John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from South Carolina, I think that is certainly a reasonable construction of what the opinion says. Let me describe for our colleagues the kind of petitions for writ of habeas corpus we are talking about that are being filed at Guantanamo Bay. A Canadian detainee who threw a grenade that killed an Army medic in a firefight and who comes from a family with longstanding al-Qaida ties moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding interrogation of him. That is one example. Another one is a Kuwaiti detainee who seeks a court order that they must be provided dictionaries in contravention of the force protection policy at Guantanamo Bay, and that their lawyer be given high-speed Internet access at their lodging on the base and be allowed to use classified Department of Defense telecommunications facilities, all under the theory that otherwise their ``right to counsel'' is unduly burdened. Then there is the motion by a high-level al-Qaida detainee complaining about base security procedures, speed of mail delivery, and medical treatment--even though they have abundant medical treatment and medical facilities at Guantanamo Bay. They further seek an order that he be transferred to the ``least onerous conditions'' at Guantanamo Bay and is asking the court to order that Guantanamo Bay authorities allow him to keep any books and reading materials sent to him and to ``report to the court'' on his opportunities for exercise, communication, recreation, and worship, among other things. Then there is the ``emergency'' motion seeking a court order requiring the authorities at Guantanamo Bay to set aside its normal security practices and show detainees DVDs that are purported to be family videos. Finally, I will mention, by way of absurd examples, the motion by Kuwaiti detainees who are unsatisfied with the Koran they are provided as standard issue by the Guantanamo authorities, and they seek a court order that they be able to keep various other supplemental religious material, such as a ``tafsir,'' or 4-volume Koran with commentary, in their cells. To say there is ``no meaningful judicial review'' or adequate substitute remedy afforded unlawful combatants flies in the face of the facts. The Senator from South Carolina described the fact that these detainees are, under current law, entitled to a combat status review tribunal, whose decision could then be appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to make sure the officials have actually provided the process to which these detainees are due, to make sure they have not been swept up in the fog of war and were innocent bystanders. This provides a fair process for them and adequate judicial review. We also have an annual administrative review board that determines, on an annual basis, whether this remains a necessity to keep these individuals in detention. I will point out that sometimes we are too lenient in terms of who we let go. I will cite to you a story of October 22, 2004, in the Washington Post, entitled ``Released Detainees Rejoining the Fight.'' There are at least 10 detainees who were released from Guantanamo Bay that have been recaptured or killed while fighting U.S. or coalition forces after they were released. The Supreme Court of the United States has talked about the impracticality of providing enemy combatants of the U.S. the full privilege of litigation. The Eisentrager court explained clearly and eloquently why we don't let enemy combatants sue the U.S. military and our soldiers in our own Federal courts. This is what the court said: Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. . . . It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him into account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States. Those burdens placed on our military by enemy combatant litigation against our military effort persist today, and we have it within our power to eliminate that burden, to allow our men and women in uniform to fight the fight they volunteered to do on our behalf, to keep us safe and, at the same time, provide an adequate substitute remedy through the Detainee Treatment Act, as I have described a moment ago. More than 200 cases have been filed on behalf of a purported 600 detainees. Strangely, that exceeds the number of detainees who are actually at Guantanamo Bay. So we have lawsuits for people who don't even exist, apparently. According to the Department of Justice: This habeas litigation has consumed enormous resources and disrupted the day-to-day operation at Guantanamo Naval Base. The United States of America, in a brief filed in the Al Odah case, said: Perhaps most disturbing, the habeas litigation has imperiled crucial military operations during a time of war. In some cases, habeas counsel have violated protective orders and jeopardized the security of the base by giving detainees information likely to cause unrest. Moreover, habeas counsel have frustrated interrogation critical to preventing further terrorist attacks on the United States. This seems to have been validated--these criticisms--by the U.S. in briefs filed in Federal court by a lawyer who has filed those lawsuits on behalf of enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. He boasted about disrupting U.S. war efforts in a magazine, where he said: The litigation is brutal for [the United States.] It's huge. We have over 100 lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for the United States military] to do what they're doing. You can't run an interrogation . . . with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down there? I know time is precious and I want to yield back to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I believe those who argue for an extension of full habeas corpus rights, such as would be provided to an American citizen in civilian courts, are making a fundamental mistake by confusing two different realms of constitutional law. One would apply to an American citizen accused of a crime, where certainly the desire and the order of business is to protect that individual against unjust charges, and to make sure that the full panoply of the Bill of Rights applies to that individual. Different considerations apply when you are talking about a declared enemy of the U.S., and particularly an unlawful combatant, someone who doesn't wear the uniform, someone who doesn't respect the law of wars, and who targets innocent civilians in the pursuit of their ideology. I don't think we should make that mistake. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and my other colleagues who serve on the Judiciary Committee--Senator Graham and Senator Kyl--for the quality of the discussion and debate. This is the kind of debate I came to the Senate and hoped to participate in. I want to try to address the concerns raised by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this constitutional issue. I happen to agree with what the Senator from Arizona said about the way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the rights of an alien with regard to their constitutional rights. The difference is, the Hamdi case the chairman was citing really had to do with whether Guantanamo Bay--leased property in Cuba--was within the jurisdiction of the Court. It held because it was under a lease and under the control of the United States that it was subject to the laws pertaining to habeas corpus. But the way I read the case--and I believe this is correct and consistent with the way the Senator from Arizona interpreted it--it does not apply, they did not hold that it applied to an alien. But I want to say, even if he is right--and I disagree that he is--that aliens, particularly unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield, have all the rights an American citizen does under the Constitution, I believe his concerns are answered by the Swain case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that if, in fact, there is an adequate substitute remedy, that in fact that satisfies any constitutional concerns with regard to the writ of habeas corpus. I believe the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed just last year, provides an adequate substitute remedy sufficient to meet Supreme Court scrutiny. Even if the Supreme Court woke up and decided that all of a sudden it would overrule all of its old cases and hold that an unlawful combatant, an alien--not a citizen of this country--was somehow entitled to the whole panoply of constitutional rights, that would satisfy the Supreme Court's concerns about the process to which that alien was due. But I also want to question sort of the logic of applying the Constitution to unlawful combatants captured on the battlefield. Are we saying they are entitled to a fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures? Are we saying they have a fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves? Well, surely not. We have all acknowledged the importance of being able to capture actionable intelligence through the interrogation process. And much of the debate we have been having in these last few weeks has been: How do we preserve this important intelligence-gathering tool which has allowed us to detect and disrupt terrorist attacks? How do we preserve that and at the same time meet our other legal obligations, constitutional and statutory? I believe the Senator from South Carolina had a question. I would be happy to yield to him for a question.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two of my law clerks, Natasha Solce and John Huffman, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the week.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one last question.

