[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 21 (Friday, February 17, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1459-S1460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LAURA DALE DUFFIELD

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to announce to the Senate the 
arrival in this world of Laura Dale Duffield. Miss Duffield was born to 
her parents Cara and Steven this last Friday, and is reported to weigh 
over 7 pounds. Her father, Steven, is the Judiciary Policy Analyst and 
Counsel for the Republican Policy Committee, which I chair.
  I would like to take a moment to note for posterity some of the 
events taking place in the world at the time that young Laura joins us. 
Most important among the matters recently before the Senate, I think, 
is the confirmation several weeks ago of the nomination of Samuel Alito 
to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the fall 
of last year, the Senate also confirmed the nomination of John Roberts 
to be the Chief Justice of the United States. Steven played an 
important role in both confirmations, supplying Republican Senators 
with information and draft speeches about the nominees, and even 
staffing me on the Judiciary Committee during the nominees' hearings. 
This is the first time that there has been a change in the membership 
of the Supreme Court since 1994--before Laura's parents even began law 
school. Chief Justice Roberts replaces Chief Justice Rehnquist, who 
originally had been appointed to the Court in 1971, in between the time 
that Laura's parents were born. Justice Alito replaces Justice 
O'Connor, who had been appointed to the Court when Laura's parents 
still were in grade school.
  In the years to come, we of course will have many opportunities to 
evaluate these two new Justices and their impact on the law. At the 
present time, based on what I saw ofthese nominees at their hearings 
before the Judiciary Committee, I think that they give us reason to be 
hopeful about the future. I think that we can reasonably expect both 
nominees to usher in a new era of the rule of law in this country--to 
restore the Supreme Court to its intended role, of declaring what the 
Constitution means in light of how it was reasonably understood when it 
was enacted. For many years now, Americans often have felt powerless at 
the hands of a Court that has pursued its own political agenda--an 
agenda without a basis in the text, structure, or history of the 
Constitution. I am optimistic that in the years to come, the Supreme 
Court might play a less prominent role in American life, and might 
allow the American people and their elected representatives a more 
prominent role in making the laws that govern them.
  This year also marks the 5th year since the terrorist attacks on the 
Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon. Those attacks still set 
much of the national agenda, from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to 
the legislation that we are considering in the Senate. On the day that 
Laura was born, last Friday, the headline in the Washington Post was, 
``Patriot Act Compromise Clears Way for Senate Vote.'' I will include 
this news story in the Record following my remarks. Last December, the 
PATRIOT Act--an important antiterrorism law that enhances investigators 
ability to detect and disrupt terrorist plots--was held up in a 
legislative filibuster. Occasionally, the Senate takes to heart its 
intended role as a brake on legislative action and throws one of its 
periodic tantrums. But fortunately, just in advance of Laura's arrival, 
the impasse over this indispensable law has been cleared.
  Finally, this moment in time also is marked in this place by 
legislative action on a slew of reforms to our civil-justice and 
bankruptcy laws; an attempt to reform our immigration system and 
control our border; and an attempt to reverse the verdict of the Civil 
War by authorizing Native Hawaiians to secede from their State. Mention 
of these projects, however, serves only to highlight their 
insignificance relative to the arrival of a new child in the world. I 
doubt that Steven even will remember the laborious policy papers that 
he produced on all of these topics as he watches Laura grow older.
  I congratulate Steven and Cara on the arrival of their daughter--on 
the fact that there is now one more person in the world whom we will 
all call ``Duffield''--and I wish them good fortune in caring for and 
cultivating their new charge.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following Washington Post news story 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From washingtonpost.com, Feb. 10, 2006]

           Patriot Act Compromise Clears Way for Senate Vote

                         (By Charles Babington)

       Efforts to extend the USA Patriot Act cleared a major 
     hurdle yesterday when the White House and key senators agreed 
     to revisions that are virtually certain to secure Senate 
     passage and likely to win House approval, congressional 
     leaders said.
       The law--passed in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks 
     and scheduled to lapse in key areas last year--makes it 
     easier for federal agents to secretly tap phones, obtain 
     library and bank records, and search the homes of suspected 
     terrorists. Several Democrats said the compromise announced 
     yesterday lacks important civil liberties safeguards, and 
     even the Republican negotiators said they had to yield to the 
     administration on several points.

