John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 24, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on the Dutch Tax Treaty. subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife, and water

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet on Friday, September 24, 2004 at 9 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing to review State and private programs for sage grouse conservation. The hearing will be held in SD 406.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about the war in Iraq and what I consider to be a larger problem confronting this Nation, indeed, confronting the American people, particularly during an election year. It is really a challenge we all have, and that is how, in a country that is founded on the legitimacy of our laws, being founded on consent of the governed, how do the people know what is happening, not just in their Government but in the world? How do they get good information? I will give an example. Two nights ago, I received a call from one of my constituents in Lubbock, TX, who said he had heard we were going to reinstate the draft because of concerns about Iraq and Afghanistan and American forces being spread too thin. Of course, I told him we have more than 2.5 million men and women in uniform, including our Active Duty, our Reserves, and our National Guard. I said the phrase I have come to use often, and that is that we are out of balance, but we are not out of troops. Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday spoke before the Armed Services Committee--the distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, is a member of that committee and heard those remarks as well--that we are in the process of restructuring our military forces so we can access more of those forces, so we can put those troops where they need to be. That is a process that is part of the global posture review and certainly the Base Realignment and Closure Commission process that goes forward next year, all of which falls under the heading of transformation. Getting back to the question my constituent asked--which is, I am worried because I hear that we may reinstate the draft--I asked Secretary Rumsfeld that very question. Indeed, I alluded to a statement that had been made the day before by the Democratic Presidential nominee where it was said that it was possible that the President would reinstate the draft to handle the war in Iraq if President Bush was reelected. This statement followed on a charge last week that the President was planning a surprise postelection callup of additional Guard and Reserve troops. I asked the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld, for the record: Are there any plans for a postelection callup of additional Guard and Reserve troops, and is there any truth to this rumor that the President plans to reinstate the draft? He gave a very spirited response, but the bottom line is he said: That is nonsense. It is not true. It is false. I guess if he could find other ways to try to get that message through, he would do that. I cannot remember if it was Mark Twain who said rumor makes it halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes, or something to that effect. It is in that vein that I come to the floor of the Senate to talk about Iraq. Let me start by sharing the results of a recent nationwide poll of the Iraqi people conducted by the Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies. I refer to this poll because, of course, like the distinguished Presiding Officer, I am sure she has experienced troops who have been in Iraq and come back to the United States, who read the newspaper accounts, watch TV news, and do not recognize what they are seeing and reading because, indeed, the troops in Iraq, in addition to being everyday heroes, are well disciplined, morale is high, and they know they are doing an important job and they are getting the job done. But they come back to the States, read a newspaper and watch the news, and they are met with gloom and doom and pessimism about our prospects. I worry--and I expressed this concern yesterday--that particularly in an election season, those of us who are in elected office need to be very careful and very responsible about our statements, even when we are in the heat of political combat, because we do not want to do anything that would have the consequence of demoralizing our troops or breaking the resolve of the American people as we fight this global war on terror. But this poll of the Iraqi people I believe is important because it consisted of more than 2,300 household interviews and was distributed across Iraq's 18 provinces. Here are just a few of the interesting statistics this survey reveals: A full 75 percent of the Iraqis expressed hopefulness about the future of the nation, and more than 70 percent say they would not leave their country even if they were given an opportunity to live elsewhere. While earlier polls show the Iraqis were concerned with security, and that is obvious to all of us that they would be and should be, as we are, the Iraqi police and army are gaining the confidence of the Iraqi people to deal with their transition from a terrible, bloodthirsty dictator under Saddam Hussein to now this interim government leading up to full democratic elections in late January. More than two-thirds of the respondents expressed trust for the Iraqi men and women trying to bring about peace and stability and security--that is, the growing Iraqi Army and security forces--and, in fact, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, the single largest component of the coalition efforts in Iraq now are Iraqis. More than 238,000 Iraqis serve as part of that country's security force as we speak. As we have heard from Secretary Rumsfeld and others, that will continue to grow. General David Petraeus is assigned the job of making sure they are trained. As we train more recruits to become good security forces in Iraq, it will decrease the pressure on America to provide those security forces and others of our coalition partners. That is good news to me and I am sure good news to people all across this country. This same survey revealed that the interim government of Iraq is trusted by 65 percent of its citizens. I wish all of us in elected office could claim those sorts of approval ratings in the United States, but I will not go there. The Iraqi courts and judges, the most important component of restoring respect for the rule of law in Iraq, are trusted by more than 64 percent of Iraqis responding to this survey of 2,300 households. More than 77 percent of those polled believe that holding regular, fair elections is the most important political right for the Iraqi people. I will talk more to that in a moment, because I am afraid there are some who do not believe that the people of the Middle East are capable of democracy and doubt their aspirations for liberty. But 77 percent of those polled believe that holding regular, fair elections is the most important political right for the Iraqi people. Finally, 58 percent of those polled believe that democracy in Iraq is likely to succeed. That is a far cry from the doom and gloom preached by some of the naysayers in this election season and, indeed, some of what we see on our televisions and read in our newspapers. Yesterday, in a joint session of Congress, I had the honor to hear interim Prime Minister Allawi speak. He started out his remarks, after a few moments, with these words: Thank you, America. Thank you, America, for delivering the Iraqi people from a terrible dictator and tyrant in Saddam