John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this past weekend, the people of Iraq voted on their new constitution. Soon they will participate in parliamentary elections that will provide for a fully constitutional government. By any measure of history, the nation of Iraq has made remarkable progress in the past 2 years despite the criticism of naysayers who seem, in some instances, intent on scoring political points more than encouraging our brave comrades to win the war in Iraq and assist us in winning the larger global war on terror. Iraqi participation in this election yesterday was strong, including Sunnis who boycotted the January election. The election was also more peaceful than the previous election, in large measure due to the determination and professionalism of the new Iraqi security services. If 3 short years ago someone would have predicted the Iraqis would vote on a constitution in the near future, the same critics who are today calling for retreat would have scoffed. However, the critics have consistently underestimated the Iraqi people, the American military, and, I might add, the American people as well. America must remain engaged in stabilization efforts in order to ensure the triumph of democracy over the return of tyranny. Since the beginning of the war on terror, members of our military have been asked to execute both difficult and dangerous work. As always, the good men and women who serve have met these challenges with determination, courage, and honor. They are a credit to our Nation and deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. We all know there remains difficult work to be done in Iraq. Terrorists regard this country as the central battle ground in the war on terror, and these enemies acknowledge no standards and no rules governing warfare. Their stated goal is to bring great harm to any government or country that opposes their actions. We in the United States, of course, are a primary target, and we must therefore continue to show leadership and courage in the fight. Some critics have said that we should cut and run, that we should leave according to some arbitrary timetable, claiming that the Pentagon and the administration have failed to be realistic about the problems that exist in Iraq and the challenges that lie ahead. I firmly disagree. President Bush and other members of the administration have consistently told the American people that our efforts in Iraq will require much sacrifice, but that we must stay the course. We must not let the politics of the moment undermine the path to democracy in Iraq. We should consider, though, the alternative: what would happen if our troops left Iraq prematurely. The country would likely face a civil war or would fragment in a dangerous way. Terrorists such as Ayman al- Zawahiri, al-Qaida's No. 2 operative and Bin Laden's deputy, and Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's chief terrorist in Iraq, and others who vow to destroy America could be counted on to seize power in at least a portion of the country. At a minimum, they would find patronage in any regime to plan attacks and train terrorists and offer them harbor and material support. The consequences of a U.S. pullout and coalition pullout from Iraq should not be in question, as a letter from Zawahiri and Zarqawi released this week by the Pentagon makes clear. In this letter, Zawahiri tells Zarqawi when the United States leaves Iraq that al-Qaida must be prepared to claim the most political territory possible in the inevitable vacuum of power that will arise. Yes, Iraq would be more dangerous, not less, if we fail to finish the job. Failure in Iraq would empower and embolden the enemy. Failure to stay the course and lay the foundation of a functioning democracy would result in more, not fewer, terrorist attacks, including here at home. I must also express disappointment with those in this country who are trying to use the situation in Iraq to score political points or undermine America's resolve. Last week, the leadership in the Senate on the other side of the aisle put out a statement claiming that we do not have a plan for victory in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth. For the record, the Senate has been briefed numerous times by our military leadership regarding the plan in Iraq and the war on terror. This weekend's successful election was a key element in that plan to build a stable and self-governing Iraq. Sadly, the claim by political partisans that we do not have a plan in Iraq is nothing more than politics at its worst. To imply that our military leadership does not understand what it takes to win in Iraq is simply wrong and even insulting. I trust the wisdom and experience of GEN John Abizaid and GEN George Casey over the many armchair generals inside the beltway who seem to pontificate with great frequency. They understand the facts on the ground and what is necessary to achieve victory. Finally, some critics are fond of comparing Iraq to Vietnam. Yet the differences far outweigh the flawed comparisons some attempt to make. The only obvious and striking similarity is that the enemy is counting on American public opinion to force a retreat. In fact, Zawahiri noted in his letter that ``we are in a battle and more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.'' Al-Qaida understands that they cannot win on the battlefield against the spirit of determination of America and our allies. Prematurely leaving Iraq would have catastrophic consequences far greater than those we saw in Vietnam, as retreat would, in effect, hand the Iraqi people over to the terrorists who have stated their intention and proven their ability to launch horrifying attacks. Yes, we have seen significant progress in Iraq, and our confidence in the desire of the Iraqi people to self-govern is well placed as we have seen the value that they place on liberty. We have seen record numbers show up at the polls, more than 60 percent, despite threats of car bombs and other acts of terrorism. We have seen Iraqi elected officials vocally defend the values of freedom and democracy at their own peril. In 2\1/2\ years, this country has moved from the rule of a tyrant to implementing the rule of law. They have held national elections, and they were followed by the writing of a constitution. They are formulating their own military and security forces that grow more and more capable. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. To ignore these strides forward would be to diminish the good work of both the Iraqi people and the United States and their contributions that have allowed this effort to occur. Yes, we must stay the course. In so doing we honor both the ideals upon which this great Nation was founded and our own national security interests. America has sacrificed much in this global war, and we do not yet know the trials that will come. We can be confident that there will be a struggle and a greater sacrifice, but we can also be confident that in the midst of this struggle and sacrifice there is hope. We are encouraging democracy, freedom, progress, free markets, self- governance, and the rule of law and the Iraqi people are reaching out and taking hold of that hope. So we must stand confident and strong, shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqi people in the defense of their nascent democracy, confident that freedom will, in the end, triumph. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the President on his selection of Harriet Miers to be associate justice of the Supreme Court. I have had the pleasure of knowing both Ms. Miers and the President for a number of years, from our days in Texas in State Government in particular. In Texas, President Bush had the reputation of being a uniter. Literally, we had divided government, with Democrats controlling the House and the Senate. He worked on a daily basis with Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and Speaker Pete Laney, who were of the other party. When he came to Washington, he hoped he would find a Bob Bullock or a Pete Laney on the other side of the aisle so he could continue in that tradition, doing what he believed was best for the people who had sent him here--all the people. Unfortunately, we know that Washington's political environment is way too partisan and even poisonous. The President has chosen wisely with this nominee. He has chosen a nominee who should, and I believe will, unite us. I am proud to say that Harriet Miers is a fellow Texan. She was born and raised in Dallas and attended Southern Methodist University, where she received her bachelor's degree in mathematics and her law degree. That is kind of an unusual combination for lawyers. Most lawyers eschew mathematics, but she nevertheless has a bachelor's degree in mathematics. Following law school, she clerked for a Federal judge and then joined one of the finest law firms in our State, where she practiced for a number of years before she came to the attention of a Governor who would then become our current President. As proud as I am to say that Harriet is a fellow Texan, I am even more proud to say she is a friend. I have known her for about 15 years. I have come to know her as a fine and decent human being, someone who has dedicated her life to serving others, from the clients in her law firm to the people of Texas, and now to offering herself to serve all of us in this great country. It is especially fitting that Harriet Miers be nominated to the seat being vacated by another trailblazer, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. But Harriet has blazed a few trails of her own. She was the first woman hired by her law firm. She was the first woman to serve as the president or comanaging partner of that firm. She was the first woman to serve as the president of the Dallas Bar Association, and then she was later selected to be the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas, which is the association encompassing all members of the legal profession in Texas. As these accomplishments make clear, she has had a long and distinguished professional career. Her dedication to her clients, to her community, and to the rule of law has made her a leader in my State. Her accomplishments do not end at the border of Texas. Over the last 25 years, she has worked at the highest levels of our national Government in the White House, including serving as the President's closest legal adviser. Moreover, before she came to Washington, she was known and respected nationally for her legal skills and her advocacy for legal services being provided and available to all Americans. She was very active in the American Bar Association, and she is well known by lawyers throughout the country. We will hear increasingly more and more of them come forward to speak, without regard to partisan affiliation or other considerations. This long and distinguished career has made Harriet well qualified to serve as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I am not alone. She has received praise from Senators on both sides of the aisle, including the Democratic leader, the senior Senator from Nevada. She has also received praise from this side of the aisle, from our majority leader, as well as the senior Senator from Kentucky, our deputy majority leader. She is without question a consensus nominee. I know that makes some people nervous in a body where we have become so accustomed to locking horns and fighting over so many things, some of which are important. There are contests on principle, but sometimes there are those who would pick a fight to keep that partisanship and bitterness going. The President has chosen well by choosing a consensus nominee. It is not surprising because this President has engaged in an unprecedented act of consultation on the two nominations to the Supreme Court: First, now-Chief Justice John Roberts and now soon-to-be Associate Justice Harriet Miers. One thing you will not find in Harriet's long and distinguished career is service as a