Mr. CORNYN. Is the Senator aware that in addition to blocking the Family Prosperity Act, which would have achieved the No. 1 item on the Democratic agenda, which is raising the minimum wage, in addition to reducing the death tax and providing additional tax relief, which we discussed, that there have been other efforts to block and then blame Republicans for being a do-nothing Congress? I would just like to read a short list--I know the Senator has some other prepared remarks he is going to focus on--just to cover sort of a survey of the field, of areas which our friends on the other side of the aisle have sought to block and blame the majority while, at the same time, being the ones responsible for blocking important legislation. For example, is the Senator aware that there is now an attempt on the Democratic side to block the Child Custody Protection Act--and we mentioned the estate tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which would help us become less dependent on imported energy and oil, the Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, the Federal Election Integrity Act, and the Social Security Guarantee Act? Is the Senator aware that in each of those instances, but for blocking by our friends on the other side of the aisle, we would actually be able to make bipartisan reforms and actually advance the agenda of the American people in very positive and constructive ways?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator's focus is on the Family Prosperity Act. But one of the bills that I mentioned, just as a final example of this tactic of blocking and then blaming the majority for being a do-nothing Congress, is the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act. As I recall, this is sometimes called the small business health insurance bill, which would be designed to allow small businesses and other associations to pool together to buy health insurance for their employees at about 12 percent lower rates than are otherwise available. Is the Senator aware that while we attempted to close off debate, 55 Senators voted to be able to close off debate and go to that important small business health reform legislation, and 43 Senators voted against closing off debate, thus preventing us--again, blocking us--from passing this important health care legislation which appears to otherwise have broad bipartisan support?

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would inquire of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina--he has just described the blocking of the Family Prosperity Act, which, as I recall, combines the death tax, an increase in the minimum wage, and so-called extension of the tax relief, including the teacher classroom deduction, the State and local tax deduction, and the R&D--research and development--tax credit. But I believe he also referenced a press conference that was held at 10 o'clock this morning here at the Capitol where Republicans were charged with raising taxes against the middle class for failing to extend the very tax extenders that they blocked just in August. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. I ask to speak for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of the lessons America learned after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, is the danger of treating our fight against global terrorism as a law enforcement function alone. This was documented time and time again, whether it is the wall that was erected that prevented intelligence authorities from getting access to important information and sharing it with law enforcement authorities, and vice versa, or whether it was waiting until a terrorist attack occurred and then merely investigating in the rubble and the destruction left behind, and then prosecuting the person, if, in fact, he could be prosecuted and brought to justice. It concerns me a great deal that we have seemed to lapse once again into a pre-September 11 mindset where some of our colleagues, as we debate the use of terrorist tribunals and the access to our court system those convicted of war crimes should have, seem to have forgotten some of those lessons learned from September 11. It is important we not fight this global war on terrorism strictly as a law enforcement matter, punishing conduct after the fact rather than gaining intelligence we need in order to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist attacks from occurring in the first place. Specifically, I will address what sort of avenues of appeal detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have regarding their convictions and their status review. Members may recall late last year the Congress passed something called the Detainee Treatment Act in which we thought we had dealt comprehensively with the issue of how detainees, unlawful combatants, should be treated. Of course, we reiterated our commitment, the ban against torture, cruel and inhumane and degrading conduct, but in that important piece of legislation, Congress also said that detainees, these unlawful combatants, people who do not observe the laws of war, who target innocent civilian populations, are not entitled to receive the full panoply of rights accorded to American citizens when tried in an Article III court of law. Specifically, we said that for the writ of habeas corpus that otherwise might be available to them, we would substitute an alternative procedure composed of three different things. We created the combat status review tribunal, first, which was designed to make sure the individuals who are actually detained at Guantanamo Bay were, in fact, enemy combatants, and to make sure we did not in the course of or in the fog of war sweep up innocent bystanders who were not actually a threat to the United States. These combat status review tribunals have very important procedures I will mention in a moment. However, we also saw the use of administrative review boards that on an annual basis review the status of a particular detainee at Guantanamo Bay to determine, No. 1, whether they were a continuing threat to the American people or our allies, and, No. 2, whether additional actionable intelligence could be obtained from them during the interrogation process. This administrative review board is an annual process and has resulted in the release of many of the detainees who were at Guantanamo Bay who had been determined to no longer be a danger to the American people or our allies. The fact is these two procedures--the combatant status review tribunal and the administrative review board--are coupled together with an additional right of appellate review provided under the Detainee Treatment Act which is full review of a conviction by a military commission by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in the Nation's capital. That court is not restricted in any way to review any and all errors they believe are material to the outcome of the case, and I believe, combined with the combatant status review tribunal and the administrative review board, does provide a due process for these detainees in a way that does not jeopardize this legislation, should it be ultimately reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Actually, I think it might surprise some of our colleagues to be talking about this issue because they may well have thought we addressed this issue late last year when we passed the Detainee Treatment Act. The fact is, in the Hamden case, handed down in June, the U.S. Supreme Court said Congress had not made sufficiently clear its intention to apply the Detainee Treatment Act to pending cases. Therefore, it went on to decide the Hamden case, refused to throw out the appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction, and, in fact, left us with a situation where about 300 of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have about 600 applications for writs of habeas corpus pending in American courts. The United States provides adequate evidentiary hearings to ensure that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are, in fact, unlawful combatants, and, No. 2, pose a threat to the United States national security interests. These detainee status hearings and other procedures provided by the United States to terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay meet, and in many ways