Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRUZ. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I would note that he and I agree on a great many issues, although we don't agree entirely on this issue. But I want to take the opportunity to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his passionate defense of liberties. His is a voice this body needs to listen to.

I would note that the Senator from Kentucky's father spent decades in the House of Representatives as a passionate advocate for liberty. Both his father's voice and the Senator from Kentucky's voice have altered the debate in this Chamber and have helped refocus the Congress and the American people on the critical importance of defending our liberty.

I think protecting the Bill of Rights is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. And it is heartbreaking that over the last 6 years we have seen a Federal Government that not only fails to protect the Bill of Rights but that routinely violates the constitutional liberties of American citizens and routinely violates the Bill of Rights.

I listened to the learned remarks and questions from the Senator from Utah, where he noted that under the justifications for the current bulk collection of metadata, it is the position of the Federal Government that they have the full constitutional authority not only to collect metadata but to collect the positional location of every American. If any of us carry our cell phone, wherever we go, it is the position of the Obama administration that the Federal Government has the full constitutional authority to track the location of every American citizen no matter where we are. That is a breathtaking assertion of power.

I would note that we do not merely need to speculate that that is the Obama administration's position. Indeed, in a recent case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration argues that law enforcement could place a GPS locator on the automobile of any and every law-abiding citizen in this country and track the location of your automobile and my automobile with no probable cause, no articulable suspicion, no nothing.

The Obama administration argued that the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights say nothing about the Federal Government placing a GPS locator on the automobile of private law-abiding citizens.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that position. It did not reject that position 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 or 7 to 2; the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that radical antiprivacy position of the Obama administration unanimously, 9 to 0.

I am entirely in agreement with my friend the Senator from Utah that the right resolution of the issue before this body is for the U.S. Senate to pass the USA FREEDOM Act. I am an original sponsor of that bipartisan legislation.

The USA FREEDOM Act does two things: No. 1, it ends the Federal Government's bulk collection of phone metadata for law-abiding citizens. I am entirely in agreement with my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, that the Federal Government should not be collecting the data of millions of law-abiding citizens with no evidentiary basis to do so. It is long past time to end this program, and the USA FREEDOM Act does that.

At the same time, the USA FREEDOM Act maintains the tools to target terrorists. We are living in a dangerous world with the rise of ISIS and Al Shabaab and Boko Haram, not to mention Al Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorism across the globe. The threat to the American homeland has never been greater.

It is critical that law enforcement and national security maintain the tools so that if there is a credible basis to believe that a particular individual is planning a terrorist attack, we can intercept their communications and we can prevent that terrorist attack before, God forbid, they murder innocent Americans in the homeland. Those critical words there are ``particular individual.''

What the Fourth Amendment envisions is not that law enforcement's hands are tied; law enforcement has tools to stop crimes. But as my friend the Senator from Kentucky has so powerfully observed, the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent general warrants. It was designed to prevent the government from assuming that everyone in the country is automatically guilty and we will seize your information. Rather, the tools of law enforcement and national security should be particularized based on the facts of the evidence.

That is why I support the USA FREEDOM Act because it accomplishes both goals. It protects our privacy rights and the Bill of Rights of law-abiding citizens, but it ensures we have the tools to prevent acts of terrorists.

I would note two points that are important. There are a number of Members of this body, including a number of Members of my party and the party of this Senator from Kentucky, who argue that the PATRIOT Act should be reauthorized with no changes, and they argue to do anything else would jeopardize our national security.

There are two facts that are critical to assess to responding to that argument. No. 1, the Members of this body have received confidential classified briefings from the national security officers of this administration. We are not at liberty to convey the specific details of those briefings. But the Members of this body have been told, No. 1, the USA FREEDOM Act would provide effective tools so that we can prevent acts of terrorists.

Indeed, they have gone further to say that it is entirely possible that under the USA FREEDOM Act, the national security team would have more effective tools to stop actual terrorists than they do today under the bulk metadata collection of law-abiding citizens. That is worth underscoring. The national security professionals advising this body have said the USA FREEDOM Act could well be more effective in providing the tools to stop terrorists than the current status quo. That argument needs to sit in for everyone arguing that we have to maintain the status quo to stop terrorism. If it is the case, as we have been told, that the USA FREEDOM Act could be more effective, that argument suddenly falls to the ground.