judge. I want to talk about that because some have said that that is actually a weakness. I suggest that it is not a bad thing, nor is it unprecedented. Forty-one of the one hundred and nine Justices who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court had no previous judicial experience. These 41 included some of our Nation's most influential and best-known justices--William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Byron White, Robert Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Lewis Brandeis, Joseph Story, and John Marshall. Indeed, a little bit of diversity of background and experience is important to have on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is full of Justices who have served either as academics or as court of appeals justice judges before they have been nominated to the Supreme Court bench. Certainly, while they are a distinguished body of jurists, what the Court is actually missing is someone who has had practical legal experience, someone who will understand the real-world consequences of the Court's decisions for the American people. I have been one who has been concerned about the fact that the Supreme Court sometimes seems out of touch with America. When you have the Supreme Court decide that the Ten Commandments is legal in Austin but illegal in Kentucky and you have 10 different opinions for 9 Justices to explain it, clearly there is something amiss. Harriet Miers will provide a strong dose of common sense and reconnect the Court with the American people in an important way. It is also important to have someone who has actually been elected to office, as Harriet Miers has been. She has been elected to city council in Dallas, perhaps not high national office but nevertheless an important one. Once Justice O'Connor leaves the Court, there will be no one left on the Court, but for this nominee, who has ever held elected office. There is already no one there who has ever served at the highest levels of the executive branch of Government. If it were not for newly confirmed Chief Justice John Roberts, none of the Justices would have been actively engaged in law practice in the past 35 years. Even the Chief Justice himself was primarily focused on appeals. A Justice Harriet Miers fills these gaps. She was elected city councilwoman in Dallas. She served at the highest levels of this administration, now as White House counsel, and she has spent her entire professional career representing clients in courtrooms across the State of Texas and even across the Nation. I am not the only one who believes practical, real-world experience is important for a nominee. The senior Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader, yesterday said that he thought this was actually a plus, not a minus. The senior Senator from New York echoed this view, stating that the fact she hasn't been a judge before is actually a positive, not a negative. I think those sentiments are much as I have explained. Certainly, they can speak for themselves. I know there are many Americans who are unfamiliar with Harriet Miers. This is understandable. She has been working outside of the limelight her entire career, always serving others. I have been fortunate enough to know her for about the last 15 years. I have a good feel for who she is as a person and as a highly competent practitioner. I know that she believes, as I do, that judges should not legislate from the bench. I know she believes, as I do, that judges are not some sort of elite, appointed to impose their will on the rest of us. Rather, I know she understands that unelected judges who serve in a democracy have a necessarily limited but important role--to apply the law as it was written. Harriet aptly described this judicial philosophy yesterday when she said: It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution. I am confident, when the American people get to know Harriet Miers, as I have had the pleasure, they will be as supportive as I am today of this nomination. I believe the President has chosen wisely. Now it is up to us in the Senate to go forward with the confirmation process. That is not to say that her confirmation is preordained by any means but that we now have the obligation to undertake this confirmation process in a civil and dignified and respectful manner. I would say the Senate did itself proud in the way it handled the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts. We have not always, in recent memory, done ourselves proud in the judicial confirmation process, and I am speaking specifically of the filibusters that were previously unprecedented. But hopefully this is a new day and we have learned from those lessons of the past, and we will continue in the tradition that I think we have now reestablished with John G. Roberts. I think we can even do better this time around. For example, the last time around, some of my colleagues insisted that Chief Justice Roberts answer questions about issues and cases that were likely to come before the Court. Indeed, some of my colleagues stated they voted against his confirmation precisely because he refused to precommit on some of the hot-button issues of the day. As I said, I hope we can do even better this time. My colleagues know that, as was Chief Justice Roberts, Harriet Miers is ethically forbidden from pledging to rule a certain way on these issues or any issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court. It is simply unfair to her, and I think it is a threat to judicial independence to insist that any nominee pledge a certain performance when confirmed in judicial office. I think it is unfair to her to ask her a question that my colleagues know she simply cannot ethically answer. Every nominee who has come before the Senate has followed these ethical rules and resisted making promises to politicians during the confirmation process. This tradition has come to be known as the Ginsburg standard, named for Justice Ginsburg nominated in 1993 by President Clinton. Justice Ginsburg was so steadfast and articulate in defending the right of judicial nominees declining to prejudge cases on issues that might come before them once they get on the bench that we have come to call this the Ginsburg standard. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle expressed displeasure with the Ginsburg standard during the confirmation process for Chief Justice Roberts. The one person who did not express displeasure was Justice Ginsburg. Indeed, in remarks just last week to students at Wake Forest University, Justice Ginsburg reaffirmed the Justice Ginsburg standard, and she affirmed Chief Justice Roberts' refusal to answer questions about issues that will likely come before the Court. She said: Judge Roberts was unquestionably right. My rule was I will not answer a question that attempts to project how I will rule in a case that might come before the court. . . . A judge on a collegial court should never forecast how he or she would vote on particular issues. . . . Nor, I might interject, should we want a judge who would be willing to trade a confirmation vote for a pledge of performance in office. It would threaten judicial independence, it would violate the rules of ethics, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to people who look to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of justice in America today. My hope is that Justice Ginsburg's endorsement of Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation conduct will persuade my Democratic colleagues to change their minds on how we ought to treat judicial nominees, including Harriet Miers. We should not treat this nominee or any nominee unfairly and demand that they inappropriately make commitments on how they will rule on hot-button issues of the day, no matter how curious we are. I must confess I am as curious as the next person, but I recognize there is a higher duty than merely satisfying my curiosity, or anyone else's for that matter: judicial independence, judicial ethics, and the importance of not prejudging cases so that there will not only be the reality of justice being disseminated on a fair and equal basis, there will be the perception that judges have not prejudged issues or cases. This is an important nomination for our country. The nomination of any person to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States is a celebration of our Constitution and of our Nation's commitment to the rule of law, perhaps our most important export. It is all the more important today because this is the nomination of only the third woman to serve on our Nation's highest Court. I look forward to a dignified, civil, and respectful confirmation process in the Senate. 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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the nominee that we presently have before the Senate, Judge John Roberts, in a moment. First, let me express my concerns about a Washington Post story that was published today entitled ``Filibuster Showdown Looms in Senate.'' The curious thing about this article is it does not talk about the nominee for Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, the nominee that is actually pending before the Senate. Rather, what this article talks about is the next nominee of the President of the United States to fill the seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I am afraid it is perhaps a sign of the times in which we are living and perhaps a sign of the contentiousness with which the nomination for a vacancy on the Supreme Court has met in the Senate that some of my colleagues are already talking about a filibuster of the next nominee of the President when that nominee has not yet been named. I think it takes partisanship to a new level, to threaten to block an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor when we do not even know who that person is yet and, indeed, some apparently cannot conceive of the possibility that this President would nominate someone on whom they would at least allow an up-or-down vote. We are not talking about a Senator not following their conscience but talking about Senators, a minority in the Senate prohibiting a bipartisan majority from casting an up-or-down vote without even knowing who that nominee is going to be. We ask that nominees for the courts not prejudge cases that will come before them. I would think that we should also ask Senators not to prejudge nominees who have not even been nominated by the President yet. Whomever the President nominates should be entitled to an up-or- down vote on the Senate floor. We are not a country that believes in the tyranny of the minority but, rather, we believe in a fair process and an up-or-down vote and majority rule. That is all we would ask for this yet-to-be-named nominee. But now let me go to the business at hand and say that I will vote to confirm Judge John G. Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the United States. Before I explain why I am going to vote for his confirmation, I first want to explain the reasons why I am not. First, I am not voting for his confirmation because he told us how he would rule on cases or issues that might come before the Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues have said that they will not vote to confirm Judge Roberts because they are not certain how he would rule on cases or issues that will come before the Court. They are not certain whether he will vote in favor of abortion rights, for example. They are not certain that he will vote in favor of racial preferences and quotas. They are not certain whether he will vote to give the Federal Government unlimited regulatory power to the exclusion of State and local government. I am not certain how Judge Roberts is going to vote on these issues either, but although my constituents are as concerned and as interested in these issues as anyone, I am not going to refuse to vote for this nominee on that basis. Judges are not politicians. They do not come to Washington to run on a political platform. They do not say: Vote for me, and I will put a chicken in every pot. They are not supposed to come before the Senate and promise to vote this way or that way on a matter that will come before them. Certainly, I understand as well as anyone why the American people, and Members of the Senate included, are curious about how Judge Roberts is likely to rule on future cases. I am curious about that, too. But sometimes we have to put our curiosity aside for a greater good. We do not want to create a situation where a Justice cannot win confirmation to the Supreme Court unless he pledges to vote this way or that way on certain hot-button issues of the day. Judges are supposed to be impartial, and they are supposed to be independent. That is why they have lifetime tenure once confirmed. Judges cannot be either impartial or independent if they are forced to make promises to the Senate of how they will vote in order to get confirmed. Some of my colleagues have said they simply cannot or will not put promises to politicians aside for this greater good of independence and impartiality. One of my colleagues says she wants to know who will be the winners on certain issues when Judge Roberts is on the Court. I can tell you who the winners will be. The winners are going to be the parties whose positions are supported by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. Judge Roberts eloquently explained this during his confirmation hearing. He was asked whether he would rule in favor of the little guy. His answer was that if the Constitution and laws of the United States supported the little guy's position, the little guy will win. But if the Constitution says that the big guys are supported, their position is supported by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the facts in the case, then he will vote in favor of the big guy. This is exactly how it should be. Over the Supreme Court of the United States, as you look at that stately edifice, it says, ``Equal justice under the law,'' not that justice will be rendered in favor of the little guy all the time or against the big guy all the time or, conversely, for the big guy all the time and against the little guy. That is the antithesis of equal justice under the law. As a matter of fact, we all recall that Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a very good reason--because justice is about the law, not about persons who are sitting in front of a judge. Mr. President, second, I am not voting for this confirmation because he turned away clients with legal positions with which my constituents or some of us might disagree. Some of my colleagues have said they will vote against Judge Roberts because they are unsure of his heart. They are saying that his heart may not be pure because in private law practice he would not turn down clients with positions anathema to liberal special interest groups. Now, although they acknowledge that Judge Roberts has donated his time to clients who, for example, were on the liberal side of a lawsuit over gay rights, they criticize Judge Roberts because at his confirmation hearings he said he would have donated his time to clients on the conservative side of that same issue had they approached him first. This is perhaps the strangest argument of all against this nominee. My colleagues are going to vote against him because they think it is heartless to take on clients regardless of whether he agreed with them or not? That is the very essence of being a lawyer, a professional, an advocate. Lawyers are somewhat like public accommodations in a sense. Similar to hotels, restaurants, and the like, when lawyers place their shingle out and say, I am willing to entertain cases that people may bring to me, they are supposed to serve anyone who comes through the door, as long as they have an arguable legal position or factual position with which the Court might ultimately agree. As a matter of fact, our adversarial system of justice depends on lawyers not just taking cases with which they perhaps ideologically are inclined to agree but, rather, they are supposed to take the facts and the legal arguments and do the very best they can so that in a clash that plays out in our adversarial system of justice in the court room, the judge can make the best decision based on the best legal arguments and that jurors can decide what the truth is based on this clash of opposing positions. People are not supposed to be judged by the lawyers. Rather, in our system they are supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers. But if lawyers were constrained or prohibited from representing people with whom they might personally not agree, then they would never have a chance to be judged by a jury of their peers because they would not have a lawyer to take their case so that it could be presented to that impartial conscience of the community. I wish to ask where this reasoning of my colleagues might lead. There are any number of clients who few people would support politically but who need legal representation in our adversarial system. Criminal defendants are the most obvious example. Do my colleagues plan on punishing a lawyer who did not refuse to represent someone who is accused of a crime? Do they plan to disqualify anyone from service in the Federal judiciary who has ever represented someone accused of a crime? Or do they plan to disqualify only those lawyers who did not shun conservative clients or causes? I do not believe you can tell anything about a person's heart, that is, a legal professional, professional advocate by whom that person has represented as a lawyer. But even more important, I do not think the confirmation process should be about the nominee's heart. I, for one, do not want judges sitting in judgment in a court of law who are going to be guided by their heart and sympathies, rather than the law of the land and the facts as found by the trier of fact. I want judges who will side with the party who has the best argument and whose position is most consistent with established law that we all can recognize and read and understand for ourselves. Again, Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. Justice should not depend on who you are or who you know. It should depend on who has the law on their side. Third, I am not voting for John Roberts because he will preserve some hypothetical quixotic ideal of balance on the Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues have said they will vote for Judge Roberts because he is not any more conservative than his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, whom he will be succeeding. But they issued the warning that I started out with: Mr. President, don't you dare nominate someone we disagree with next time or we will use this unconstitutional filibuster. We will break with 200 years of precedent in the Senate and the very premise of our law, which is based on majority rule. We will break with that and we will filibuster in the Senate and prevent your nominee from ever taking the bench if you nominate someone we perceive is more conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor. My colleagues have said this is important because they want to preserve balance on the Court. Preserving so-called balance on the Court has never been the basis of a Supreme Court confirmation vote. The examples of this are legion. One of the last Supreme Court nominees to win confirmation was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who replaced Justice Byron White. Justice Ginsburg, I think it is clear, I think we would all agree, was an unabashed liberal and one of the most zealous supporters of abortion rights who has ever been confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice White, nominated by President John F. Kennedy, was fairly conservative by contrast and indeed was one of the dissenters in the celebrated case of Roe v. Wade. Yet Justice Ginsburg, a self-avowed liberal, replaced a moderate to conservative Justice on the Court, and she was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. No one argued that Justice Ginsburg should be defeated because she would somehow shift this ideological balance on the Court. But she is only one example. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative members of the Court, was nominated and confirmed to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall, arguably one of the most liberal. Chief Justice Burger, President Nixon's antidote to judicial activism, replaced Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose name, in the minds of some, was synonymous with the phrase judicial activism. Justice Goldberg, who believed the ninth amendment gave the Supreme Court a license to invent new constitutional rights, replaced Justice Frankfurter, the father of judicial restraint. So it is clear this has never been the way it has been, historically. Nor is there any precedent or any obligation of a President to try to seek ideological balance when nominating someone to the Supreme Court. The reason why is very simple. Elections are supposed to have consequences. The President is entitled to put the people on the Supreme Court who share his values and his judicial philosophy; in this case one who believes the policymaking ought to primarily emanate from the elected representatives of the people in Congress, not life-tenured judges who are unaccountable. If Presidents were not entitled to change the Supreme Court, then Abraham Lincoln could not have changed the Dred Scott case, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt could not have changed the Lochner Court. I doubt my colleagues who are arguing for this ideological lockstep, or uniformity, would have favored that. But that brings me to why I am supporting this nominee, and the reasons are actually pretty simple. First, Judge Roberts is simply one of the most qualified individuals ever nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Indeed, he may very well be the best qualified. We have heard it before. He graduated the top of his class, he clerked for two of the finest judges in the Nation, he served, with great distinction, two Presidents. He has argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and is widely regarded as the finest oral advocate before the Court living today. In only 2 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, he has already acquired a reputation as one of the most respected judges in America. Even the New York Times, which has editorialized against this nomination, has conceded that few lawyers in America could compete with Judge Roberts in professional accomplishments. There was a time not too long ago when a brilliant career such as Judge Roberts' was sufficient to win confirmation to the Supreme Court, when we did not have ideological tests, litmus tests; when we didn't have filibusters that blocked the majority from actually having an up- or-down vote to confirm a nominee. Whereas Judge Roberts has spent his career representing clients on both sides of every issue, we saw in Justice Ginsburg, whom I mentioned a moment ago, a jurist spending most of her career representing the single client, the American Civil Liberties Union, on one side of these issues. She voiced support for some pretty extreme positions. She supported taxpayer funding for abortions. She thought there was a constitutional right to polygamy and prostitution. Suffice it to say, her ideas were far outside of the legal, not to mention the political, mainstream of America. Finally, I am going to vote to confirm this nominee because this judge understands the proper role of an unelected Supreme Court Justice in a democratic Nation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. To repeat, Judge Roberts understands the proper role of an unelected Supreme Court Justice in a democratic Nation. Ours is not a nation where nine judges sit in a marble edifice and decide what is good for us. Nor is it a Nation conceived on the premise that these nine unelected judges should be primarily policymakers. Rather, our notion of justice and law is based on consent of the governed. You can read it in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, were unelected, lifetime-tenured judges to depart from the text of the Constitution, depart from precedent, and get into a mode of sort of freewheeling ad hoc public policymakers, they would have departed in the extreme from the framework laid down by our Founders and from the framework ensconced in our Constitution. I will vote to confirm this nominee. I hope my colleagues will do likewise. I hope further that my colleagues, who have already stated their intention to filibuster the next nominee, will wait until the President has in fact named a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. It is just possible--it is just possible they will be surprised and they will find the President has, indeed, selected another nominee in the mold of John Roberts, who will be overwhelmingly confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour under majority control be allocated as follows: 20 minutes for Senator Cornyn, 5 minutes for Senator Cochran, 15 minutes for Senator Bennett, and 20 minutes for Senator Allen.