exceed, the requirements for prisoners of war under article V of the Geneva Conventions. As I mentioned, on top of these status hearings, meaningful judicial review is provided by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals. Final judicial review is provided of those decisions. These status hearings and judicial review mechanisms were codified as part of that Detainee Treatment Act. The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals--which many in this Chamber have referred to as the second highest court in the land--has the power to review not only whether the Department of Defense faithfully followed the procedures prescribed by Congress but also whether those procedures comport with the U.S. Constitution. For some to say, as I actually heard this morning in a hearing we had before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that ``no meaningful judicial review'' is provided to unlawful combatants is, I claim, inaccurate and misleading. While providing these judicial procedures, Congress saw fit to foreclose the possibility of a flood of habeas corpus petitions overwhelming the Federal courts and distracting our men and women in uniform from prosecuting the war effort. The status hearings and judicial review mechanisms are intended to satisfy the meaningful review requirement in the absence of the ability to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Alien enemy combatants, whether lawful or unlawful under the Geneva Conventions, have never been found by the U.S. Supreme Court to have a right to file a habeas corpus petition in American Federal courts. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Eisentrager v. Johnson that enemy combatants held by U.S. forces overseas are not entitled to the ``privilege of litigation'' and cannot sue our military in our courts. Beyond the constitutional arguments for removing habeas jurisdiction, there are important practical considerations, as well, as explained in the Eisentrager decision. The Supreme Court explained clearly and eloquently why we cannot let enemy combatants sue the U.S. military and our soldiers in American Federal courts. It said: Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy . . . It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigation would be a conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States. These burdens, as identified by the U.S. Supreme Court placed on our military by enemy combatant litigation, persist today. The Department of Justice has detailed the significant burdens. It has said: The detainees have urged habeas courts to dictate conditions on [Guantanamo Naval] Base ranging from the speed of Internet access afforded their lawyers to the extent of mail delivered to the detainees. More than 200 cases have been filed on behalf of 600 purported detainees. Curiously, this number exceeds the number of detainees actually held at Guantanamo Bay, which is closer to 500. Also, according to the Department of Justice: This habeas litigation has consumed enormous resources and disrupted the day-to-day operation of Guantanamo Naval Base. The United States also notes that this litigation has had a serious negative impact on our war against al-Qaida. According to the U.S. brief, in the al-Qaida case: Perhaps most disturbing, the habeas litigation has imperiled crucial military operations during a time of war. In some instances, habeas counsel have violated protective orders and jeopardized the security of the base by giving detainees information likely to cause unrest. Moreover, habeas counsel have frustrated interrogation critical to preventing further terrorist attacks on the United States. Michael Ratner, a lawyer who has filed lawsuits on behalf of numerous enemy combatants held at GTMO, boasted about disrupting U.S. war efforts to a magazine--Mother Earth magazine. He said: The litigation is brutal for [the United States]. It's huge. We have over one hundred lawyers now from big and small firms working to represent the detainees. Every time an attorney goes down there, it makes it that much harder [for the U.S. military] to do what they're doing. You can't run an interrogation . . . with attorneys. What are they going to do now that we're getting court orders to get more lawyers down there? Former Attorney General Bill Barr explained the folly of applying American criminal procedure and judicial process and standards to questions of the enemy combatants. He said: In armed conflict, the body politic is not using its domestic disciplinary powers to sanction an errant member, rather it is exercising its national defense powers to neutralize the external threat and preserve the very foundation of all our civil liberties. Here the Constitution is not concerned with handicapping the government to preserve other values. Rather it is designed to maximize the government's efficiency to achieve victory--even at the cost of ``collateral damage'' that would be unacceptable in the domestic realm. Attorney General Barr brought these concerns into relief with the very telling hypothetical example. He said: Let me posit a battlefield scenario. American troops are pinned down by sniper fire from a village. As the troops advance, they see two men running from a building from which the troops believe they had received sniper fire. The troops believe they are probably a sniper team. Is it really being suggested that the Constitution vests these men with due process rights as against the American soldiers? When do these rights arise? If the troops shoot and kill them--i.e., deprive them of life--could it be a violation of [their] due process [rights]? Suppose they are wounded and it turns out they were not enemy forces. Does this give rise to Bivens' Constitutional tort actions for violation of due process? Alternatively, suppose the fleeing men are captured and held as enemy combatants. Does the Due Process Clause really mean that they have to be released unless the military can prove they were enemy combatants? Does the Due Process Clause mean that the American military must divert its energies and resources from fighting the war and dedicate them to investigating the claims of innocence of these two men? This [simply] illustrates why military decisions are not susceptible to judicial administration and supervision. There are simply no judicially-manageable standards to either govern or evaluate military operational judgments. Such decisions invariably involve the weighing of risks. One can easily imagine situations in which there is an appreciable risk that someone is an enemy combatant, but significant uncertainty and not a preponderance of evidence. Nevertheless, the circumstances may be such that the President makes a judgment that prudence dictates treating such a person as hostile in order to avoid an unacceptable risk to our military operations. By their nature, these military judgments must rest upon a broad range of information, opinion, prediction, and even surmise. The President's assessment may include reports from his military and diplomatic advisers, field commanders, intelligence sources, or sometimes just the opinion of front line troops. He must decide what weight to give each of these sources. He must evaluate risks in light of the present state of the conflict and the overall military and political objectives of the campaign. So as we take up this important issue of terrorist tribunals, and reaffirming our commitment in the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed just last year, these unlawful and lawful combatants--the enemy captured on the battlefield--are entitled to process, but they are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of an American citizen in a court of law. It is only just and fitting we do provide this alternative process through reviewing the combat status tribunal decisions to make sure we are accurate as a matter of fact in detaining enemy combatants of the United States. It is entirely appropriate that we have an annual administrative review board to look at and determine whether these individuals should continue to be detained in light of additional information and in light of changing circumstances. And it is entirely appropriate that they be provided an appellate review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on all bases of decision in the combat status review tribunal and the administrative review process and also that they be provided an appeal following any conviction of a war crime by a military tribunal. But it is not appropriate to lapse into a pre-9/11 mentality of treating the war on terror as simply another law enforcement action, treating it as another criminal prosecution just such as any other criminal prosecution that occurs on a regular basis in our State and Federal courts. The dangers of doing so mean we will have lapsed back into those perhaps happier times but the blissful ignorance those happier times produced. We are at war. We have an enemy that continues to try to explore our vulnerabilities. And as we know from the recently disrupted plot emanating out of London, al-Qaida and our enemies continue to try to find vulnerabilities that will allow them to hit us here at home. It is absolutely essential that we live up to our responsibilities as elected representatives of the American people to maintain the safety and security of those people by making sure we meet the obligations imposed upon Congress and the Federal Government by the U.S. Supreme Court and that we provide basic rights as dictated by the Court in the Hamdan decision. But it is not appropriate that we tie the hands of our military commanders, that we perhaps undermine our ability to prosecute and win this war on terror and keep America safe by treating this war on terror and the appellate rights of detainees in a way that makes it harder for us to keep America safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting, off-the-floor, on the nomination of Mary Peters to be Secretary of Transportation on Monday, September 25, 2006 after the first rollcall vote.