Secondly, I address my friends in the Republican Party who have preferred to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Even if that is their preference, it is abundantly, abundantly clear that a clean reauthorization to the PATRIOT Act ``ain't'' passing this body and it certainly ``ain't'' passing the House of Representatives. I would note that the USA FREEDOM Act passed the House of Representatives 338 to 88. It was not a narrow victory. It was overwhelming. So even if Members of this body would prefer to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act in its entirety, the votes ``ain't'' there. So the choice they face is letting it expire altogether, losing the tools we have to prevent real terrorists from carrying out acts of terrorism or accepting a commonsense middle ground that vigorously protects the Bill of Rights while maintaining the tools to target the bad guys.

I will say this: With my friend the Senator from Kentucky, I entirely agree that he is fully entitled to introduce his amendments to that bill. This body should engage in a full and open debate considering amendments, and the Senator from Kentucky should be able to propose reasonable commonsense improvements to the USA FREEDOM Act.

We ought to debate them on the merits in a full and open process. There was a time not too long ago when this body was called the world's greatest deliberative body. Debate is what we are supposed to do on the merits.

If the defenders of the PATRIOT Act right now are so confident of their position, they should be prepared to debate the Senator from Kentucky on the merits, to debate each of the Members of this body on the merits, and to arrive at the right policy that both protects our constitutional rights and ensures we have all the tools we need to protect the safety of American citizens against acts of terrorism.

I will note standing here with the Senator from Kentucky and with the Senator from Utah at 11:40 p.m., I am reminded of the movie ``The Blues Brothers'' saying: Jake, we have got to get the band back together again. I am reminded of previous evenings standing here with this same band of brothers in the wee hours of the morning. I will make a couple of final observations in this question. The first is, the very first time I ever spoke on the Senate floor, when I was a brand-new freshman Senator, was during the last time the Senator from Kentucky was filibustering. Senator Rand Paul was filibustering against the Obama administration's policy of uncontrolled drone strikes and the refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from using a drone to target a U.S. citizen with lethal force if that citizen does not pose an imminent threat on U.S. soil.

When the Senator from Kentucky began that filibuster that morning, he had asked if I might come out and support him. I told him at the time, as a newbie in this body, that I wanted to respect the institutions of the Senate, which included the tradition that the freshman Senator should stay quiet for a number of months before speaking. So initially I said: No, I am not going to come down; it is not yet time for me to speak on the Senate floor. Yet he stood there and 1 hour and 2 hours passed. I could not stand back without joining him in the support in that epic fight. That time I am reminded it was an anniversary of the Battle of the Alamo. So I had the opportunity to read to my friend William Barret Travis's letter from the Alamo and to give him the encouragement of Texans who gave their lives in defense of liberty and, indeed, at the time to read tweets that were sent in support of the Senator from Kentucky. I said many times I will go to my grave in debt to Senator Rand Paul for the first opportunity I had to speak on the Senate floor which was his epic filibuster.

I would also note that following that filibuster, Senator Paul gave me two pieces of advice, both of which proved very helpful for a filibuster I was to do of my own several months later. Advice No. 1, he said, was wear comfortable shoes. I would note that I observed the last time Senator Paul did that, he did not follow this advice. He had not planned to speak as long as he had. He told me his feet hurt for 2 weeks. I will confess, it was to my great shame that I am wearing today my argument boots, which I wear every day on the Senate floor. But when I filibustered on ObamaCare, I shamefully left my boots in the closet and went and purchased black tennis shoes. As the hours wore on, I was very grateful I had abided by Senator Paul's good advice and wore the tennis shoes.

I would note, as I am sitting here today, that the good Senator is wearing tennis shoes today. So I am glad to see he follows his own advice, and I have no doubt that his calves and thighs will thank him tonight and in the morning.

The second bit of advice Senator Paul gave me was to drink very, very little water. That was advice he acknowledged likewise he had not followed in his own filibuster. I will note that not too long ago I was sitting in the President's chair presiding, and the entire hour I was there, there was a glass of water on Senator Paul's desk, and he did not drink a sip of it.

I will note that was advice I endeavored to follow. It was good advice, and I am glad to see my friend is following it as well.

This is an exceptionally important issue that this body should be focused on, the responsibility to protect the Bill of Rights and the constitutional rights of every American.

The question I would ask my friend the Senator from Kentucky is, is there any excuse for this body not taking seriously our obligation to protect the Bill of Rights and the constitutional rights of privacy of every American?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source