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today along with the Senior Senator from Vermont in introducing the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005. This is the third recent piece of legislation on which I have teamed with Senator Leahy--first working together on important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act and then joining to introduce significant counterfeiting prevention legislation. I am glad to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs. Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The Act has been instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles. A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat manufacturing industry to conclude that the Act's provisions are not effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order to encourage innovative design and clarification is needed. The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be analyzed separately. This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for recreational and commercial boating throughout the State. This legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the design and manufacture of boats for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today along with the Senior Senator from Vermont in introducing the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act Amendments of 2005. This is the third recent piece of legislation on which I have teamed with Senator Leahy--first working together on important reforms to the Freedom of Information Act and then joining to introduce significant counterfeiting prevention legislation. I am glad to continue our work by introducing this legislation which, though seemingly technical and minor, offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs. Boat designs, like any technical designs, are complex and are the result of a great deal of hard work and contribution of intellectual property. Accordingly, Congress enacted the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to provide necessary protections that were not present among copyright statutes prior to that time. The Act has been instrumental for the continued development and protection of boat designs but unfortunately recently has encountered a few hurdles. A recent court decision raised questions about the scope of protections available to various boat designs. Justifiably or not, this interpretation under the VHDPA unfortunately has led many in the boat manufacturing industry to conclude that the Act's provisions are not effective at protecting vessel designs. Intellectual property protection of those designs is critical to these manufacturers in order to encourage innovative design and clarification is needed. The legislation we offer will clarify that the protections accorded to a vessel design can be used to separately protect a vessel's hull and/or deck as well as a plug or mold of either the hull or deck. The proposed amendments would make clear that it remains possible for boat designers to seek protection for both the hull and the deck, and plug or mold of both, of a single vessel, and many designers no doubt will continue to do so. However, these amendments are intended to clarify that protection under the VHDPA for these vessel elements may be analyzed separately. This bipartisan legislation provides the necessary assurance to boat manufacturers that the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act will remain a vital intellectual property protection statute. The bill offers very important clarifications about the scope of protections available to boat designs and will be welcome news to boat makers across the Nation and in Texas. The thousands of miles of coastline in Texas, and all the lakes and rivers in between, provide significant opportunities for recreational and commercial boating throughout the State. This legislation will ensure that there will be continued innovation in the design and manufacture of boats for many years to come. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 15 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, titled the Good Samaritan Liability Improvement and Volunteer Encouragement, or ``GIVE'' Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation to ensure that, as we continue to cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that one of our country's greatest assets--the willingness of the American people to give to their neighbors in need--is not inhibited by one of its greatest liabilities--a broken civil justice system. In addition, I will take a few moments to remind my colleagues of legislation that I introduced just before the August recess: the Respirator Access Assurance Act of 2005. This legislation is of even greater importance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--its passage would help to ensure that the thousands of workers, volunteers, and citizens of New Orleans working to restore that great city have the necessary protection to sift through the clean-up. From its beginning, the United States has been a generous nation. Indeed, in commenting on his observations of America in 1831, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville praised Americans for voluntarily assisting their neighbors during times of need. He noted, ``When an American asks for the cooperation of his fellow citizens, it is seldom refused; and I have often seen it afforded spontaneously, and with great good will.'' Since that time, America has continued to grow into an ever-more generous nation. As measured by financial contributions, giving by Americans is at an all-time high. According to the Giving USA Foundation, philanthropic donations totaled almost $250 billion in 2004 and represented a 5 percent increase over the previous year. The chair of Giving USA notes that ``about 70 to 80 percent of Americans contribute annually to at least one charity.'' Financial contributions are infinitely valuable. But, as we all know, the value of the gift of time cannot be underestimated. Each and every year, millions of Americans volunteer their time and their personal services to charity. Americans volunteer in soup kitchens, schools, and health clinics, devoting countless hours to assist others. And in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen this charitable spirit shine brighter than ever. In the short time since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Americans have given more than $600 million to disaster relief efforts. Millions of Americans have sent money, donated food, sent needed tools and equipment, given clothing, volunteered medical or other services, and otherwise helped in whatever manner they could. Perhaps most heartwarming of all, thousands of Americans have opened their homes to those who lost everything. I am particularly proud of my home State of Texas--where more than 250,000 of our neighbors sought shelter--and where virtually all of them have been able to find it. But just as America enjoys a culture of giving and volunteering, she also faces a culture of litigation. And this ``sue first, ask questions later'' culture has produced an environment of fear that often gives pause to some people who would otherwise wish to extend a helping hand. As Common Good co-founder and chair, Philip Howard pointed out in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee in June of 2004, ``[w]hat we have found is that, in dealings throughout society, Americans no longer feel free to act on their reasonable judgment. The reason is that they no longer trust our system of justice. . . No part of society is immune. Playgrounds have been stripped of anything athletic. Even seesaws are disappearing because town councils can't afford to be sued if someone breaks an ankle. . . There is a missing link in American justice--rulings on who can sue for what.'' Unfortunately, volunteers and non-profits face this question every day. To what degree should people volunteering services or providing needed equipment and supplies be forced to choose between lending a helping hand or facing the specter of litigation? And, should non- profit organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army struggle to find appropriate housing for evacuees due to liability concerns? In an attempt to respond to these concerns, 8 years ago the late Senator Paul Coverdell sponsored and successfully worked to enact the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997--legislation that protects volunteers from many frivolous lawsuits. However, as helpful and well-intentioned as this legislation was, more needs to be done to sufficiently protect all those lending a hand to those in need. Consider, for example: Early this year, a jury in Milwaukee found the Catholic Archdiocese liable because a volunteer for a Catholic lay organization, driving her own car, ran a red light and caused an accident while delivering a statue of the Virgin Mary to an invalid person. Although the church does not direct the activities of this group, called the Legion of Mary, its meetings are held on church property. The jury decided the Archdiocese should pay $17 million to the paralyzed victim, an 82-year-old semi-retired barber. In response to Hurricane Katrina, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are unable to coordinate efforts to set up emergency housing in private homes for evacuees because of liability issues. In the midst of administering chest compressions to a dying woman several days after Hurricane Katrina struck, Dr. Mark N. Perlmutter was ordered to stop by a federal official because he wasn't registered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ``I begged him to let me continue,'' said Perlmutter, who left his home and practice as an orthopedic surgeon in Pennsylvania to come to Louisiana and volunteer to care for hurricane victims. ``People were dying, and I was the only doctor on the tarmac where scores of non-responsive patients lay on stretchers. Two patients died in front of me . . . I asked him to let me stay until I was replaced by another doctor, but he refused. He said he was afraid of being sued.'' So, today, even as volunteers, businesses, and non-profit organizations across the Nation are working to return New Orleans and the gulf coast region to something close to normal--I feel it is crucial to ensure that those volunteers are protected from needless and frivolous litigation. That's why I am introducing today--and am proud to be joined by Senators Hutchison, Vitter, Lott, Grassley and Thune--the Good Samaritan Liability Improvement and Volunteer Encouragement, or GIVE Act of 2005. The legislation offers a comprehensive solution to the fear of litigation that unnecessarily burdens volunteers and often prevents the provision of necessary goods and services to those in need. It will provide protection for