John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, this morning we will have a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes. The first 30 minutes of that time will be under the control of the majority side, and the second 30 minutes will be controlled by the minority side of the aisle. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 150, a bill relating to taxation of Internet access. Yesterday, we made a little progress on the bill by debating and disposing of one amendment related to the definitions in the bill. Unfortunately, following the vote we were sidetracked with an amendment related to a completely different subject than Internet access. Currently, we are scheduled for cloture votes beginning Thursday on the Daschle energy-related first-degree amendment to the underlying bill, the Domenici second-degree amendment on energy, and finally the McCain substitute which is on the Internet access tax subject. The chairman of the committee will be here shortly this morning, and I believe it will be his desire to try to reach agreements to consider amendments relating to the underlying bill. Hopefully that will be possible and therefore rollcall votes will occur on amendments today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico, I be recognized for such remarks that I may make.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President. The 9/11 Commission Madam President, earlier, I spoke on the importance of the 9/11 Commission maintaining its credibility given the important mission that organization has undertaken to determine, first, a factual record of the events leading up to 9/11, and then to make recommendations to Congress and various Government agencies on how we can continue to protect our homeland against any further terrorist attacks on our own soil. I spoke about the need of one of the Commissioners, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, to provide information about her knowledge of relevant facts. She, of course, was Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration under Attorney General Janet Reno. I also made one other point that I think bears repeating here now; that is, this is not about blame. The only person and the only entity to blame for the events of 9/11 are al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. This is not about blaming the Clinton administration or the Bush administration. This is about getting to the facts. This is about getting good recommendations based on all the information and then making the American people safer as a result. On Monday, Senator Lindsey Graham and I asked the Justice Department to produce any documents they may have in their possession relating to Jamie Gorelick's involvement in establishing policies preventing the sharing of critical terrorism-related information between intelligence and law enforcement officials. It is the fact that those have now been made public and, indeed, posted on the Department of Justice's Web site at www.usdot.gov which brings me back to the Senate floor to briefly mention why I think Ms. Gorelick's testimony is even more important to explaining what she did as a member of the Justice Department under Janet Reno to erect and buttress this wall that has been the subject of so much conversation and why it is so much more important that she do so because the 9/11 Commission's credibility is at stake. Documents posted today on the Justice Department's Web site substantially discredit Ms. Gorelick's recent claims that, No. 1, she was not substantially involved in the development of the new information-sharing policy, and, No. 2, the Department's policies under the Clinton-Reno administration enhanced rather than restricted information sharing. Madam President, these documents--and they are not particularly lengthy, but they do raise significant questions about the decision of the Commission not to have Ms. Gorelick testify in public. Indeed, the only testimony we know she has given has been in secret or in camera, to use the technical term. These documents make it even more important that we get her explanation for these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. Indeed, the document that Attorney General Ashcroft declassified and released during the course of his testimony --giving his very powerful testimony about the erection and the buttressing of this wall that blinded American law enforcement and intelligence agencies from the threat of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden--these new documents reveal, indeed, Ms. Gorelick did have a key role in establishing that policy, which was ultimately signed off on and approved by Attorney General Janet Reno; indeed, that she received and rejected in part and accepted in part recommendations made by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York with regard to this wall. Specifically, Madam President, as you will recall, the first attack on American soil that al-Qaida administered was, in all likelihood, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Indeed, the document that Attorney General Ashcroft released pointed out that Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation ``of certain terrorist acts, including the bombing of the World Trade Center,'' and that ``[d]uring the course of those investigations significant counterintelligence information [had] been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in [the United States] and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups.'' Well, in response to some draft proposals for establishing criteria for both law enforcement and intelligence, counterterrorism officials, Ms. Gorelick noted that the procedures that were adopted at her recommendation by the Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno went beyond what is legally required. Indeed, I spoke earlier about the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act brought down that law that had been established both by this policy and, indeed, by policies that had preceded it. But it is important, in these new documents that have just been revealed today, in response to my request and Senator Graham's request, that there is, indeed, a memorandum by Mary Jo White dated June 13, 1995, in which she was given an opportunity to respond to the proposed procedures that have maintained and buttressed this wall that blinded America to this terrible threat. Mary Jo White, in part, said--and the documents are on the website so anyone who wishes can see the whole document, but she said, in part: It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required. . . . She goes on to say: Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating. Indeed, it was this lack of communication, which I think is universally acknowledged, that contributed to the blinding of America to the threat of terrorism leading up to the events of 9/11. So Ms. White made what she called a very modest compromise and some recommendations for change to this proposed policy. In the interest of fairness and completeness, let me just say the documents reveal there were two memoranda by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, and they contain recommendations