[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10787-10789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                SYMBOLS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, symbols are important. 
Symbols, even more than our words, are powerful communicators of 
intent, of value, and of commitment. We know, for example, what the 
pictures that have recently come to light of the abuse of a few Iraqi 
prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison have communicated in a way that mere 
words could not. Indeed, out of all of the terrible consequences of 
that criminal activity by a few, there has been a positive. I believe 
that positive is, No. 1, the commitment of the Department of Defense, 
from the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, all the way down to the 
troops in the prison themselves, to make sure we get to the facts, that 
we hold those guilty accountable, and that we do so in a public way 
which demonstrates that in a democracy we do things in a way that 
people can judge for themselves whether they are being handled 
appropriately.
  I trust by the time we get through with these investigations--about 
six of them in all--and by the time the prosecutions of the seven who 
have been charged with criminal conduct, misconduct, and possibly 
others who will be charged as well, by the time we get through, the 
world will see our commitment to the rule of law and to minimum 
standards of human decency.
  When I think about symbols, I also think about, for example, what has 
happened in Madrid with the attacks on the trains there which killed 
many of that country and which, in the eyes of some, caused Spain, 
because of the election, to pull their troops out of Iraq. We know 
there is very likely a different explanation for the outcome of that 
election, but I am haunted by the words of GEN John Abizaid, commander 
of the central command, including Iraq and that whole troubled part of 
the world, who said al-Qaida was emboldened as a result of the reaction 
that they perceived occurred by that attack. That is another example of 
how symbols are enormously powerful in ways that it is hard for us to 
articulate or explain in mere words.
  I would like to also talk about another symbol that I think is very 
important for us, beyond the perseverance that we see, and that Senator 
Hatch talked about so eloquently, of our troops in the battlefield who 
have put themselves in harm's way to protect us

[[Page 10788]]