volunteers across the Nation, particularly those working in response to national disasters such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. More specifically, the GIVE Act will provide that: Disaster relief volunteers, generally, are not liable for harm caused in carrying out their volunteer activities in connection with disaster relief, unless their act or omission constitutes willful, knowing or reckless misconduct; medical and other professionals can volunteer their services for disaster relief services based on being licensed in their home State regardless of where the declared disaster occurred; a disaster relief volunteer is protected from liability under the act even if the volunteer is not working for a specific non-profit organization; disaster relief volunteers can offer their services without subjecting their business partners or employers to liability; disaster relief volunteers are protected from punitive damages and non- economic damages are apportioned according to percentage of fault; non- profit organizations are not liable for the acts or omissions of their volunteers unless the organization has willfully disregarded or is recklessly indifferent to the safety of the individual harmed; all donors of goods or equipment--whether businesses, non-profits, or individuals--are not liable for harm caused by donating those items unless they acted with willful, knowing or reckless misconduct; and all litigation that proceeds despite any protections under this act or under the Volunteer Protection Act requires a high level of specificity and documentation in the claim and a review by a judge that the claim raises--as a matter of law--a genuine issue of material fact. I urge my colleagues to support these two pieces of legislation-- legislation designed to ensure that the fear of litigation that pervades our culture won't stand in the way of well-intentioned Americans trying to help their neighbors in need.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, titled the Good Samaritan Liability Improvement and Volunteer Encouragement, or ``GIVE'' Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation to ensure that, as we continue to cope with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, that one of our country's greatest assets--the willingness of the American people to give to their neighbors in need--is not inhibited by one of its greatest liabilities--a broken civil justice system. In addition, I will take a few moments to remind my colleagues of legislation that I introduced just before the August recess: the Respirator Access Assurance Act of 2005. This legislation is of even greater importance in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--its passage would help to ensure that the thousands of workers, volunteers, and citizens of New Orleans working to restore that great city have the necessary protection to sift through the clean-up. From its beginning, the United States has been a generous nation. Indeed, in commenting on his observations of America in 1831, French historian Alexis de Tocqueville praised Americans for voluntarily assisting their neighbors during times of need. He noted, ``When an American asks for the cooperation of his fellow citizens, it is seldom refused; and I have often seen it afforded spontaneously, and with great good will.'' Since that time, America has continued to grow into an ever-more generous nation. As measured by financial contributions, giving by Americans is at an all-time high. According to the Giving USA Foundation, philanthropic donations totaled almost $250 billion in 2004 and represented a 5 percent increase over the previous year. The chair of Giving USA notes that ``about 70 to 80 percent of Americans contribute annually to at least one charity.'' Financial contributions are infinitely valuable. But, as we all know, the value of the gift of time cannot be underestimated. Each and every year, millions of Americans volunteer their time and their personal services to charity. Americans volunteer in soup kitchens, schools, and health clinics, devoting countless hours to assist others. And in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen this charitable spirit shine brighter than ever. In the short time since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Americans have given more than $600 million to disaster relief efforts. Millions of Americans have sent money, donated food, sent needed tools and equipment, given clothing, volunteered medical or other services, and otherwise helped in whatever manner they could. Perhaps most heartwarming of all, thousands of Americans have opened their homes to those who lost everything. I am particularly proud of my home State of Texas--where more than 250,000 of our neighbors sought shelter--and where virtually all of them have been able to find it. But just as America enjoys a culture of giving and volunteering, she also faces a culture of litigation. And this ``sue first, ask questions later'' culture has produced an environment of fear that often gives pause to some people who would otherwise wish to extend a helping hand. As Common Good co-founder and chair, Philip Howard pointed out in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee in June of 2004, ``[w]hat we have found is that, in dealings throughout society, Americans no longer feel free to act on their reasonable judgment. The reason is that they no longer trust our system of justice. . . No part of society is immune. Playgrounds have been stripped of anything athletic. Even seesaws are disappearing because town councils can't afford to be sued if someone breaks an ankle. . . There is a missing link in American justice--rulings on who can sue for what.'' Unfortunately, volunteers and non-profits face this question every day. To what degree should people volunteering services or providing needed equipment and supplies be forced to choose between lending a helping hand or facing the specter of litigation? And, should non- profit organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army struggle to find appropriate housing for evacuees due to liability concerns? In an attempt to respond to these concerns, 8 years ago the late Senator Paul Coverdell sponsored and successfully worked to enact the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997--legislation that protects volunteers from many frivolous lawsuits. However, as helpful and well-intentioned as this legislation was, more needs to be done to sufficiently protect all those lending a hand to those in need. Consider, for example: Early this year, a jury in Milwaukee found the Catholic Archdiocese liable because a volunteer for a Catholic lay organization, driving her own car, ran a red light and caused an accident while delivering a statue of the Virgin Mary to an invalid person. Although the church does not direct the activities of this group, called the Legion of Mary, its meetings are held on church property. The jury decided the Archdiocese should pay $17 million to the paralyzed victim, an 82-year-old semi-retired barber. In response to Hurricane Katrina, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army are unable to coordinate efforts to set up emergency housing in private homes for evacuees because of liability issues. In the midst of administering chest compressions to a dying woman several days after Hurricane Katrina struck, Dr. Mark N. Perlmutter was ordered to stop by a federal official because he wasn't registered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ``I begged him to let me continue,'' said Perlmutter, who left his home and practice as an orthopedic surgeon in Pennsylvania to come to Louisiana and volunteer to care for hurricane victims. ``People were dying, and I was the only doctor on the tarmac where scores of non-responsive patients lay on stretchers. Two patients died in front of me . . . I asked him to let me stay until I was replaced by another doctor, but he refused. He said he was afraid of being sued.'' So, today, even as volunteers, businesses, and non-profit organizations across the Nation are working to return New Orleans and the gulf coast region to something close to normal--I feel it is crucial to ensure that those volunteers are protected from needless and frivolous litigation. That's why I am introducing today--and am proud to be joined by Senators Hutchison, Vitter, Lott, Grassley and Thune--the Good Samaritan Liability Improvement and Volunteer Encouragement, or GIVE Act of 2005. The legislation offers a comprehensive solution to the fear of litigation that unnecessarily burdens volunteers and often prevents the provision of necessary goods and services to those in need. It will provide protection for volunteers across the Nation, particularly those working in response to national disasters such as 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. More specifically, the GIVE Act will provide that: Disaster relief volunteers, generally, are not liable for harm caused in carrying out their volunteer activities in connection with disaster relief, unless their act or omission constitutes willful, knowing or reckless misconduct; medical and other professionals can volunteer their services for disaster relief services based on being licensed in their home State regardless of where the declared disaster occurred; a disaster relief volunteer is protected from liability under the act even if the volunteer is not working for a specific non-profit organization; disaster relief volunteers can offer their services without subjecting their business partners or employers to liability; disaster relief volunteers are protected from punitive damages and non- economic damages are apportioned according to percentage of fault; non- profit organizations are not liable for the acts or omissions of their volunteers unless the organization has willfully disregarded or is recklessly indifferent to the safety of the individual harmed; all donors of goods or equipment--whether businesses, non-profits, or individuals--are not liable for harm caused by donating those items unless they acted with willful, knowing or reckless misconduct; and all litigation that proceeds despite any protections under this act or under the Volunteer Protection Act requires a high level of specificity and documentation in the claim and a review by a judge that the claim raises--as a matter of law--a genuine issue of material fact. I urge my colleagues to support these two pieces of legislation-- legislation designed to ensure that the fear of litigation that pervades our culture won't stand in the way of well-intentioned Americans trying to help their neighbors in need.