for revisions of the policy, and that Ms. Gorelick, through and in cooperation with Michael Vatis, Deputy Director of the Executive Office for National Security, accepted some of those proposed changes and rejected others. But then in these documents, again, which were finally disclosed today in response to Senator Graham's and my request, there is a handwritten note from Ms. Gorelick that says: To the AG--I have reviewed and concur with the Vatis/ Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo. Jamie. So it is clear Ms. Gorelick was intimately involved with consideration of the arguments, both pro and con, on establishing this policy which, according to her own memo, went well beyond what the law required. Thus, it becomes even more clear she is a person with knowledge of facts that are relevant and indeed essential to the decisionmaking process of the 9/11 Commission. I wish it stopped there, but it does not. Indeed, it appears these new documents contradict or at least require clarification by Ms. Gorelick of subsequent statements that she has made on the 9/11 Commission. For example, in a broadcast on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Wolf Blitzer asked her: Did you write this memorandum in 1995 . . . By reference, this was the one that was declassified by Attorney General Ashcroft that established these procedures building the wall and blinding America to this terrible threat. He asked: Did you write this memorandum in 1995 that helped establish the so-called walls between the FBI and CIA? Ms. Gorelick said: No. And again, I would refer you back to what others on the commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It existed since the mid-1980s. And while it is too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid 1990s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy in any way. It was the Attorney General's policy, was ratified by Attorney General Ashcroft's deputy as well on August of 2001. In other words, Ms. Gorelick, notwithstanding the fact that her initials as Deputy Attorney General appear on the very memos considering recommendations, both pro and con, with regard to establishing these procedures, in spite of the fact she appears by these documents to have been intimately involved in the adoption and establishment of these procedures, said: I didn't sign this memorandum and it wasn't my policy. Well, at the very least it is clear that it was the policy of the Attorney General, based on her explicit recommendation, and that she consciously adopted in some cases and rejected in others the recommendation of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York with regard to sharing of information between law enforcement and counterintelligence authorities. Finally, another example of an apparent contradiction, and maybe one that Ms. Gorelick could explain if she would testify in public, as I and others have requested, before the Commission, she said in an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post, April 18, 2004, entitled ``The Truth About the Wall,'' in giving the various reasons for her side of the story in response to the testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft and the revelation of this previously classified document: Nothing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. That appears to directly contradict what is contained in these documents. I would imagine if asked to provide her own testimony, Mary Jo White, the now retired former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, would beg to differ. The primary purpose of this is not to cast blame. We know where the blame lies. But it is important the 9/11 Commission get an accurate record, a historical record of the events leading up to September 11. If, in fact, there is a way for Ms. Gorelick to shed some light on this subject, indeed, if there is a way for her to clarify or reconcile the apparent contradictions between what these newly released records demonstrate and her public statements and writings, then she ought to be given a chance to do so. If she does not avail herself of that opportunity, if the Commission refuses to hear from this person in public and to give the American people the benefit of this testimony in public in a way that they have done with Attorney General Janet Reno and former FBI Director Louis Freeh, current FBI Director Robert Mueller, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, if they refuse, if they continue to refuse to avail themselves of this public testimony and the opportunity for questions to be asked about these apparent contradictions, they will have administered a self-inflicted wound. The public will be left, at the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, with grave doubts about the impartiality and the judgment of the Commissioners who have refused to allow the American people the benefit of this relevant and important testimony. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. First, Ms. Gorelick claims in this Washington Post op-ed piece that she had no choice when she penned the 1995 memo. It would be worth knowing why it is she thought she had no choice. Second, she claims this memo did nothing more than continue preexisting Justice Department policy first established in the 1980s. By the very terms of the memo, she states it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate counterintelligence investigations from criminal investigations. It is appropriate to ask her if she thought she was establishing a policy or continuing a policy, as she stated in another place. Finally, Ms. Gorelick appears to be shifting the blame for the policy--and we are not talking about blame for the policy--to then- Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson. At a minimum, it is not appropriate for one Justice Department official to attack her successor for failing to adequately correct their own mistakes, as we now know that wall was a mistake. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say because I know time is running out, I believe it is absolutely imperative that Ms. Gorelick offer to come forward and give public testimony about what she knows about the erection of the ``wall'' barring the critical sharing of information that has subsequently now made America much safer. I believe the credibility of the Commission's report depends on that public testimony, and I urge the chairman of the 9/11 Commission to reconsider, and indeed Ms. Gorelick to consider her refusal to testify in public and avoid what has, by all appearances, the status of a self- inflicted wound on the credibility of the Commission. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about the work of the 9/11 Commission. I know it has become popular--perhaps it has always been that way--for those who sit on commissions, those who engage in political debate about the great causes of the day in Washington, DC, to try to find blame for various things that happen. That is no less true of the work of the 9/11 Commission in looking into both the causes of the terrible events of that day and also when it comes to coming up with recommendations about what we might be able to do to make sure that sort of tragedy never occurs on our own soil again. But I think we ought to be clear about who is to blame for the terrible events of 9/11. It was not President Clinton or his administration. It was not President Bush or his administration. The individual and the organization at fault for the events of 9/11 were Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Regardless of our differences, especially in this election year where we are going to select a President, I think we ought to make sure our enemies do not draw any comfort from the debates we have on the floor of the U.S. Senate or elsewhere that we somehow are redirecting the blame to others for political gain and to score political points. I think all Members of the U.S. Senate--indeed, all Members of the U.S. Congress--should be absolutely clear where the blame lies. As I said, that lies with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, after that terrible day there was an upswelling of bipartisan support in this country to try to make sure we did whatever we needed to do in order to make sure that the events of that day would never occur again. Indeed, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force against the persons and organizations responsible for September 11. Indeed, in an unprecedented fashion, also, we saw that our allies in NATO, under article V of that treaty, declared that an attack against the United States was, in effect, an attack against all NATO nations. Of course, this issue is as current as today's news because we know there are two cases that are going to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Hamdi and Padilla cases, which are going to look at the limits of Presidential power under a declaration of war, such as was authorized by the Congress, by the Senate unanimously. Of course, they are going to decide, and it seems obvious to me, but perhaps it is not as obvious to others, that the approval of all necessary and appropriate force must necessarily include the capture and detention of enemy combatants. But that is perhaps an issue for another time. Also, in the spirit of bipartisan support for using all necessary and appropriate means to defend our country, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act 98 to 1. Of course, this important legislation provides law enforcement with sorely needed tools to combat terrorism. Unfortunately, we also recall that spirit of bipartisan unanimity did not last very long. Once the Democratic Party began to choose its Democratic nominee, we heard a lot of disparaging remarks made about the USA PATRIOT Act. Indeed, in a misguided and perhaps ill-informed way, there are 287 different municipalities around the country that have passed resolutions disparaging the USA PATRIOT Act. It is amazing, in Washington, how events can turn on a dime. After we heard testimony before the 9/11 Commission from Janet Reno, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others, a bipartisan chorus said it was the USA PATRIOT Act which tore down the wall which previously precluded information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence-gathering officials. We haven't heard very much more about the previous calls to either repeal or change the PATRIOT Act because, indeed, it was the PATRIOT Act that tore down that wall and which has made America safer. Perhaps the best evidence of that is not just my statement or anyone else's. It is the fact we have, thank God, avoided another 9/11 in the days since that terrible day. The spirit of bipartisanship that resulted in a resolution authorizing the use of necessary force against our enemies who brought the war to us on 9/11 and the spirit of bipartisanship that saw a 98- to-1 vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act and tearing down that wall needs to continue to prevail on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States that was created by Congress and appointed by both the Congress and the President. Of course, it is the job of that Commission to find facts, to create a historical record of the events that led up to that date, and then come up with recommendations. It is absolutely critical that the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, the 9/11 Commission, not be undermined and that the public confidence be preserved in that Commission. That brings me to the testimony which I believe must be provided in an open forum by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. As Attorney General Ashcroft revealed during his testimony, when he declassified a key 1995 memorandum, dated actually March 4, 1995, authored by Ms. Gorelick when she was Deputy Attorney General, it was the policy of the Justice Department, under Ms. Reno and under Ms. Gorelick, during the Clinton administration, that went further than the law required in establishing this wall which prohibited information sharing between law enforcement officials and counterintelligence officials. Indeed, in the days since Attorney General Ashcroft revealed the existence of this memo, we have seen Ms. Gorelick respond in a Washington Post op-ed piece explaining her role. My point is, Ms. Gorelick, serving in a high-level position in the Justice Department as Deputy Attorney General, in effect the chief operating officer in the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno, has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to that memo and the erection and buttressing of that wall barring the sharing of communications. I believe her testimony under ordinary circumstances would be sort of a no-brainer. The 9/11 Commission would say: This is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Let's bring her before the Commission and ask her to tell us what she knows. That has been requested now, public testimony by Ms. Gorelick, in letters signed by a number of Senators, and now been refused by the cochairs, Chairman Kean and Chairman Hamilton. Simply put, this is a self-inflicted wound on the credibility of the 9/11 Commission. We have learned that she has provided testimony in camera or, in English, in secret. In other words, she has been interviewed by the 9/11 Commission and told apparently what she knows out of the public eye. Obviously, she has written an op-ed piece explaining, without the benefit of further questions or followup, what it is she intended to do and the circumstances leading up to that 1995 memo. If public testimony by persons with knowledge of relevant facts ranging from Janet Reno to Louis Freeh to John Ashcroft to Bob Mueller and others, if that testimony was important--and indeed, I believe it was--then public testimony by Ms. Gorelick is important to preserving the public credibility of the work product of the 9/11 Commission. Secret testimony will not cut it. In fact, we need to know what it was that led up to this policy and the reasons for it in order to understand why it is important never to go there again. As I said, this policy is stated in that very same memo, which went well beyond legal requirements. In other words, the PATRIOT Act, once it was passed virtually unanimously in this body, dismantled that wall in a way that made America safer. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes and also to extend the Democratic time by the same amount.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time we have remaining in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican leader's time be reserved for his use later in the day.