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in favor of the confirmation of Alice Fisher, the President's nominee to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. I am glad to say that Ms. Fisher's confirmation will finally overcome the unnecessary obstruction that she faces in this Congress which has forced the President to reassess her appointment. Ms. Fisher is an outstanding nominee for this position. In addition to her credentials, she has substantial previous public service experience, particularly in the Criminal Division during a difficult time following the terrorist attacks of September 11. That experience will serve her well as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. The Criminal Division is one of the most important jobs of the Department of Justice. It handles a variety of issues, including counterterrorism, violent crime, corporate fraud, and crimes against children. The Criminal Division's importance to the success of America's fight in the war against terror makes it all the more important that the Senate end this obstruction and make Ms. Fisher's appointment permanent. Beginning with her service as Deputy Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate's Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater, Ms. Fisher has exemplified the attributes needed to lead an organization with a mission vital and important, obviously, to the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. Prior to her latest Government service, she was a litigation partner for 5 years at the DC office of Latham & Watkins, one of the premier law firms in the country. She takes from that experience a respect and deep knowledge of the law. Since her recess appointment in November of 2005, necessitated because of holds on her nomination, Ms. Fisher has served as Assistant Attorney General with distinction, honor, and success. She immediately refocused the division's mission in a way that reflects the priorities of the administration. For example, under Ms. Fisher, the Criminal Division has made impressive headway in supporting the Nation's national security mission, in combating violent crime, including gang violence, and protecting our children from exploitation on the Internet and elsewhere. What is troubling about the debate today on this nomination is that we are having a debate about a nominee who so clearly deserves confirmation. What is troubling about today's debate is that it is reflective of the continued obstruction of nominees by Democrats in the U.S. Senate. This obstruction has not only affected judicial nominations, which is perhaps better known, but also the confirmation of important executive branch nominees with significant national security responsibilities. Ms. Fisher oversees vital counterterrorism and counterespionage divisions. But because her nomination has been blocked, these critical components have operated without a Senate- confirmed supervisor for more than a year. Consider the constant refrain from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this Republican-led Congress is not doing everything it can to protect America's national security. Beyond Ms. Fisher's nomination, this message stands in stark contrast with the democrats' record of obstruction on other key national security posts. Perhaps the most inexcusable obstruction pertains to the nomination of Kenneth Wainstein, who would head the newly created National Security Division. Mr. Wainstein's confirmation would fulfill one of the key recommendations of the WMD Commission, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. It was the WMD Commission that recommended the reorganization of intelligence-gathering components within the Department of Justice. Mr. Wainstein has broad-based, bi-partisan support, yet he inexplicably still faces a Democrat filibuster-by-hold. We cannot wait any longer for Democrats to release their hold on Mr. Wainstein. In the 5 years since the attacks of September 11, the Federal Government has taken a number of steps to reorganize and improve its resources to better fight terrorism. Our terrorist enemies are always changing and adapting, and so must we--if we are to keep the upper hand in the war on terror. Some 15 months ago, the WMD Commission recognized that improvements should be made to the Department of Justice's national security apparatus. They recommended a reorganization of the Department and the creation of a new National Security Division--which would bring together under one umbrella all the national security components of the DOJ. The National Security Division that Mr. Wainstein would oversee is critically important to the Department--and to America's national security. It will integrate the key national security components--the Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections of the Criminal Division and the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which has the lead role in implementing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA-- under the leadership of a single Assistant Attorney General. Bringing together these mission-critical entities will enhance our ability to fulfill our top priority of preventing, disrupting and defeating terrorist acts before they occur. The President approved the WMD Commission's recommendation more than a year ago. And Congress embraced the concept and fully authorized the National Security Division as part of the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization. Congress has also approved a reprogramming request submitted by the DOJ and office space has been dedicated and renovated--but unfortunately, it remains vacant. It remains vacant because holds have been placed on the nomination and we have seen a filibuster-by-hold. The Department has done everything it can until this Senate confirms Mr. Wainstein. Obstruction from the other side of the aisle, Mr. President, is impeding efforts to improve national security. Long-term planning is being delayed and uncertainty is beginning to affect morale. The Department of Justice needs Mr. Wainstein on board, to provide leadership, vision and guidance. Again, like Ms. Fisher's stalled nomination, Democrat obstruction is impeding this effort to improve national security. But Ms. Fisher and Mr. Wainstein are not the only nominees to face obstruction. Just looking back to a few others who were slotted to fill positions critical to our Nation's war on terror have likewise been filibustered. For instance, the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, was filibustered before the President was forced to recess-appoint him. He was eventually confirmed. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman, was filibustered, recess-appointed, and finally confirmed; and Office of the Director of National Intelligence General Counsel, Ben Powell, likewise was filibustered, recess-appointed and finally confirmed. This obstruction is not limited solely to nominations. Who can forget how proud Democrats were when they celebrated killing the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, one of the most important anti- terror tools for our front-line law enforcement and intelligence agents. Democrats also complain that we are not doing all we can to secure the safety of our citizens, and then promote hyperbole and hysteria about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which is well within the President's authority during wartime, to conduct critical battlefield intelligence-gathering against foreign threats to America. I think the American people see through this Democrat obstruction. But nominations to critical national security positions should not face partisan road blocks. I recently read a newspaper report on the nomination of Mr. Wainstein. It reported that the office was ready, the phone lines up and the computers humming, waiting on him to start. But, his nomination is being blocked on reasons unrelated to him. This obstruction must stop. I am glad Ms. Fisher will be