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while the Senator is leaving the floor, I wish to say to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee how much I appreciate his decision. I know how seriously he has weighed his decision whether to vote to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States. I believe we are at our best in this body when we set aside our differences that come from our partisan affiliation. The fact that some of us are Republicans and some are Democrats is a fact of life, and we have to work within our political system to try to solve America's problems the best we can. But I do believe we are at our best when we rely upon the principles and the values that bind us together rather than those that distinguish us and separate us as Senators. I must confess that yesterday I was more than a little bit disappointed when the distinguished Democratic leader announced that he would vote no on this nomination. Clearly, it is within his right and prerogative, as it is within any Senator's right and prerogative to vote as they see fit. But I guess what struck me was the fact that at the same time he announced he would vote no, he called Judge Roberts an ``excellent lawyer'' and ``a thoughtful, mainstream judge'' who may make ``a fine Supreme Court Justice.'' These were words quoted in today's editorial in the Washington Post entitled, ``Words That Will Haunt.'' I guess what concerns me is you can be an excellent lawyer, you can be a thoughtful mainstream judge who may make a fine Supreme Court Justice, and yet because of the outside groups that demand allegiance to their positions that do not represent the mainstream of America, do not represent rational thought but, rather, the triumph over partisanship and special interest groups over the public interest, what worries me so much is that they seem to have such undue influence on the decisionmaking process of some Members when it comes to judicial confirmations. Indeed, I believe it was because of the interest groups that we had several years of near meltdown when it came to the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block a simple up-or-down vote on the President's nominees, something that had never happened before that time in the 200 years of the history of the Senate, and particularly when it came to judicial confirmation votes. I do want to address some of the concerns the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, raised because I do have a different view. Unfortunately, the formula that seems to be creating the theme here of consultation, questions, and documents is one that was foreshadowed in earlier news stories that said this was the strategy the outside groups were going to use in an attempt to defeat this nomination. By that I mean--first on consultation--I know Senator Leahy said he did not think consultation was adequate, but there was unprecedented consultation by the White House with Senators about the nomination, something that had never before occurred. The President listened to ideas of Senators on both sides of the aisle about the type of person and individual he should nominate to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, though, the Constitution provides the authority to choose to the President and the President alone. The Constitution does not contemplate the Senate being cochoosers of the nominee but, rather, the President making that choice and then the Senate providing advice and consent during this judicial confirmation process, ultimately leading up to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I am a little disappointed that in spite of this attempt to reach out more than halfway to the Senate, and particularly the minority in the Senate on consultation, the President's good efforts have been rejected as inadequate. But I don't see how any reasonable outside observer could reach that conclusion. Second, the issue of questions. What kind of questions should a nominee answer? The standard for this was set in the early 1990s by Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. While she was willing to talk about things she had written in the past, it was clear that she was going to draw a very important line in terms of sending signals or prejudging cases or issues that were likely to come back before the Court. It was using that same standard observed by not only Judge Ginsburg but Judge Breyer, who was confirmed after her--also a Clinton nominee--Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, or William Rehnquist in his confirmation proceeding. It is clear, as Judge Roberts said, that there is an ethical line that judges cannot cross, one of which is set by the American Bar Association Model Code on Judicial Ethics. It says clearly, in confirmation proceedings--I asked Judge Roberts during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings--that applies to judicial confirmation hearings. So it would have been unethical to cross the line. And now some Senators insist Judge Roberts should have crossed the line when it came to answering certain types of questions that would ask him to prejudge certain issues and cases. But there is also a constitutional standard because the independence of the judiciary is a core value of our form of government and of the American people. Who could feel that a judge was truly independent and fair who has already stated in a confirmation hearing how he would rule on an issue that later comes before the Supreme Court? Everyone recognizes that is not fair, that is not an independent judiciary. So I believe the judge drew an appropriate line from that standpoint as well. Finally, there is the third prong of this three-prong attack laid out by the special interest groups long before Judge Roberts was even nominated and has to do with the documents issue. This has to do with documents prepared by the Solicitor General's Office as it prepared to represent the United States in the Supreme Court. I asked Judge Roberts whether that sort of ability to have candid and confidential communications among the lawyers who are representing the United States was part of a recognized privilege that all lawyers and clients share, whether it is the Government or whether it is individuals, and he said it was. In fact, a number of Senators on our Judiciary Committee were quite upset last year when it appears confidential documents written by their committee lawyer to those Senators were then published in the outside world, claiming their rights had been violated. If the Senators are entitled to have confidential communication from our own lawyers and our own staff without having it published in the outside world, then surely the President of the United States enjoys that same right and privilege. This nominee has withstood in admirable form more than 20 hours of questions from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There were 32 witnesses who testified after he did, including the American Bar Association which has given him an A plus, so to speak, that considered him unanimously to be well qualified for this position. In the end, though, this nominee is probably better known to the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee than any nominee in recent history, having only 2 years ago been confirmed by unanimous consent to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, what some have called the second highest court in the land. I ask my colleagues who are bound and determined to vote against this nominee who, by most accounts, is one of the most impressive nominees and outstanding nominees who has ever been nominated to the Supreme Court, is there any nominee of this President for whom they could vote? I fear the answer to that is no, that for some of our colleagues, there is no nominee by this President to the U.S. Supreme Court for whom they could ever vote. That should sadden and disappoint all of us because what it means is that the bitter partisan divisions that separate us in this body far too often and distract us from the important work we have been sent here by our constituents to do have triumphed over the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent and to conduct our ourselves with civility and dignity and to resist the pressures of interest groups who cry out for the political scalp of not just this President but all of his nominees and discourage good men and women from being willing to answer the call to public service. If they know they are getting ready to be put through a sausage grinder, if they know everything they did and said would be examined and distorted even and in the end that the merit of their nomination would play second fiddle to bitter partisan politics, I fear there are good men and women who would like to answer the call to public service who will simply say no. I am looking forward on Thursday to the Senate Judiciary Committee voting Judge Roberts out of the committee and his nomination coming to the floor. I hope our colleagues will study his background, the record created before the Judiciary Committee, and come to their own decision, without regard to politics, without regard to partisanship, and judge it solely on the merits. But particularly it is my earnest hope and plea they resist the cry of the outside special interest groups who care nothing about good government but only about their narrow special interests and are using these nominations, more than anything, to raise money by scaring people and by distorting the qualifications and credentials of good men and women such as John Roberts. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our hearts go out to those who have been affected by the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. By now, those who have been displaced by this disaster know that help is available to them. And true to the American spirit, assistance has poured in from people all across this great land. We have seen the Government, at every level, fail in some way to respond adequately to this emergency. Congressional hearings will examine these failures and the reasons for them to make sure that we are better prepared to respond in the future. But there is no need for a review of the adequacy, efficiency, or responsiveness of everyday citizens who heeded distress calls from their fellow citizens. When the history of this disaster is finally written, it will document the fact that the American people rose to the challenge. Because that is what Americans do--every time, without exception. Over the past several weeks we have seen ordinary Americans, on their own initiative, coordinate the donation of goods needed by evacuees, rent U-Haul trucks, and drive to New Orleans to deliver supplies. Others have initiated fundraisers and have donated substantial funds to aid the Red Cross and other charities that are on the ground. And still others, like those in my home State of Texas, have literally opened their doors to complete strangers to provide them with food, shelter, and other necessities, so that they can get back on their feet and begin to rebuild their lives. Here in the Congress we have acted quickly, passing emergency relief appropriations of more than $60 billion dollars to get money into the devastated areas so people can be helped and areas can be rebuilt. The President has further proposed sending an unprecedented amount of money and incentives to aid in the rebuilding. I plan to support reasonable efforts designed to aid in accomplishing these goals. However, as we pour extraordinary amounts of money into the affected areas, we must guard against those callous people who may see this as an opportunity to wrongfully enrich themselves through fraud. We all know that the Federal Government's track record at detecting and avoiding fraud is poor, at best. As we begin to funnel what some have said may be close to $200 billion dollars into the disaster areas, we must be vigilant to ensure that these funds go where they legitimately are supposed to go. And we must send the message here and now that the actions of those who may defraud the Government or otherwise illegally obtain a portion of these funds will not be tolerated. That is why I have introduced the Katrina Waste, Fraud and Abuse Deterrence Act of 2005. This legislation states that anyone convicted of any crime involving funds appropriated for disaster relief in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina face a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years--and up to 20 years--in prison. As I have said, a staggering amount of money will be, and currently is being sent to this area. The funds will speed the rebuilding of these areas and otherwise help those who are in need of assistance. But the American people will not tolerate misappropriation of these funds. President Bush has ordered that a team of inspectors general review all expenditures to ensure that the rebuilding work is done honestly and wisely. I applaud the President for his stewardship of this money. The bill I introduce today will put some teeth into this oversight. It will say to those who may contemplate illegally cutting corners or outright stealing disaster funds whether by fraud, theft, or embezzlement, that they will be caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned. To those who legitimately need these funds: Your country is here to help you. To those who are inclined to take advantage of the misfortune of others by wrongfully taking these funds: You will be prosecuted.