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 to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. CORNYN. Under the circumstances, Mr. President, I ask----

Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the PATRIOT Act, a subject which has been much misunderstood. I think some of the misunderstanding has been perhaps just from lack of information or has been misinformation that has been spun in an effort to confuse people and perhaps even to scare people about what is in this important legislation. Indeed, we are all committed to making sure not only that our Nation is secure, and I believe the PATRIOT Act has contributed tremendously to improving the security of the United States of America, but at the same time we have a fundamental commitment in this country to civil liberties. I believe, and I think the American people believe, the Founders of this country believed firmly that we can have both our national security and our civil liberties. Particularly, in a time of war such as we are in now, while there will be some tension, we need not sacrifice our civil liberties. Nevertheless, there are those who would play politics with this issue in an effort to score political points, or I think others who perhaps for more benign reasons might just be not very well informed and kind of go along, not really knowing the truth. So I want to talk just a few minutes about the PATRIOT Act and what it has done. Of course the PATRIOT Act has passed overwhelmingly, just a short time after the terrible events of September 11. Indeed, the purpose of the PATRIOT Act was to give law enforcement the tools and our counterterrorism experts and agents the tools they needed in order to prevent future 9/11s. Indeed, the evidence is clear that the PATRIOT Act has served that important purpose. The Department of Justice has broken up four terrorist cells in the United States since September 11, in Buffalo, Portland, Detroit, and Seattle. It has filed criminal charges related to terrorism against more than 300 individuals. So far it has secured 176 convictions or guilty pleas. Perhaps the best evidence of the success of the PATRIOT Act has been the fact that, thank goodness, America has not suffered another horrific event like 9/11 since that terrible day some 2\1/2\ years ago. I might add we have also been successful in freezing some of the funding that has been essential to financing terrorism around the world. In fact, the PATRIOT Act has allowed us to freeze more than $200 million in funds from organizations that have been sponsoring and funding international terrorism. Particularly, last week, I guess it was, when we heard the testimony of the former FBI Director Louis Freeh, the former Attorney General Janet Reno, and the current Attorney General John Ashcroft, the American people became introduced more or less the same way that law students are to fundamental principles of law enforcement and due process. Even more than that, the American people were introduced to something that was referred to as ``the wall.'' The wall was the subject of a 1995 memo by Jamie Gorelick, then Deputy Attorney General, now on the 9/11 Commission. Indeed, as she has pointed out, the wall between our antiterrorism and intelligence- gathering efforts and our law enforcement efforts has been longstanding. But it is not a matter that is constitutionally required; it is something the American Government had done to itself. It is a limitation that Congress had placed on information sharing between law enforcement officials. Some only investigate crimes after they have occurred, trying to root out the guilty and then to convict the guilty of the crimes they have committed. The wall is between those law enforcement officials and those intelligence agencies, counterterrorism officials whose job it is to prevent a terrorist attack from even occurring and to preempt that terrible event from occurring. So it was through the PATRIOT Act that we saw this wall come down that has been so important to information sharing. Indeed, this is not a partisan issue. Attorney General Janet Reno said just a few short days ago, on April 13, with respect to the problems of information sharing within the FBI and other Federal officials, that: Many of these issues will be or have been resolved by the passage of the PATRIOT Act or other statements. Indeed, to my recollection, that is not the same words but essentially the same testimony that was presented by former FBI Director Louis Freeh. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who served during the previous administration, in talking about this wall that had been brought down as a result of the PATRIOT Act said: . . . the wall is not an appropriate one with respect to counterterrorism, and that's been repaired both by the PATRIOT Act and the court of review. I believe the court of review he is referring to is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which creates a court of seven Federal judges who review requests for various intelligence mechanisms that try to make sure or, in fact, do make sure as much as is humanly possible that the rights of people who are accused of crimes are not unfairly jeopardized in this process. The point is that the wall that had been erected separating our law enforcement personnel and preventing them from sharing information with our counterterrorism officials has now been torn down and we now allow information sharing which, indeed, has made America safer. The PATRIOT Act specifically makes it easier to track terrorists in the digital age. When journalist Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal was kidnapped in Pakistan, the terrorists made the mistake, as it turned out, of sending the ransom demands by e-mail. The PATRIOT Act, having brought our laws into the information age, allowed investigators to quickly obtain essential information from the Internet service provider that the terrorists were using. This in turn led them to cybercafes in Pakistan and then to some of Daniel Pearl's killers, who are now in prison thanks to the expanded tools provided by the PATRIOT Act. Some have worried aloud that we are jeopardizing our civil liberties by creating a law which allows expanded authority to law enforcement and counterterrorism authorities. But what many people don't understand, or don't know--there is no reason they should know other than the fact that they have now learned more about it--is the PATRIOT Act actually applies tools that have already been in use in other contexts. For example, before September 11, investigators had better tools to fight organized crime than they did to fight terrorism. For example, for years law enforcement officials used roving wiretaps to investigate organized crime. I think it was Senator Joe Biden who said if roving wiretaps are good enough for the mob, then they are good enough for terrorists. He, of course, advocated, as