confirmed later today and I hope that the Senate will be able to move on to Mr. Wainstein's nomination quickly so that we do not leave critical national security offices unfilled. In closing, I am pleased that President Bush has nominated Ms. Fisher to serve as Assistant Attorney General and I look forward to her continued service in that post. I ask my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, listening to the comments of our friends across the aisle, you would think this is more about an election than it is about winning a war. The problem is not so much in the eyes of the critics or the Islamic extremists who attacked the United States time and time again, until we finally woke up on September 11, 2001, and realized we were at war. The problem is not them; the problem is us. It is America. It is America's leaders. We are the problem. This is more important than any party. This is more important than any election. This is more important than any single person. This is about whether we will win this war that was declared against the United States that we finally woke up and realized was going on, on September 11. It dates back as long ago as 1979, when the U.S. embassy in Tehran was overcome and for 444 days American citizens were held captive by Islamic militants. Our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to claim that this is all about Iraq and a mistake that was made going into Iraq, and but for that mistake the world would be rosy and we would be at peace. But that is revisionist history. The fact is that in 1979, when our embassy was captured and Americans were kidnapped in Tehran, and in 1983, when 241 marines were killed in Beirut by Hezbollah, the same terrorist organization that has been lobbing Katyusha rockets, supplied by Iran through Syria, into Israel-- yes, this is the same enemy that continued to attack American embassies in Africa in 2000, and killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole. Yes, this is the same enemy that killed almost 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, in New York City and Washington, DC, and but for the brave actions of a few on Flight 93, perhaps thousands more would have been killed. Recently, I attended a speech where the Deputy Secretary of Defense spoke. He asked the question: Do you know why it was that these Islamic extremists killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001? It was because they could not kill 30,000, and because they could not kill 3 million. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that an ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians in order to accomplish their objective would stop at anything, use any weapon at its disposal to accomplish its ends? Mr. President, I disagree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this war is limited to Iraq and that if we were to withdraw our troops precipitously, the world would suddenly be a rosy place and we would live in peace. Unfortunately, this debate seems to be more about criticizing those who are prosecuting the war. No, we are not going to be critical of the men and women in uniform, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too ready to criticize those who command them, the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense and the Commander in Chief. I am not saying they don't have a right to criticize them. I am not saying that they have been perfect and haven't made mistakes. But I think we need to keep our eye on the threat. The threat is not just Iraq, the threat is in Afghanistan, it is in Madrid, it is in Beslan, it is in London. It is a threat driven by an extreme ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians to accomplish its goals. What would be the consequences of doing as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest, leaving before the Iraqi security forces are able to provide security for their fragile and fledgling democracy? It would be the same mistake that we saw occur in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union was defeated and Afghanistan became a failed state, we saw the rise of the Taliban and saw its partners in al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a change in direction, fresh ideas, new direction. Those are campaign slogans. They are not about solving the problem. They are not about beating the enemy, defeating the enemy who declared war on us as far back as 1979. I know that our colleagues have been critical. Again, they have every right to be. This is America. We believe in free speech. We believe in people being able to express their views no matter how mistaken, no matter how naive. This administration and the Secretary of Defense have been criticized for saying we need to stay the course, we need to keep the faith, that what we are doing in Iraq and what we are doing in trying to fight and defeat this enemy of Islamic extremism is important to the security of this country because if we were to do as some of our friends on the other side of the aisle suggest and leave Iraq before the Iraqis are able to provide basic security, it would become another failed state. And, no, this is not George Bush's Vietnam because after Vietnam, the Vietcong did not follow us here. That is exactly the threat with which we are confronted today. The Islamic extremists who have declared war on America and the West will follow us here unless we deal with them on the offensive there. And, yes, every time we seem to talk about the tools that are necessary to win this war, we run into a brick wall of opposition on the other side of the aisle, such as listening to international phone calls between al-Qaida operatives and their confederates here in the United States. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle said: Foul; the President doesn't have the authority to do that. Only Congress has the authority to do that. So we get into a big food fight about who has the power, who has the authority, not about working together to solve the problem. When it comes to the issue of how do we deal with those who have been captured on the battlefield and detained in Guantanamo Bay--sources of important intelligence that have disrupted and deterred terrorist attacks and saved American lives--it seems as if the focus is all too often on what should we be doing to make the detainee's life better rather than what should we be doing to get that intelligence which will allow us to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist activities. Now the world has turned an anxious eye toward Tehran once again, where the same radical ideology has caused them to supply, through Syria, weapons to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has killed more Americans than any other in the world, save and except al-Qaida. Is there any doubt that if Iran had been able to supply biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to Hezbollah in order to achieve its stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, is there any question that they would have withheld their hand, that they would not have done so? I have to say I think this must be a very strange picture to the civilized world, those who actually believe we are serious about fighting this enemy who has declared war against the West and against our way of life and against our values, that instead of focusing together on how do we defeat this enemy who declared war on us, we have somehow turned this into an election-year effort to discredit and vote no confidence for the Secretary of Defense. It is the wrong direction. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say there is no plan for success and, of course, there is. It is to provide training to the Iraqi security forces so they can provide security, and we can bring our troops home, allow this new Government in Iraq to resolve its differences after 30 years of tyranny, try to work through the sectarian conflicts by creating a coalition government, and then to allow the Iraqi people to enjoy the prosperity so they can see the benefits of self-determination and free and fair elections. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be long on criticism, long on complaints, and short on plans. They have yet to offer a single concrete idea about what they would do differently to win this war and defeat this enemy. I, as one Senator, would welcome their ideas, if they have ideas, so we can work together to defeat the common enemy because, as I said, this is more important than any election, than any party or any person. This is about the safety and security of our Nation and our hope and dream that the values we represent can be exported--and the blessings of liberty along with it-- to other nations that have never known anything but the boot heel of a tyrant. I hope our colleagues will reconsider and will not pursue this distraction, will not pursue this unwise and inappropriate vote of no confidence against the Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for a minimum of 15 minutes in morning business.