting information that is needed in order to save American lives and to stop terrorist attacks. I would just read briefly from recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Peter Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who has recently been in the news. He has recounted from personal experience how this wall between law enforcement and intelligence personnel have operated in practice. He said: I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a criminal investigation of Usama Bin Laden in early 1996. The team--prosecutors and FBI agents assigned to the criminal case--had access to a number of sources. We could talk to citizens. We could talk to local police officers. We could talk to other U.S. Government agencies. We could talk to foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. And foreign citizens. And we did all those things as often as we could. We could even talk to al Qaeda members--and we did. We actually called several members and associates of al Qaeda to testify before a grand jury in New York. And we even debriefed al Qaeda members overseas who agreed to become cooperating witnesses. But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel intelligence investigation of Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda. We could not learn what information they had gathered. That was ``the wall.'' Well, people who remember the hearings before the 9/11 Commission will remember that there were a number of high-profile witnesses from Janet Reno, the former Attorney General of the United States, to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who served during the first term of the Bush administration, and FBI Director Mueller. Witness after witness testified that that wall between criminal investigators and our intelligence-gathering communication prevented the sharing of information that has been absolutely critical in protecting innocent American lives and preventing future terrorist attacks. It is that same wall that will be resurrected on December 31, 2005, unless the U.S. Congress acts. It is absolutely critical that we look at this with cold-eyed clarity and not be swayed by scare tactics or emotional appeals. I am astonished, when I look at the reality of how the PATRIOT Act has made our Nation safer, that there are those who would use scare tactics to try to convince them that America's civil liberties are somehow imperiled. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union, time and time again, through fundraising appeals and elsewhere, has misrepresented the PATRIOT Act in a way that I believe has frightened the American people. They happen to use it to raise money in their direct mail campaign, but it has had the disservice of breaking American resolve and confusing the American people about exactly what is at stake and what the benefits of the PATRIOT Act are. Perhaps the most telling manifestation of the effectiveness of their scare tactics and their misinformation campaign is that approximately 300 different municipalities across America have passed resolutions calling for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. I think we have to mark that off to a lack of good information, or perhaps the gullibility on the part of some of these city councils and others. Because, as the Senate Judiciary Committee has found out, when you ask the American Civil Liberties Union to detail a single violation of American civil liberties as a result of the passage and implementation of the PATRIOT Act, they have been able to come up with none, zero, zilch, nada. Senator Dianne Feinstein, with whom I am honored to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who always does a very diligent job on behalf of her constituents and on behalf of the Senate, asked the ACLU to search the records and come up with a single instance that they believe demonstrated or proved that the PATRIOT Act imperiled the civil liberties of the American people, and they did not come up with a single example. I hope, as we continue to work on a conference report to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, that the Members of the Senate will do our jobs with a clarity of mind based upon evidence and not yield to the scare tactics by those who want to create a disinformation campaign and perhaps confuse the American people about the importance of the PATRIOT Act. It is absolutely critical that we reauthorize this act, that we not allow that wall to be resurrected because the truth is, we owe it to the American people and we owe it to those whose lives will literally be lost unless we do our job and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act before provisions of that act expire on December 31, 2005. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, those are the cuts, $5 billion over 5 years, $16 billion roughly over 10 years. What is the impact of these cuts on child support collected? This will reduce child support collections by $7.9 billion over 5 years and $24.1 billion over 10 years. That is right, for a $5 billion cut, it eliminates $7.9 billion in child support collections. For a $16 billion cut, it eliminates $24.1 billion in collections over 10 years. In my State of Texas these cuts will reduce child support collections by $411 million over 5 years and $1.25 billion over 10 years. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that a chart also prepared by the Center for Law and Social Policy, which states the projected impact on child support collections State by State, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that after I am recognized, Senator Coburn and Senator DeWine be recognized for up to 30 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Grassley, that his staff member, Theresa Pattara, be allowed access to the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on the Tax Relief Act of 2005.