many on this floor did, for that. Here is a copy of his remarks. I paraphrased it. Let's go to the exact quote. He said: . . . the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy. What's good for the Mob should be good for terrorists. Those are statements with which I agreed, made by Senator Joe Biden on October 25, 2001, which I submit were true then and remain true today. I already mentioned that aspect of the PATRIOT Act which has made it easier for us to cut off the financial support that has been used to support terrorist acts. Osama bin Laden, when he first left Saudi Arabia and went to Afghanistan as part of the anti-Communist Jihad, after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, he and other Jihadists declared holy war against the Soviets at the time. The way he got started in his terrorist activities was financially supporting the acts of other Jihadists, other Muslim extremists. At that time, he directed their fire at the Soviet Union until, of course, the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. Then they turned their fire on America and other freedom- loving countries. My point is, getting at the financial support for terror was very important. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act has made it much easier to get to that and was responsible for capturing some $200 million in terrorist financing, which has been very important. One of the things that has concerned me, and no doubt others, about the PATRIOT Act has been the way people have used the PATRIOT Act as almost a dirty word. It has been used to scare people. It has been used to mislead people about what the act does. It is important to understand what the act does and what it does not do. It has also been used to raise money. This is part of the scare campaign the American people deserve to know about and we as Members of this body need to remind ourselves of and make ourselves aware of. I happened to get a solicitation from the American Civil Liberties Union at my home. This is an excerpt. It caught my eye because I thought, now I understand why there are so many people who are misled and frightened by the PATRIOT Act because there are organizations such as the ACLU that are misleading people about what it does. They are using that fear to raise money. We know one of the strongest motivations there is for human beings is to scare them. Indeed, that is exactly what is happening by misleading the American people about what the PATRIOT Act does, by organizations such as the ACLU. This solicitation letter I received at my residence said in part: We need your immediate help to stop radical anti-liberty proposals from becoming radical anti-liberty laws of the land with Congress' and the White House' seal of approval. Indeed, that sort of statement is not alone. We have another chart that talks specifically about the PATRIOT Act, and another excerpt from the same solicitation by the ACLU: The USA PATRIOT Act expands terrorism laws to include ``domestic terrorism'' which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy. If that were true, I would be standing and saying we need to look at this twice. We need to do something about it. We need to look further to see whether perhaps we have done something wrong or it needs correction or review. I was at a hearing of a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Feinstein put her finger on this and pointed out the kind of hysterical scare tactics the ACLU and others have used in mischaracterizing what the PATRIOT Act does are flatly unfounded. I was there at this hearing, but I had the statement made into a chart so the quote is clear. Senator Feinstein, to her credit, is always a Senator who does her homework. She does her homework in every case, sometimes to my aggravation when she is on the other side of an issue, but sometimes I am glad she does. This is a case where I am glad she did her homework as she always does. I have never had a single abuse of the PATRIOT Act reported to me. She was not just sitting passively back waiting for people to write or call as they do to our offices to complain or to register some concern about legislation or some Federal activity. She went on to say: My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none. It is very disturbing that the same organization that mails solicitations to houses of not just Members of Congress but to people all across America, trying to frighten them, mislead them, and scare them into believing Congress has acted without concern for civil liberties or perhaps some law we passed has been abused by Attorney General John Ashcroft and others, when, in fact, it is just not true. Everyone should be concerned about that. It ought to be exposed for what it is. Notwithstanding the comments of people like Senator Biden, who supports the PATRIOT Act, Senator Feinstein, who has done this investigation to find out whether, in fact, there has been abuse--and there has been none reported, even when asked for examples to support their scare tactics--there are some now who say it is time to eliminate the PATRIOT Act or to replace it, using other similar scare tactics. I might point out this is not limited to the Congress. I had my staff refresh my recollection because I had remembered--indeed, the Presiding Officer may remember, too--there are press reports about city councils around the United States that passed resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act based on the disinformation and scare tactics the ACLU and others have used to mislead them about whether there was, indeed, a threat to the civil liberties of their constituents. In fact, 287 local governments across the United States of America have passed such resolutions condemning the PATRIOT Act. I am sad to say, three of those were in Texas: If my recollection is correct, the Dallas City Council, Austin City Council, and one from a smaller municipality. So we know at least there is some evidence that the kind of scare tactics and misinformation people have been spreading, people at the ACLU have been spreading, is, unfortunately, working, because not enough people like me and others in this body are standing up and correcting the record and providing the truth. Unfortunately--it is not unfortunate; it is our system. We have elections for President every 4 years. We have elections for the House every 2 years and every 6 years for the Senate, but it should not be too surprising some of this disinformation and misinformation and scare tactics have gotten into the Presidential campaign. Indeed, I listened with some concern during the race for the Democratic nomination for President where various candidates for that Democratic nomination for President continued along this line of disinformation, misinformation, and scare tactics specifically regarding the PATRIOT Act. The current nominee for President of the Democratic Party participated in that, what I call ``piling on.'' He said in a speech at Iowa State University: So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. Unfortunately, this is an instance, I will interject in the quote, in which Attorney General Ashcroft has been reviled, he has been called all