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our hearts go out to those who have been affected by the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. By now, those who have been displaced by this disaster know that help is available to them. And true to the American spirit, assistance has poured in from people all across this great land. We have seen the Government, at every level, fail in some way to respond adequately to this emergency. Congressional hearings will examine these failures and the reasons for them to make sure that we are better prepared to respond in the future. But there is no need for a review of the adequacy, efficiency, or responsiveness of everyday citizens who heeded distress calls from their fellow citizens. When the history of this disaster is finally written, it will document the fact that the American people rose to the challenge. Because that is what Americans do--every time, without exception. Over the past several weeks we have seen ordinary Americans, on their own initiative, coordinate the donation of goods needed by evacuees, rent U-Haul trucks, and drive to New Orleans to deliver supplies. Others have initiated fundraisers and have donated substantial funds to aid the Red Cross and other charities that are on the ground. And still others, like those in my home State of Texas, have literally opened their doors to complete strangers to provide them with food, shelter, and other necessities, so that they can get back on their feet and begin to rebuild their lives. Here in the Congress we have acted quickly, passing emergency relief appropriations of more than $60 billion dollars to get money into the devastated areas so people can be helped and areas can be rebuilt. The President has further proposed sending an unprecedented amount of money and incentives to aid in the rebuilding. I plan to support reasonable efforts designed to aid in accomplishing these goals. However, as we pour extraordinary amounts of money into the affected areas, we must guard against those callous people who may see this as an opportunity to wrongfully enrich themselves through fraud. We all know that the Federal Government's track record at detecting and avoiding fraud is poor, at best. As we begin to funnel what some have said may be close to $200 billion dollars into the disaster areas, we must be vigilant to ensure that these funds go where they legitimately are supposed to go. And we must send the message here and now that the actions of those who may defraud the Government or otherwise illegally obtain a portion of these funds will not be tolerated. That is why I have introduced the Katrina Waste, Fraud and Abuse Deterrence Act of 2005. This legislation states that anyone convicted of any crime involving funds appropriated for disaster relief in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina face a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years--and up to 20 years--in prison. As I have said, a staggering amount of money will be, and currently is being sent to this area. The funds will speed the rebuilding of these areas and otherwise help those who are in need of assistance. But the American people will not tolerate misappropriation of these funds. President Bush has ordered that a team of inspectors general review all expenditures to ensure that the rebuilding work is done honestly and wisely. I applaud the President for his stewardship of this money. The bill I introduce today will put some teeth into this oversight. It will say to those who may contemplate illegally cutting corners or outright stealing disaster funds whether by fraud, theft, or embezzlement, that they will be caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned. To those who legitimately need these funds: Your country is here to help you. To those who are inclined to take advantage of the misfortune of others by wrongfully taking these funds: You will be prosecuted.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I would like to thank my colleagues. The Project Safe Neighborhoods program serves as a model of coordinated Government efforts, with Federal, State and local governments sharing the burden of prosecuting criminals and coordinating their resources to do so. At a time when some Federal agencies are struggling to coordinate efficiently with State and local governments, the Project Safe Neighborhoods program serves as a model of efficiency and effectiveness. I appreciate that Senator Shelby points out that the State and local grant program received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, an unfortunate reality that gives me even greater concern about the future of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. It is now even more critical that in conference we find the funds necessary to continue this program that so clearly has reduced rates of violent crime and victimization across our country. National Waterborne disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness Program

Mr. CORNYN. Examples from my home State of Texas clearly demonstrate that Project Safe Neighborhoods is working. Consider: The Northern District of Texas has shown a 31 percent increase in the number of Federal gun cases opened in 2004 over 2003. The Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Force continues to work harmoniously and effectively in contributing to the reduction of gun-related crimes citywide and in the targeted neighborhoods. PSN prosecutions in the Northern District of Texas have targeted some of the worst gun offenders, and have resulted in safer neighborhoods within the district. For example, in August 2002, the Dallas Division coordinated a long-term gang investigation under the PSN Program with the ATF and the Dallas Police Department. The investigation resulted in two separate indictments charging 18 gang members with being involved in a drug trafficking conspiracy, crack cocaine, along with other street gang members. And the efforts of the Western District of Texas to energize Project Safe Neighborhoods through effective partnering with State and local law enforcement are demonstrated most clearly by their impressive prosecution statistics. They have seen a 74 percent increase in prosecutions from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, and a 13 percent increase in the past fiscal year. That is why I am so concerned that there was no funding included in this appropriations bill. While I appreciate any effort this body might take to embrace fiscal discipline, I question the efficacy of choosing to eliminate a program that is saving thousands of lives nationwide as opposed to many other less critical projects and programs. I am pleased the senior Senator from Alabama, who has been working so hard on this Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill is here with us. I ask Senator Shelby, is this something that he believes we can work to resolve in conference given the difficulty in making changes at this time?

Mr. CORNYN. The President requested in his budget $73,800,000 for State and local grants. And according to the Department of Justice, in order for Project Safe Neighborhoods to continue as a flagship gun crime reduction initiative, the $73.8 million dedicated to the Project Safe Neighborhoods State and local grant program, is essential. The State and local grants are critical to the success of the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The grants support the removal from our streets and our neighborhoods of these criminals who use guns to carry out their crimes. The idea did not start in Washington. Indeed, the first program of its kind saw enormous success in Richmond, VA, where crime was significantly reduced as gun crime prosecutions increased substantially. When I was Attorney General of Texas, I joined with then-Governor Bush to launch Texas Exile, modeled after Richmond's Project Exile. This Texas program also met with extraordinary success, providing local prosecutors the funds necessary to get more than 2,000 guns off the streets, and to issue more than 1,500 indictments for gun crimes. This resulted in almost 1,200 convictions during the first 3 years of the program's existence. When President Bush came to Washington, he built upon our success in Texas by making Project Safe Neighborhoods one of his top priorities. He launched the Project Exile program nationally, providing desperately needed resources to combat gun-related crimes to jurisdictions throughout our country. In the short time this initiative has been up and running, the results have been astonishing. Project Safe Neighborhoods' prosecution, prevention, and deterrence efforts have helped fuel historical lows in gun crime across America as well as a 30-year low in the violent crime victimization rate. Over the past 4 years, Federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 76 percent and virtually all of these criminals spend time in prison. For example, 94 percent of those originally charged with a Federal gun crime received prison terms in fiscal year 2004. The administration has devoted over $1.3 billion to implement Project Safe Neighborhoods since its inception in 2001. These funds have been used to hire almost 200 new Federal prosecutors dedicated to gun crime and to provide grants to hire approximately 540 new State and local gun prosecutors. The additional Federal funding for these State and local gun prosecutors, as well as the associated community outreach efforts and other initiatives are critical to the success of the program and to the national reduction of violent crime. As the Senator mentioned, the program as implemented in Alabama has enjoyed significant successes, isn't that right?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the remarkable crime-prevention results from the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. We must ensure that adequate appropriations continue to fully support this productive crime-fighting effort. I am concerned that the appropriations bill we are considering today makes no provision for the State and local grant program of Project Safe Neighborhoods, an important component of the President's initiative, and I am not alone. A number of our colleagues share my concern that this important program for fighting crime in our streets and in our neighborhoods should be funded adequately. I am pleased that my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, joins me today. Does the Senator share this concern?