and to liberate the Iraqi people. I believe there is another important 
symbol that we can send which will tell our enemies that we are 
absolutely committed to defending ourselves against terrorism. That is 
the legislation that has been filed today by Senator Kyl of Arizona, of 
which I am a proud cosponsor.
  This bill is one page in length. It is very short. I believe it is a 
powerful symbol. If we act, as I believe we should, to adopt this 
legislation, that would send a powerful message to our enemies that we 
remain committed to defending ourselves in this new and dangerous world 
we live in since 9/11 and that we have not lost our resolve in Iraq or 
Afghanistan or anywhere else where the war on terrorism rages.
  This bill that has been filed would simply do this: It would take the 
USA PATRIOT Act, which has a sunset provision that causes a number of 
elements of that bill to expire at the end of next year, and it simply 
repeals that sunset provision, thus making the USA PATRIOT Act a 
permanent part of our laws.
  Yesterday, we heard from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who voiced 
strong support for renewing the PATRIOT Act, which this would do. He 
said, for 2\1/2\ years the PATRIOT Act has proved extraordinarily 
beneficial in the war on terrorism and has changed the way the FBI does 
business. Many of our counterterrorism successes, in fact, are the 
direct result of provisions included in the act, a number of which are 
scheduled to sunset at the end of next year.
  I strongly believe it is vital to our national security to keep each 
of these provisions intact. Indeed, Director Mueller is not alone. We 
heard bipartisan support in testimony before the 
9/11 Commission, which is studying lessons learned from that terrible 
event in our history and the aftermath, of what it is we can do to make 
our country stronger and to defend ourselves from the extremists who 
simply want to kill us and eliminate our way of life.
  One by one, from former FBI Director Louis Freeh to former Attorney 
General Janet Reno to Attorney General John Ashcroft--just to name a 
few--they touted the impact of the PATRIOT Act in reducing the wall 
that prevented information sharing between criminal investigators and 
our counterterrorism intelligence officials. They talked about how 
important the PATRIOT Act was in bringing down that wall that prevented 
information sharing at the Federal level.
  As a former State law enforcement officer myself, I can tell you, 
since 9/11, another thing that has made America safer is not just 
greater information sharing at the Federal level, between Federal 
agencies, but indeed it has also been the information shared with State 
and local law enforcement officials.
  Director Mueller made that point again yesterday about how important 
it is that we work collectively, using all of our resources at the 
State, Federal, and local levels to make sure we protect this country 
and keep our citizens safe.
  I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of quotations from a number of 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which I have reduced to one 
sheet, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with this background and context, you 
might wonder who would possibly object to this legislation that would 
repeal the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act. Some might say, well, 
if the PATRIOT Act provisions are not set to expire until the end of 
next year, why now? My response is, why not?
  Indeed, if we want to send a powerful message that we have maintained 
our resolve and commitment to defend our country against the scourge of 
terrorism, this would be a powerful symbol, a powerful message that 
this body could send that our commitment is strong, that we will 
maintain our resolve, and we will fight the war on terrorism and defend 
ourselves from those who would kill our innocent civilians in this 
country and elsewhere; that we will maintain that resolve and we will 
fight until the very end.
  So I think it is very important that we pass this legislation. Let me 
also mention, there is a bipartisan consensus which appears throughout 
Washington and throughout this country about how important the PATRIOT 
Act has been to protect American citizens; that there are those who 
would use the tactic of fear to try to convince the American people--or 
at least some segment of the American people--that the PATRIOT Act 
jeopardizes their civil liberties. I must say the debate about the 
proper balance between civil liberties and security is not a new one. 
It is one that we have had since the beginning of this country, where 
we have attempted to strike that balance, where the Founding Fathers, 
when they gathered in Philadelphia, debated long and hard about how to 
maintain our civil liberties but at the same time provide the Federal 
Government enough power to do the things that only the Federal 
Government can do, such as protect our national security.
  So it is not a new debate. I think, indeed, the debate is healthy. 
But it bothers me when we begin to see those who would use scare 
tactics to mislead the American people about their civil liberties 
being in jeopardy because of the existence of the PATRIOT Act.
  Indeed, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, with whom I serve on 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the American Civil Liberties 
Union, ACLU, if they could document a single instance--just one--of the 
civil liberties of the American people being in jeopardy or being 
trampled upon because of the PATRIOT Act. She said it was reported back 
to her that they could come up with none. Zero. Zip.
  That troubles me a great deal because of another thing I would like 
to mention, which is a solicitation I happened to receive in the 
mailbox at my residence from the American Civil Liberties Union, which 
attempted to use the PATRIOT Act as a fundraising tool by scaring the 
reader, saying that somehow the PATRIOT Act was jeopardizing their 
civil liberties, and indeed the only way the American people could 
protect themselves against the trampling of their civil liberties was 
to send money to the ACLU so they could fight against the PATRIOT Act 
on behalf of our civil liberties.
  That solicitation troubled me a great deal. I cannot honestly say 
that it surprised me because we know that fear is a powerful motivator 
and, indeed, there are those who use fear to raise money for a variety 
of purposes. But I think it is important that the facts be known, and 
the fact is what Senator Feinstein pointed out before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee; that when put to the test and asked to document a 
single instance of a violation of the civil liberties of any American 
citizen as a result of the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU could 
not come up with any.
  So it is deeply disturbing but perhaps not surprising to see them 
take a contrary position, one designed to help them raise money and 
grow their membership in a mail solicitation sent to my home and, no 
doubt, to many other people in this country.
  We also know that there are those in the political arena who would 
use the PATRIOT Act to scare the American people into believing that 
somehow President Bush, the Republican leadership in this Congress, or 
perhaps even Attorney General John Ashcroft who has taken a solemn oath 
to defend the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, 
indeed including the PATRIOT Act, that they would use the PATRIOT Act 
to scare people and to cause them to question the commitment of the 
leadership of this Nation of providing for the security of the American 
people, but at the same time question their commitment to protecting 
the civil liberties of the American people.
  It is discouraging to see that sort of rhetoric. Ultimately, I 
believe the American people--they get it. If given the facts, they will 
make their own decision, and it will be a good decision based upon 
factual information. The problem is when people misstate the facts or 
simply mislead the American