sorts of names, held up as a boogeyman in part of the scare tactic for doing his job, for enforcing the laws Congress has passed and the President has signed. If the Attorney General of the United States of America will not enforce the laws Congress passes and the President signs in order to make America more secure, who will? Thank goodness, we have a courageous individual who is willing to stand up against unwarranted criticism and this sort of misinformation or disinformation campaign and enforce the law Congress passes because he believes, as Congress believed when it passed the law, as the President believed when he signed the law, the PATRIOT Act makes America more secure. Going back to the quote by Senator Kerry at the Iowa State University: So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. He goes on to say: That starts with replacing the PATRIOT Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. He later had an interview on ``Morning Edition'' on National Public Radio on August 18, 2003. He said: If you are sensitive to and care about civil liberties, you can make provisions to guarantee that there is not this blind spot in the American justice system that there is today under the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, this disinformation campaign, which stands in stark contrast to the lack of any evidence that Senator Feinstein found in her investigation about abuses, continues now into the Presidential campaign, now that the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has been chosen. Indeed, this is on Senator Kerry's Web site, John Kerry for President Web site. He said: John Ashcroft has used new authority under the Patriot Act to perform ``sneak and peek'' searches without ever notifying anyone and without any judicial oversight. Well, besides this campaign of disinformation and misinformation and scare tactics, I can assure you neither the Attorney General nor any other United States attorney or Federal law enforcement official can legally perform any kind of search without judicial oversight. That is wrong. It is a false statement. Even if we pulled this out of all the other contexts I have talked about--the disinformation, the misinformation, and the scare tactics-- this is a flat misstatement. I hope Senator Kerry will correct that on his Web site because no search under any kind of warrant can be conducted without the approval of a judge or an impartial magistrate. That is a basic part of our criminal law. But, here again, I am worried that unless people stand up and correct the record, this kind of disinformation will continue. But the worst part of it is this: Notwithstanding the kind of statements I covered by Senator Kerry and others, these are some of the same people who voted for the PATRIOT Act when it passed. Indeed, on October 25, 2001, Senator Kerry said: I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance component. Then later, more specifically to the subject at hand, this quote is talking generically about the laws that changed included in the PATRIOT Act and others. But he was interviewed on Fox News on October 25, 2001. John Gibson of Fox News said: Senator Kerry, today, Attorney General Ashcroft said that terrorists have reason to be afraid, very afraid of this new terror legislation. Why? What's in it that has so much sharper teeth? Senator Kerry said: It streamlines the ability of law enforcement to do its job. It modernizes our ability to fight crime. Well, I agree with the comments of Senator Kerry in October of 2001 about the benefits of the PATRIOT Act. And I disagree with the comments Senator Kerry--the same person--made when he decided to run for President, and now that he is a Presidential nominee, where he is using the misinformation, this disinformation, these scare tactics, unfortunately, in contrast to the lack of evidence Senator Feinstein was able to glean from even the ACLU about any evidence of abuses. The fact is, the PATRIOT Act has made America a safer place. And no political campaign, no fundraising goal justifies misleading the American people about what is good about the PATRIOT Act and how it has contributed to bringing down this wall separating law enforcement and counterterrorism officials from sharing information. Indeed, as I said, the best evidence about why the PATRIOT Act is good law, good public policy, is the fact we have not been hit like we were on 9/11. Thank God for that. I know, of course, we hope and pray we never will again be hit in that way. But we are not going to be safer if we play politics with our national security, even in a Presidential year when the attraction is so irresistible, it appears, to some. The PATRIOT Act has made America safer. Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Louis Freeh, people on both sides of the aisle, people who have put their hand on a Bible and sworn to uphold the laws of the United States of America, to protect the Constitution--these are people who have testified under oath the PATRIOT Act has made America safer. So I say, let's not play politics with this important law. Let's not play politics and risk American lives by continuing the disinformation and misinformation and the scare tactics to the point where we would go back and eliminate or revise or neuter this important protection which has made our country so much safer. So, Mr. President, with that, I would like to turn to some additional matters on behalf of the majority leader. I see Senator Reid on the floor. At this time, on behalf of the majority leader, I would ask---- Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended by 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. CORNYN. There was objection.

Mr. CORNYN. For a question? May I ask how much time we have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. There was an objection to the request for extension on each side for morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I am sorry, Madam President, is there objection?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. We ought to be very clear about where the blame lies for the events of September 11. But I point out one thing: President Bush has acted as decisively as any leader could have possibly acted in removing the Taliban from Afghanistan, by disrupting the training camps of al-Qaida in that country and then acting decisively against Saddam Hussein. The United Nations issued 14 different resolutions threatening him with the use of force if he did not comply with those resolutions, which he had never complied with during the entire course of the post-gulf-war period from 1991. I think most Americans would be a little surprised to learn we never had a peace treaty after 1991, because Saddam Hussein continued to defy the United Nations and the free world by his continued acts of avoiding United Nations inspections. He played a game of cat and mouse. Just when he thought we were developing the courage--the United Nations and others--to take him to task, he would relent temporarily only to kick the inspectors out and continue to defy the United Nations inspections. My final point is there are some, including the Senator from Massachusetts, who have