[[Page S1460]]

       But with virtually all 55 GOP senators now on board, and 
     Democrats joining them, the plan appears to have enough 
     support to overcome the Senate filibuster that has thwarted a 
     four-year renewal of the statute for months. Senators said 
     they think the White House will be able to coax the 
     Republican-controlled House to agree as well, even though 
     House leaders have complained that senators' demands had 
     weakened the measure.
       ``It was a bipartisan group of us that really believed we 
     could do better . . . to protect civil liberties even as we 
     gave law enforcement important tools to conduct terrorism 
     investigations,'' Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) told 
     reporters. He said that he and his fellow negotiators had to 
     make more concessions to the administration than they wanted 
     to, but that Congress will monitor the law's application over 
     the coming years and perhaps revise it.
       Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), one of several Democrats who 
     agreed to back the compromise yesterday, said ``it falls far 
     short'' of the bill that was passed by the Senate last year 
     but rejected by the House. ``But if you measure it against 
     the original Patriot Act . . . we've made progress'' toward 
     ``protecting basic civil liberties at a time when we are 
     dealing with the war on terrorism,'' Durbin said.
       Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called the 
     compromise ``a step in the right direction.''
       The proposal would restrict federal agents' access to 
     library records, one of the Patriot Act's most contentious 
     provisions. A form of secret subpoena known as a National 
     Security Letter could no longer be used to obtain records 
     from libraries that function ``in their traditional capacity, 
     including providing basic Internet access,'' Sununu and 
     others said in a statement. But libraries that are ``Internet 
     service providers'' would remain subject to the letters, 
     Durbin said.
       The Senate proposal would no longer require National 
     Security Letter recipients to tell the FBI the identity of 
     their lawyers.
       The compromise bill also addresses ``Section 215 
     subpoenas,'' which are granted by the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act court. Recipients of such subpoenas 
     originally were forbidden to tell anyone about the action. 
     The proposed Senate measure would allow them to challenge the 
     ``gag order'' after one year, rather than the 90-day wait in 
     earlier legislation.
       Sununu said the administration insisted on the longer 
     waiting period. ``You now have a process to challenge the gag 
     order,'' he said, defending the concession. ``That didn't 
     exist before.''
       Sununu said he and his allies were disappointed that the 
     compromise does not require agents to ``show a connection to 
     a suspected terrorist or spy'' before obtaining a Section 215 
     subpoena. Instead, a FISA judge would have to agree that 
     there are reasonable grounds to believe the items being 
     sought are relevant to an investigation into terrorism.
       Several liberals condemned the bill. ``I am gravely 
     disappointed in this so-called deal,'' said Sen. Russell 
     Feingold (D-Wis.). ``The White House agreed to only a few 
     minor changes'' that ``do not address the major problems,'' 
     he said, adding: ``We've come too far and fought too hard to 
     agree to reauthorize the Patriot Act without fixing those 
     problems.''
       But Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the 
     Senate compromise ``maintains the tools necessary to fight 
     terrorism while further strengthening safeguards to protect 
     civil liberties.''
       ``We are hopeful that the Congress will now move forward to 
     renew the Patriot Act,'' he said.
       In a related area yesterday, several Democrats said the 
     administration must do more to explain and justify the 
     domestic surveillance program conducted by the National 
     Security Agency.
       ``If they came with the idea that this is going to stop an 
     investigation on the part of the Senate intelligence 
     committee, they were wrong,'' committee Vice Chairman John D. 
     Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) told reporters after a closed 
     briefing by two top administration officials. ``There were 
     certain kinds of questions which could easily have been 
     answered but weren't. . . . Where we really wanted hard 
     information that was important to us, that gave us the size 
     and the scope and the reach and the depth of the program,'' 
     he said, ``they were not forthcoming.''
       Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said after the briefing: 
     ``For the life of me, I don't understand why the 
     administration won't say, `Sure, you have a right to look at 
     this. We'd like to expand it.' ''

                          ____________________