[[Page 10789]]

people and provide them false information, it is hard to reach the 
right conclusion if you do not have accurate information. That is why I 
sought to stand here today and talk about what the facts really are.
  One last example I will give you, Mr. President, is about how much 
this rhetoric of fear, the scare tactics have been successful. I 
believe at last count, there were 317 city councils across this 
country, the governing body of cities across this country, that have 
passed resolutions condemning the USA PATRIOT Act because they fear 
that the existence of the act has somehow compromised the civil 
liberties of their constituents.
  I say that because it is a grave concern when public officials use 
the bully pulpit that we are provided by virtue of our office to 
provide their constituents with false information, whether wittingly or 
unwittingly, and it would be my sincere hope that each of those 317 
city governments would reconsider their decisions in light of the 
information I have shared with you this afternoon and that others would 
be glad to share with anyone.
  The truth is, we are a diverse country. We have different 
experiences. We come from different regions. We have different 
traditions in many ways, but we are all Americans. We are all committed 
to our national security and the protection of our people, just as we 
are dedicated to the protection of the civil liberties of every 
American. While we may have a variety of opinions about the wisdom of 
this or any other legislation or any other course of action, everyone 
is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to mislead the 
American people about the facts.
  In conclusion, if this body were to take up this legislation quickly, 
as I hope it will, and were to pass this legislation that would repeal 
the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act, which would otherwise cause 
portions of the act to cease to exist at the end of next year, if we 
were to pass this legislation in a consensus, bipartisan fashion, it 
would send a powerful message to our enemies that our determination 
remains strong, that we remain resolved to do whatever is necessary to 
protect the American people, whether it is by defending them from the 
terrorists who would strike us at home by breaking up terrorist cells, 
by getting good intelligence and other information we need in order to 
defeat the terrorists before they can attack, such as they did so 
tragically on 9/11, or whether the issue is our resolve to finish the 
job we have started in Iraq and to honor those who have sacrificed so 
much to protect our national security and to make sure that the 
blessings of liberty are exported beyond our borders to the people of 
Iraq who have previously known only oppression and tyranny at the hands 
of a terrible tyrant such as Saddam Hussein.
  I thank the Chair for the time I have been given to talk on this 
important subject.

                               Exhibit 1

       Senator Baucus (D-MT): ``I believe the bill we passed today 
     balances the needs of protecting the country from terrorism 
     and protecting our rights as citizens of this great 
     country.'' (Senator Baucus, Press Release, October 25, 2001)
       Senator Schumer (D-NY): ``If there is one key word that 
     underscores this bill, it is `balance.' . . . The balance 
     between the need to update our laws given the new challenges 
     and the need to maintain our basic freedoms which distinguish 
     us from our enemies is real.'' (Senator Schumer, 
     Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
       Senator Schumer (D-NY): ``[T]he scourge of terrorism is 
     going to be with us for a while. Law enforcement has a lot of 
     catching up to do. There is no question about it. In this 
     bill, at least, we give them fair and adequate tools that do 
     not infringe on our freedoms but, at the same time, allow 
     them to catch up lot more quickly.'' (Senator Schumer, 
     Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
       Senator Levin (D-MI): `[T]he antiterrorism bill [Patriot 
     Act] which the Senate is about to pass reflects the 
     sentiments the American people have expressed since the 
     events of September 11--that we must act swiftly and strongly 
     to defend our country without sacrificing our most cherished 
     values. The Senate antiterrorism legislation meets that test. 
     It responds to these dangerous times by giving law 
     enforcement agencies important new tools to use in combating 
     terrorism without denigrating the principles of due process 
     and fairness embedded in our Constitution.'' (Senator Levin, 
     Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)
       Senator Daschle (D-SD): ``This reflects the balance between 
     protection of civil liberties and privacy with the need for 
     greater law enforcement.'' (Leon Bruneau, ``U.S. Senate 
     Passes Anti-Terror Bill, Sends it to Bush for Signature,'' 
     Agence France-Press, October 25, 2001)
       Senator Biden (D-DE): ``The agreement reached has satisfied 
     me that these provisions will not upset the balance between 
     strong law enforcement and protection of our valued civil 
     liberties.'' (Senator Biden, Congressional Record, October 
     25, 2001)
       Senator Feinstein (D-CA): ``As we look back at this 
     massive, terrible incident on September 11, we try to 
     ascertain whether our Government had the tools necessary to 
     ferret out the intelligence that could have, perhaps avoided 
     those events. The only answer all of us could come up with, 
     after having briefing after briefing, is we did not have 
     those tools. This bill aims to change that. This bill is a 
     bill whose time has come. This bill is a necessary bill. And 
     I, as a Senator from California, am happy to support it.'' 
     (Senator Feinstein, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

  Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________