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been nearly 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 Qaeda is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and that its leadership is extremely motivated to launch another devastating attack on American citizens and American soil. In fact, outside the United States, al Qaeda and affiliates of al Qaeda have continued to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous terrorist attacks over the last few years, spanning the globe from Pakistan to Bali to Spain to London. It is precisely because al Qaeda is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America that I am so grateful that, to date, al Qaeda still has not successfully launched another terrorist attack on our soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who fight the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. I also firmly believe that our efforts to strengthen anti-terrorism and law enforcement tools right here at home have much to do with this record of success and peace in our homeland to date. The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly. Last year, Federal judge struck down a portion of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This law balanced the national interest in protecting electronic communications privacy against the legitimate needs of national security, by establishing a procedure for obtaining electronic communications records in certain national security investigations through the use of so-called ``national security letters.'' The USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to make clear that such letters could be issued in terrorism investigations as well. This provision was passed by the Senate on a voice vote, and shortly thereafter it passed the House by unanimous consent. The primary reason the court struck down this provision was that the right to judicial review was not expressly written into the text of the law. It is important to note that the ability to scrutinize the issuance of national security letters was not actually disputed by the government. To the contrary, the Justice Department agreed that there should be judicial review. The court simply concluded that the 1986 law was not drafted with sufficient clarity to authorize such review. I have previously introduced legislation to remedy the defects noted by the District Judge. That legislation amended the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make explicit the availability of judicial review to examine national security letters. However, national security letters are also available outside the Title 18 context. For instance, Title 15 allows the government to obtain consumer information maintained by consumer reporting agencies; Title 12 allows the government to obtain the financial records maintained by financial institutions; and Title 50 allows the government to obtain records about persons with access to classified information who may have disclosed classified information to a foreign power. It is important to make sure that the right to judicial review is statutorily available in all national security letter contexts. The bill I am introducing today expressly authorizes a recipient to challenge any national security letter in court. It also: details the procedure the government must follow to substantiate its use of a national security letter; allows the government to present classified information to the court so that it can properly evaluate the challenge; and specifies that a recipient of a national security letter may consult with legal counsel about its obligations. I hope that this legislation will be enacted in the same bipartisan spirit that put both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act on the books.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been nearly 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 Qaeda is a stealthy, sophisticated, and patient enemy, and that its leadership is extremely motivated to launch another devastating attack on American citizens and American soil. In fact, outside the United States, al Qaeda and affiliates of al Qaeda have continued to be remarkably active, responsible for numerous terrorist attacks over the last few years, spanning the globe from Pakistan to Bali to Spain to London. It is precisely because al Qaeda is so aggressive, so motivated, and so demonstrably hostile to America that I am so grateful that, to date, al Qaeda still has not successfully launched another terrorist attack on our soil. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this. First and foremost, I am profoundly thankful to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who fight the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face them at home. I also firmly believe that our efforts to strengthen anti-terrorism and law enforcement tools right here at home have much to do with this record of success and peace in our homeland to date. The war on terrorism must be fought aggressively--but consistent with the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. Whenever real civil liberties problems do arise, we must learn about them right away, so that we can fix them swiftly. Last year, Federal judge struck down a portion of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This law balanced the national interest in protecting electronic communications privacy against the legitimate needs of national security, by establishing a procedure for obtaining electronic communications records in certain national security investigations through the use of so-called ``national security letters.'' The USA PATRIOT Act amended the law to make clear that such letters could be issued in terrorism investigations as well. This provision was passed by the Senate on a voice vote, and shortly thereafter it passed the House by unanimous consent. The primary reason the court struck down this provision was that the right to judicial review was not expressly written into the text of the law. It is important to note that the ability to scrutinize the issuance of national security letters was not actually disputed by the government. To the contrary, the Justice Department agreed that there should be judicial review. The court simply concluded that the 1986 law was not drafted with sufficient clarity to authorize such review. I have previously introduced legislation to remedy the defects noted by the District Judge. That legislation amended the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to make explicit the availability of judicial review to examine national security letters. However, national security letters are also available outside the Title 18 context. For instance, Title 15 allows the government to obtain consumer information maintained by consumer reporting agencies; Title 12 allows the government to obtain the financial records maintained by financial institutions; and Title 50 allows the government to obtain records about persons with access to classified information who may have disclosed classified information to a foreign power. It is important to make sure that the right to judicial review is statutorily available in all national security letter contexts. The bill I am introducing today expressly authorizes a recipient to challenge any national security letter in court. It also: details the procedure the government must follow to substantiate its use of a national security letter; allows the government to present classified information to the court so that it can properly evaluate the challenge; and specifies that a recipient of a national security letter may consult with legal counsel about its obligations. I hope that this legislation will be enacted in the same bipartisan spirit that put both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act on the books.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Narco- Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. This bill confronts the new reality and very real danger of the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism. Many of the State Department's designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations are involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs--that is, illegal drugs that end up on the streets of cities throughout our country and other countries and poison the fabric of our society, our children, our families, and our neighbors. 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. The evidence linking these two criminal activities is overwhelming: terrorists in Afghanistan have been infiltrating and controlling the cultivation of poppies, and ultimately heroin; media reports indicate that the deadly Spain bombings were financed by drug money; the Hezbollah has been linked to drug trafficking; and of course, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or the FARC, has long-standing drug trafficking operations which fund their deadly activities. Narco-terrorism takes many forms, all of which are deadly. Before September 11, the term called to mind Pablo Escobar, the classic cocaine trafficker who used terrorist tactics against citizens and officials to protect his drug trade. Post 9/11, governments now find themselves combating classic terrorist groups that participate in, or otherwise receive funds from, drug trafficking in order to further their agenda. But whether narco-terrorists are actual drug traffickers who use terrorism against civilians to advance their agenda, or are principally terrorists who out of convenience or necessity use drug money to further their cause, the label of narco-terrorist may be equally applicable to both groups, and the full force of U.S. law should be brought to bear on these organizations. 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 in Nuevo Laredo to allow these organizations to carry on their illegal activity, unimpeded. Our government needs every available tool at its disposal to combat this activity. The legislation I introduce today creates a new 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 a stiff, mandatory-minimum penalty of 20 years for anyone convicted. Importantly, the Narco- Terrorism Prevention Act 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. This bill says that whether you are a member of or assisting a drug cartel along the border that employs terrorist tactics to protect its drug trade, or you are assisting international terrorists with the proceeds from drug transactions, this bill targets you. This bill puts you on notice that our government has the authority to arrest you and, when apprehended, you will face a lengthy, and perhaps permanent, stay in prison.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Narco- Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005. This bill confronts the new reality and very real danger of the deadly mix of drug trafficking and terrorism. Many of the State Department's designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations are involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs--that is, illegal drugs that end up on the streets of cities throughout our country and other countries and poison the fabric of our society, our children, our families, and our neighbors. 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. The evidence linking these two criminal activities is overwhelming: terrorists in Afghanistan have been infiltrating and controlling the cultivation of poppies, and ultimately heroin; media reports indicate that the deadly Spain bombings were financed by drug money; the Hezbollah has been linked to drug trafficking; and of course, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or the FARC, has long-standing drug trafficking operations which fund their deadly activities. Narco-terrorism takes many forms, all of which are deadly. Before September 11, the term called to mind Pablo Escobar, the classic cocaine trafficker who used terrorist tactics against citizens and officials to protect his drug trade. Post 9/11, governments now find themselves combating classic terrorist groups that participate in, or otherwise receive funds from, drug trafficking in order to further their agenda. But whether narco-terrorists are actual drug traffickers who use terrorism against civilians to advance their agenda, or are principally terrorists who out of convenience or necessity use drug money to further their cause, the label of narco-terrorist may be equally applicable to both groups, and the full force of U.S. law should be brought to bear on these organizations. 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 in Nuevo Laredo to allow these organizations to carry on their illegal activity, unimpeded. Our government needs every available tool at its disposal to combat this activity. The legislation I introduce today creates a new 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 a stiff, mandatory-minimum penalty of 20 years for anyone convicted. Importantly, the Narco- Terrorism Prevention Act 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. This bill says that whether you are a member of or assisting a drug cartel along the border that employs terrorist tactics to protect its drug trade, or you are assisting international terrorists with the proceeds from drug transactions, this bill targets you. This bill puts you on notice that our government has the authority to arrest you and, when apprehended, you will face a lengthy, and perhaps permanent, stay in prison.