called the war in Iraq ``another Vietnam.'' The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I think did as good a job as possibly could have been done--certainly a person who has enormous credibility on that issue, having served so ably in Vietnam and, unfortunately, having been a prisoner of war there for a time--I think he did a very good job of refuting that and really showing the truth about that sort of scurrilous accusation. It is the kind of speech I worry has the possibility of a tremendously negative effect on our war on terror. Our enemies should not be confused about our commitment to follow through, win the war on terror and crush our enemies in the process. I grew up during the course of the Vietnam war. I remember what it was like in this country when our men and women in the field returned to this country only to find the American people did not support them as they should have and where America lost its resolve and strength of will. We should never let that happen again. It was a terrible American tragedy. For anyone to suggest that America is going to suffer loss of will or resolve in winning this war on terror is simply wrong. I think we should not be fooled into thinking when Senators or any government official or anyone stands up and equates what is happening in Iraq and what is happening in Afghanistan and what is happening generally in the war on terror with Vietnam--they are providing fodder for our enemies. They are encouraging our enemies to think that perhaps we will lose our resolve and give rise to, I think, increased attacks against our troops on the ground and undermining our war effort generally. I certainly don't suppose anyone is doing that intentionally. But I think we need to be careful about the words we use. I know a short time remains in our morning business. I see the distinguished majority whip on the floor. I would say in closing that words are important. Words have meaning. The words that are said today won't be remembered just in the context of election year and partisan politics; they will stand in history for future generations to read and study with a critical eye. In the end, we must focus on the battle with our common foe and not on each other. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say a few words regarding some of the accusations we have seen in recent times coming out of the 9/11 hearing and the Richard Clarke allegations in his book. I think it is important, through all the clutter, for the American people to understand one point, if they understand anything, about all the debate and the politics and the political rhetoric and posturing that is going on surrounding this issue. That is a question that was asked during the course of the Commission hearing by Commissioner Gorton. I think it is absolutely critical for the American people to understand both this question and this answer by Mr. Clarke. The question is from Commissioner Gorton of the 9/11 Commission, inquiring into the causes and circumstances giving rise to 9/11: . . . Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001 . . . which had been an agenda item at this point for 2\1/2\ years without any action . . . assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, [when President Bush came to office] year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11? Mr. Clarke answered, ``No.'' I believe the American people need to understand that Mr. Clarke is not assigning blame to President Bush or his administration for what happened on 9/11, nor could he. As a matter of fact, we had seen, during the preceding years of the Clinton administration when Mr. Clarke held the role of counterterrorism chief, a number of attacks against the United States of America and against our soil. In 1993, Osama bin Laden directed al-Qaida's first successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil, blowing up a car bomb in the basement garage of the World Trade Center in New York City killing 6 and wounding 1,000. In 1996, there was another attack on the U.S. Air Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia killing 19 Americans and wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 people and wounded more than 5,000. In 2000, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39. So it is clear that during the preceding 8 years that Osama bin Laden had been terrorizing America and taking American lives in the process. It is simply unfair for Mr. Clarke, or anyone else for that matter, to suggest that during the 8 months President Bush was in office that he should have or could have somehow done anything more than was done to try to prevent the events of 9/11. And, indeed, Mr. Clarke in a flash of candor through all of the attempts he has made to try to promote his new book--and, by the way, he has been very successful; I see on Amazon.Com his book is the No. 1 or No. 2 most ordered book. He has been very successful in promoting his book--but in a flash of amazing candor, we see that he now admits there is nothing the Bush administration could have done in 8 months that the Clinton administration had not done in 8 years to prevent the tragic events of 9/11. Some in Washington, DC, I guess we have all come to learn, are world- class second guessers. Now armed with the benefit of hindsight, there are those who want to pick through the rubble, through e-mails, and through memos to try to assign blame. But we ought to be clear about this: The blame for what happened on 9/11 lies squarely with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida--not on the American people, not on President Clinton and his administration, and not on the President or his administration. These are good, patriotic Americans who I am confident were doing everything they knew of that they could possibly do to prevent the terrible tragedy this Nation suffered on 9/11. It is insulting that anyone would suggest this administration or the previous administration, now with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, might have done something to stop this unfathomable horror. It is important to place responsibility where it lies; and that is with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. We also find ourselves in a strange new dimension where on the one hand President Bush is criticized for acting too decisively to take out al-Qaida, to take down the Taliban government in Afghanistan and then remove a bloodthirsty tyrant in Saddam Hussein, and now, on the other hand, these same critics want to complain that he should have done more.