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was delighted to hear my friend and our colleague from Delaware speak a few moments ago. I like and admire him a great deal. I take him at his word when he says we ought to work more closely together in a bipartisan spirit to solve the Nation's problems. While I have said how much I have admired and respected him, I disagree with him. That is what we are certainly at liberty to do in the Senate. I hope we do not degenerate into disagreements being personal or that disagreements, particularly when it comes to security matters, cast aspersions on one's patriotism. I certainly do not doubt the patriotism of those who disagree with our current policy in the global war on terror, but there are some important reasons why their policies would lead us down a path-- assuming they have a policy or a plan--dangerous to this country's security. It is imperative for Members of the Senate, those who have been entrusted with this sacred responsibility to represent the American people, the people of my State of Texas, all 23 million, it is imperative to explain to the American people the threat that confronts our Nation today from a national security perspective and the consequences of our failing to deal with that threat in a way that will be likely to accomplish peace and stability in troubled regions of the world such as the Middle East. I fear the big disagreement between some of my colleagues and I on this issue has to do with a different perception of the threat and perhaps a different perception of what the consequences would be for failing to deal with that threat, so I will talk about that for a moment. Contrary to what some of our colleagues have said, this threat that our Nation confronts is not limited to Iraq. It is not limited to Afghanistan. Indeed, some have spoken about the need to bring our troops home from Iraq, as if, if we did so, all of our problems would go away and the threat with which our Nation is confronted would simply evaporate. That is simply wishful thinking. Indeed, some have said this is not a war at all, this is more of a police action; this is something that is certainly not like World War II, when we knew who the enemy was and we knew the threat, or at least after a while we finally learned what the threat was to civilization as we know it. This war is not limited to Iraq. So if we were to leave Iraq, the war would not be over but merely take place in a different location-- unfortunately, right back in the United States. The threat is that of those who believe in an extreme version of one of the world's great religions and who believe this extremism--some have called it Islamic fascism--this hijacking of one of the world's great religions has justified in their minds the killing of innocent men, women, and children and the establishment ultimately of a theocratic or religious State. It does not respect individual rights. It does not respect the right to worship according to the dictates of your own conscience. It certainly does not recognize freedom of speech and freedom of expression and certainly does not recognize the rights of women as equal members of society. The important point I make is that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who doubt we are at war, who doubt the global nature of the war, and who say if we were merely to bring our troops home from Iraq the threat would evaporate, one of the mistakes they make is they fail to perceive when this war started. If you were to ask, I bet many of them would say the war started on September 11, 2001. However, the war had long been raging against America before September 11, 2001; America had simply failed to realize it. One useful date for identifying when the start of this war began would be November 4, 1979. That was the date that 66 American citizens were kidnapped and held hostage in the American embassy in Iran for a period of 444 days. Or you might say the war started in 1983, when 241 marines were killed in the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, by Hezbollah--the same terrorist organization, a proxy of Iran through Syria, that recently rained down Katyusha rockets on northern Israel, this same terrorist organization that has killed more American citizens than any other in world history, save and except for al-Qaida. Or you could say the war started in 1993, when al-Qaida engineered the bombing of the World Trade Center in a failed attempt to bring down that trade center, which they successfully accomplished 8 years later. You could say part of that war that started, perhaps as far back as 1979, continued when 17 American sailors were killed when the USS Cole was bombed. And yes, the date we focus on the most, that had the most dramatic impact on us right here at home, was September 11, 2001, the fifth anniversary of which will be coming up in the next few days. But some people act as if September 11, 2001, was the single and solitary event that defined this war of Islamic extremists who hate our way of life and simply want to eliminate it from the face of the Earth, along with our ally in the Middle East, Israel. They do not connect the dots to what happened in Beslan, Russia, at that school; Bali; Madrid; London; Mumbai--places where individuals, driven by this extremist ideology, which says that men, women, and children are simply fair game in pursuit of their agenda--are driven with such hatred that they will make no distinctions between armed citizens, military, people who can defend themselves or not--and, yes, these are the same individuals driven by the same ideology that recently rained down more than 2,000 rockets out of southern Lebanon into northern Israel. Hezbollah, supplied by Syria and Iran, delivered these very rockets. Some wonder why America is so determined to make sure Iran does not get nuclear weapons. One reason why it is so critical we stop President Ahmadi-Nejad and his regime from getting nuclear weapons is: Do you doubt for a minute that if Iran had nuclear weapons they could have supplied Hezbollah to carry out those attacks on Israel they would have withheld their hand, that they would have failed to use them? I have no doubt in my mind that, based on this war against the West and against America, and specifically that has been raging since 1979, that if terrorist states, and those who support Islamic extremism, Islamic fascism, if they had it within their power to supply biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to terrorists in order to accomplish their goals, they would use them. That is the challenge we must meet. A few months ago, my wife and I visited the battlefield at Gettysburg, where 50,000 American casualties suffered from wounds. Many died as a result of that great conflict so many years ago. I was reminded at the time that one of the greatest challenges Abraham Lincoln had at the time of that battle was convincing the American people that the desire to maintain the Union, the need to maintain the Union, justified continuation of war until it was successfully concluded. Our job, in some ways, is exactly the same today because there is no military force on the face of the Earth that is more powerful than that of the U.S. military. We are simply the best, and no one else even comes close. The only way the U.S. military can be defeated is if they lose the support of the American people and we simply tell them to quit and to withdraw. I believe the consequences of our quitting and withdrawing or giving up in Iraq and in fighting this global war against Islamic extremism would be disastrous to the American people. Rather than celebrating the 5-year anniversary since September 11 with no other terrorist attacks actually successfully occurring on American soil, I am sure the tale would be far different because we have chosen, through a number of different measures, that we have undertaken--whether it is passing the PATRIOT Act; whether it is through the use of a terrorist surveillance program that intercepts international phone calls between terrorist organizations and their allies in the United States; whether it is rooting out terrorist financing networks, which take the money out of the networks that actually fund terrorist attacks; whether it is the capture and interrogation of unlawful enemy combatants and getting good actual intelligence from them in the Guantanamo Bay facility; whether it is the information gathering, intelligence gathering and sharing we have done--all of these efforts since 9/11 have, I believe, contributed, in large part, to America not suffering another terrorist attack on our own soil in the last 5 years. I also believe the fact we are fighting this radical ideology abroad in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq is part of the reason we are not fighting that battle right here at home. I believe we are in a time of choosing, certainly in a time of testing. But we simply have a choice whether we want safety or we are willing to live with the danger of terrorists able to strike at virtually any time they wish, whether we believe strongly enough in our American values of freedom or whether we are willing to cower under this threat and live under tyranny, whether we believe strongly enough that open, transparent societies and self-determination are important or whether we are willing to live in some sort of prisonlike lockdown. This is a time for testing our determination. And this is a time of choosing what kind of America we want. I know one of the most basic impulses of every parent is to hope for a better life for their children and grandchildren than they themselves perhaps had. That is one of the reasons why parents have worked so hard and pushed their children so hard to achieve and be successful, so that they may enjoy the standard of living and the opportunities that living in the United States has to offer. I certainly know that was the reason my parents worked hard, that my father flew B-17s in World War II and knocked out Hitler's war machine before being captured as a prisoner of war. I believe the threat confronting our country and our way of life--indeed, the entire Western civilization--is equally as great as the threat faced by the ``Greatest Generation,'' people such as my mother and father. If we fail to point out to the American people what the threat is and give it a name and to let the American people understand how the various conflicts in the Middle East and the terrorist attacks that occur around the world are not disparate and isolated events but, rather, part of the threat of Islamic extremism that will endanger the next generation--which will change the very way of life of our children and grandchildren--unless we meet that threat, we will have failed to live up to our responsibilities. Some of our colleagues say we should merely leave Iraq, bring our troops home as soon as possible. There is no one who wants our troops home any faster than I do. But we have to do so based upon the ability of the Iraqis to provide their own security. That is why we continue to train hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police officers and soldiers so they can provide that security. Sure, we could leave. We could leave today. But as General John Abizaid said, the head of Central Command: If we leave now, they will follow us here. If we were to leave before we had a reasonable opportunity for the Iraqi people to provide for their own security and provide for their own government and self-determination, what would that say about the sacrifices of so many who have given so much to liberate the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator, to provide the people of Afghanistan an opportunity to vote in free and fair elections for their own leaders? Would that have all been in vain? What would come of America's word and our commitment, when we ask brave Iraqis to step forward and to volunteer to serve in the police or in the army or to try to go about their life as much as possible by participating in free and fair elections, if we were to leave prematurely before they were able to provide for their own security, before they would be able to continue on the glidepath to self- determination and a better life? Does anybody have any doubt that the criminals, that the jihadists, that the sectarian violence would lay claim to those individuals, those brave individuals who have allied themselves with America in an attempt to provide a peaceful and democratic Iraq? What would it mean if we left immediately? Well, I think it would mean that, like Afghanistan--which was the launching pad for al-Qaida, with a friendly government such as the Taliban--we would have another failed state where terrorists could plan, finance, train, and then export their terrorist attacks to places such as the United States. Yes, I believe this is the test of our generation, just like my parents' generation, the ``Greatest Generation,'' met their test in World War II. And for the sake of the next generation, and generations beyond, I pray we pass that test. Some have said, and our colleagues earlier today said: What do we want? We need to change. But they ask for change without any plan, without articulating what they would do differently, other than to criticize the hard effort being undertaken by our men and women in uniform to bring about a peaceful and secure Iraq. They say we need a new direction, but they are unwilling to identify what direction we ought to go. They claim the President has politicized the war on terror. Well, I beg to differ. I believe this President has done what he believes is his duty by identifying the threat and confronting the threat and trying to make America a safer place. That is not politicizing the war on terror. That is telling the American people what the facts are. Some have suggested we ought to sit down with the terrorists and talk to them. Well, I think we have seen what kind of threat this ideology breeds and why that is not an idea likely to be successful. Some have gone so far as to say what has happened in Iraq has not made us safer. But as I went down the various places where terrorists have hit since September 11 all around the world, is there any doubt, but for the efforts we have undertaken in this country, both here and abroad, and taking the fight on the offensive, that we would not be celebrating the fifth anniversary of September 11 without another terrorist attack but, rather, we would be looking backward and saying, if we had only taken the threat more seriously, maybe we would have avoided that terrorist attack which would have occurred but for those acts? Some have said there have been a lot of mistakes in Iraq. Well, perhaps that is true. I am not sure of any war plan that survives the first shot. I know we are fighting an intelligent and adaptive and resourceful enemy who manipulates the media, who has learned how to use the Internet to communicate, and who has attempted to attack our country and other countries time and time again. I hope over this next month, before we recess for the November election season, we are successful in identifying the nature of the threat that confronts our country, indeed, the free world, and we describe with clarity the consequences of our failing to deal with it and that we demand that those who are critical of what we are doing in fighting the global war on terror explain to us precisely: What would you do differently and how do you believe that would make us safer. That is the debate I believe we owe the American people. That is the debate I believe we owe the next generations that come after us. And that is the debate we owe those who have worked so hard over the last 200 years to make America the place it is today. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I join my colleagues from Ohio and the senior Senator from Texas in their comments regarding H.R. 4, the Pension Protection Act. While providing the airline industry with relief, this bill does so unevenly and undercuts the ability of Continental Airlines and American Airlines to compete in a global economy. These Texas airlines have neither frozen their pension plans nor filed for bankruptcy. As Senator Voinovich stated, the airline industry operates on thin profit margins and disadvantaging two profitable airlines has ramifications not only for the airline industry, but also for consumers and airline employees. I believe it is crucial that Congress revisits this issue and provides more equitable relief for all airlines and not just a few.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006. This bill is designed to address the critical issue of judicial and law enforcement security. Police officers place their lives on the line every time they put on their uniforms and report for duty. Likewise, the dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses--from the judges to the court reporters--preside each day over difficult, contentious and at times very emotional legal disputes. And these public servants, like our police, are placed in hams way by the nature of their jobs. These individuals fulfill essential roles that keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect for them. Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise. From escalating violence against police officers to courthouse attacks--including in my home State of Texas--these despicable actions threaten the administration of justice. This Congress has the power-- and now must exercise it--to ensure that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed, the health of American democracy--depends on our ability to attract dedicated public servants, including police officers and judges. And so we must do all that we can to provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply because of the position they hold. As a former State attorney general, I had the responsibility of defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found guilty of violence. So I am acutely aware of the devastating effects criminal acts of violeave have on the victims and their families. And because I also used to be a judge I am fortunate to have a number of close, personal friends who serve in law enforcement and on the bench. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those families. I am outraged that these cowardly and despicable acts continue to occur. Police officers in this Nation are sworn to protect and to serve their fellow citizens. They selflessly respond to dangerous situations and often must diffuse highly emotional circumstances. And judges, for their part, are impartial umpires of the law. We know that they cannot help but disappoint people in their line of work because, in litigation, there is normally a winning side and a losing one. But judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement must not face threats and violence for doing nothing more than simply carrying out their duties. The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system and serve the public in law enforcement are essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. This bill takes steps toward providing additional protections to these dedicated public servants. First, it increases the punishments, including providing mandatory minimums, against those who retaliate against judges, police officers, or their family members, on account of the performance of their duties. A high-ranking law enforcement official recently told me that detention equals deterrence. What he meant was that those who know that they will face significant incarceration think twice about committing criminal acts. I agree with him, and we should carry out that idea in this legislation. Importantly, this bill curbs frivolous lawsuits against police officers and streamlines the appellate process for those murderers who receive the death penalty for murdering a judge or a police officer. It is good policy to place reasonable limits on lawsuits involving police officers by limiting claims to actual damages--unless the defendant purposefully inflicted serious bodily injury on the plaintiff, in which case the plaintiff may seek an additional $250,000 in damages. And returning the attorney's fees provisions in these cases to the traditional attorney's fees responsibility by requiring each party to bear this burden is likewise good policy. Placing time constraints on habeas corpus petitions, including the time to file the petitions, the time to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition, and the time to rule on a petition when the murder of a police officer is involved, is also good policy. This will eliminate extensive and unnecessary delays for the families of victims that occur when those who have victimized their loved ones find ways to delay the imposition of justice. Finally, this bill makes technical fixes to the law enforcement concealed carry legislation passed in the 108th Congress. Some technical barriers prevent retired officers from carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones. These technical corrections will facilitate the full implementation of that provision as Congress originally intended. Mr. President, the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006 is an important piece of legislation. It targets those people who would stand in the way of the proper, fair, and efficient administration of justice. The men and women of law enforcement and the judiciary work hard to carry out the duties entrusted to them by their State and the Federal Constitution, and they deserve our support. This bill is a significant step In providing them that much needed support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and encourage their support of this bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006. This bill is designed to address the critical issue of judicial and law enforcement security. Police officers place their lives on the line every time they put on their uniforms and report for duty. Likewise, the dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses--from the judges to the court reporters--preside each day over difficult, contentious and at times very emotional legal disputes. And these public servants, like our police, are placed in hams way by the nature of their jobs. These individuals fulfill essential roles that keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect for them. Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise. From escalating violence against police officers to courthouse attacks--including in my home State of Texas--these despicable actions threaten the administration of justice. This Congress has the power-- and now must exercise it--to ensure that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed, the health of American democracy--depends on our ability to attract dedicated public servants, including police officers and judges. And so we must do all that we can to provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply because of the position they hold. As a former State attorney general, I had the responsibility of defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found guilty of violence. So I am acutely aware of the devastating effects criminal acts of violeave have on the victims and their families. And because I also used to be a judge I am fortunate to have a number of close, personal friends who serve in law enforcement and on the bench. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those families. I am outraged that these cowardly and despicable acts continue to occur. Police officers in this Nation are sworn to protect and to serve their fellow citizens. They selflessly respond to dangerous situations and often must diffuse highly emotional circumstances. And judges, for their part, are impartial umpires of the law. We know that they cannot help but disappoint people in their line of work because, in litigation, there is normally a winning side and a losing one. But judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel and law enforcement must not face threats and violence for doing nothing more than simply carrying out their duties. The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system and serve the public in law enforcement are essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. This bill takes steps toward providing additional protections to these dedicated public servants. First, it increases the punishments, including providing mandatory minimums, against those who retaliate against judges, police officers, or their family members, on account of the performance of their duties. A high-ranking law enforcement official recently told me that detention equals deterrence. What he meant was that those who know that they will face significant incarceration think twice about committing criminal acts. I agree with him, and we should carry out that idea in this legislation. Importantly, this bill curbs frivolous lawsuits against police officers and streamlines the appellate process for those murderers who receive the death penalty for murdering a judge or a police officer. It is good policy to place reasonable limits on lawsuits involving police officers by limiting claims to actual damages--unless the defendant purposefully inflicted serious bodily injury on the plaintiff, in which case the plaintiff may seek an additional $250,000 in damages. And returning the attorney's fees provisions in these cases to the traditional attorney's fees responsibility by requiring each party to bear this burden is likewise good policy. Placing time constraints on habeas corpus petitions, including the time to file the petitions, the time to hold an evidentiary hearing on the petition, and the time to rule on a petition when the murder of a police officer is involved, is also good policy. This will eliminate extensive and unnecessary delays for the families of victims that occur when those who have victimized their loved ones find ways to delay the imposition of justice. Finally, this bill makes technical fixes to the law enforcement concealed carry legislation passed in the 108th Congress. Some technical barriers prevent retired officers from carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones. These technical corrections will facilitate the full implementation of that provision as Congress originally intended. Mr. President, the Court and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2006 is an important piece of legislation. It targets those people who would stand in the way of the proper, fair, and efficient administration of justice. The men and women of law enforcement and the judiciary work hard to carry out the duties entrusted to them by their State and the Federal Constitution, and they deserve our support. This bill is a significant step In providing them that much needed support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and encourage their support of this bill.

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I send a modification of amendment 4768 to the desk.