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think we are actually making progress. I am delighted to hear the Senator from Illinois agree with what it sounded like the minority leader stated earlier, that they have some problems with this bill as written, and they acknowledge the problem of medical liability crisis exists and suggest we ought to try to find some way to address that crisis which they concede is very real. Senator Durbin said it is not the right approach. My question would be, Well, what is the right approach? Senator Daschle said there is no reason to differentiate between those who walk in the front door of a hospital and those who get emergency care. I will concede the good faith of that question. The problem is we offered that bill earlier and were unsuccessful in getting cloture so we could actually get to the merits of the bill and debate it. Of course, not until we get to that 60-vote hurdle where we can actually move the bill on to the floor can the bill be amended. Indeed, that is how the Senate does its work. But I wonder whether it is the intention of our friends on the other side of the aisle to have a good-faith debate about how to solve this problem. For example, rather than take what I consider to be the constructive approach the Senator from Illinois and the Senate minority leader have taken to criticize the content of the bill but to acknowledge we have a problem so perhaps we can then get to a solution of that problem, the the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee called it a partisan approach and then criticized the Senate leadership. He said, In my 29 years here in the Senate I have never seen so little accomplished. I think the reason why we are not accomplishing any reform or any real solution to what is a very real problem is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply won't let us call the bill up, have a debate, consider amendments, and try to solve what is a very real crisis in this country. Even though we are calling this a medical liability reform bill, this is not something we are doing out of the goodness of our hearts for the medical profession. While I respect members of the medical profession who dedicate their lives to curing illness and addressing medical needs, as well as health care providers who run hospitals and a whole host of other allied health care facilities, that is not what drives me to see the need for this bill. The reason I think this bill needs to be passed, or some version of it after amendment if the Senate reaches consensus on a solution to the problem, is because I know everyone within the sound of my voice and literally everyone across the country who is alive today will at some point in their lives be a patient. They will need access to good quality health care. What is happening today in this country because of this medical liability crisis is denying patients--that is the American people-- access to health care they need in order to lead a good quality of life and in order to enjoy life for themselves and their children and their other loved ones. I want to comment briefly on a suggestion I have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They said that with this particular solution--that is a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages--people walk away with nothing when they go to court. The truth is, in California, which has a medical liability reform law very similar to what we are proposing here today, economic damages, including medical expenses, are compensated completely. Indeed, in December of 2002, in Alameda County, there was an $84 million award to a 5-year-old boy who has cerebral palsy and is a quadriplegic because of delayed treatment of jaundice after birth. That would only be possible because what is actually being compensated there is the very real economic loss suffered as a result of that horrendous injury, something we all regret. The suggestion we are going to turn people out of court with nothing to show for it and we are not going to compensate people for their injuries received in the medical context caused by the fault of another is not true. I wonder how anyone can stand up and suggest we are somehow trying to deny people a remedy. That is certainly not the case. We know this kind of law will have a positive impact. Even in the State of Texas, which I represent, where we passed not a $250,000 cap but indeed a higher cap on non-economic damages last September, we have seen one medical liability insurance company reduce its rates by 12 percent across the board, sort of a start. Another medical liability insurance carrier has cancelled an anticipated 19-percent increase. Obviously, we will see how this all plays out, but we already know it has a very real and positive impact as demonstrated by the evidence. I see the Senator from Virginia and I want to make sure he has all the time he needs to speak. But I want to also comment on the effect of high medical liability insurance rates on the cost of health care and on the pressure being put on employers and others who provide health insurance to their employees to drop their employees from any sort of health coverage, exacerbating the crisis we have in this country of too many people who do not have access to health insurance and the fact we have many emergency rooms put on divert status with patients being redirected elsewhere in true emergencies because people who do not have health insurance have nowhere else to turn if they don't have money. They know they can be treated in an emergency room. They know they can't be turned away. But the fact is about 80 percent of the people who go to emergency rooms are being treated for medical conditions that could be treated in a clinic or a doctor's office much more cheaply, more humanely, and in a way that would help us address this crisis in access to good quality health care. Finally, I know we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate, as we should, about the concern of every person in this country who wants to work to find a good job so they can provide for themselves and their family. But the cost of health care in this country is killing our recovery. It is doing so from the standpoint of putting increased financial burdens on employers who want to provide health insurance to their employees but simply are not able to add new positions in their company because they know that in addition to salary they are going to have to pay benefits, including health care costs in many instances, and they are simply priced out of the market. If our colleagues on the floor of the Senate want to do something about improving access to good quality health care, if they want to do something about the fact many people don't have health insurance and need health care coverage, if they want to do something about America's competitiveness in this global economy, and make sure we keep more jobs in this country rather than see them go to China, India, or anywhere else, they should vote to let this bill come forward and have a debate about what this bill ought to look like to address the medical liability crisis that even the Senator from Illinois and the minority leader admit we have in this country today. I implore Members to reconsider their obstruction. By obstructing progress on this vote we are not solving any problems. People are maybe making political points, but it is hard to see what kind of political point you make by obstructing good, commonsense legislation like this. I implore them to reconsider their obstruction and ask that they vote for cloture so we can move on and begin to solve this very real problem on behalf of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of S. 2207, the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act: Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Hatch.