Hussein. He went on to express his appreciation not only for the sacrifices of the men and women in uniform but to all of the people of this great country who hold the ideal of liberty, freedom, and opportunity as not just an American aspiration but something that everyone, every human being, aspires to. I will quote from his remarks because they go to the heart of the pessimism that is expressed in some quarters about the Middle East and what is happening in Iraq. He said: Ladies and gentlemen, good will aside, I know that many observers around the world honestly wonder if we in Iraq really can restore our economy, be good neighbors, guarantee the democratic rule of law and overcome the enemies who seek to tear us down. I understand why, faced with the daily headlines, there are these doubts. I know, too, that there will be many more setbacks and obstacles to overcome. But these doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists. I will read that again because it is so important. Prime Minister Allawi said: But these doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists. He goes on to say: Despite our problems, despite our recent history, no one should doubt that Iraq is a country of tremendous human resources and national resources. Iraq is still a nation with an inspiring culture and tradition and an educated and civilized people. And Iraq is still a land made strong by a faith which teaches us tolerance, love, respect and duty. Above all, they risk underestimating the courage, determination of the Iraqi people to embrace democracy, peace and freedom, for the dreams of our families are the same as the dreams of the families here in America and around the world. There are those who want to divide our world. I appeal to you, who have done so much already to help us, to ensure they don't succeed. Do not allow them to say to Iraqis, to Arabs, to Muslims, that we have only two models of governments, brutal dictatorship and religious extremism. This is wrong. Like Americans, we Iraqis want to enjoy the fruits of liberty. Half of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims already enjoy democratically elected governments. As Prime Minister Blair said to you last year when he stood here, anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom over tyranny, democracy not dictatorship, and the rule of law not the rule of the secret police. Do not allow them to convince others that the values of freedom, of tolerance and democracy are for you in the West but not for us. For the first time in our history, the Iraqi people can look forward to controlling our own destiny. This would not have been possible without the help and sacrifices of this country and its coalition partners. I thank you again from the bottom of my heart. Finally, the Prime Minister said: And let me tell you that as we meet our greatest challenge by building a democratic future, we the people of the new Iraq will remember those who have stood by us. As generous as you have been, we will stand with you, too. As stalwart as you have been, we will stand with you, too. Neither tyranny nor terrorism has a place in our region or our world. And that is why we Iraqis will stand by you, America, in a war larger than either of our nations, the global battle to live in freedom. I believe that lengthy quote is worth hearing again because I also want to talk a minute about the nature of the threat we confront and that Prime Minister Allawi spoke of, not just a war confined to Iraq but indeed a global war on terrorism. It was 3 years ago this month that we were forced to realize as a nation that the terrorist foe we had been fighting on the margin for years sought a more deadly goal than we ever suspected. The terrorist threat we battle today does not just seek victory over America; it seeks an extermination of our unity, our culture, our liberty, everything that makes America the envy of the free world today. I think of recent expressions I have read. The 9/11 Commission did a very good job of expressing the nature of the threat Prime Minister Allawi spoke of and that we confront today. Under its recommendations, the 9/11 Commission said: The enemy is not just ``terrorism.'' It is the threat posed specifically by Islamist terrorism, by Bin Ladin and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both. The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends: dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over the ideology that contributes to Islamic terrorism. Skipping down a paragraph, they conclude from this reading: What should Americans expect from their government? The goal seems unlimited: Defeat terrorism anywhere in the world. We have seen--and it is not a matter of taking my word for it or even the 9/11 Commission's word for it or Prime Minister Allawi's word for it--that the war we are fighting is not confined to Iraq. It is not confined to Afghanistan. In fact, I think those who suggest otherwise are ignoring the lessons of history, as well as the sage words of the 9/11 Commission, the Prime Minister, and others. We have seen the evil works of this terrorist wave, and not just on 9/11. We saw the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, an attack that killed 17 American sailors and wounded 39. We saw the bombing in Bali in Indonesia 2 years ago. We see, it seems like with horrible regularity, Palestinian suicide attacks in Israel, and the United Nations compound car bomb attack in Iraq. This year alone we have seen massacres in Madrid, the Twin Tupolev bombings in Russia, and the suicide car bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most recently, we have seen the butchery by terrorists who murdered children in the schoolyards of Beslan. No, the war on terror is not limited to Iraq. It is not limited to Afghanistan. They are but fronts in the global war we are waging today. In fact, it was the combatant commander, the Central Command General John Abizaid, who only a couple of months ago admonished all of us in the Senate not to look at the war as though looking through a soda straw, not to look at what is happening in Afghanistan and at what is happening in Iraq and say this is all there is, this is reality. Indeed, some have even suggested that the war in Iraq is a diversion from the real war on terror. But, of course, that is flying in the face of the facts: the long litany of terrorist attacks in many different parts of the world, the presence of Al Qaeda forces and allies in Iraq, and, of course, what Prime Minister Allawi has said as well. Indeed, during this political season when international affairs and the war on terror is a prime topic in political debates and discussions, there appears to be an attempt to decouple Iraq from the global war on terrorism, to suggest that it is a distraction. But I hope I have convinced those within the sound of my voice that cannot be true; that is not true. Indeed, I believe that argument is a disservice to the American people and our forces in the field, whose resolve must remain strong as we continue to fight this great scourge on humanity. Under President Bush's leadership, despite the naysayers who claim this task could not be done, we have confronted this evil for what it is. We have employed the very best weapon America has to offer: the power of our ideals and the power of liberty. Even as we battle them around the world, the terrorists have flocked to specific points to battle us. As coalition forces liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been attracted to Iraq and Afghanistan like moths to the flame. Why? Because they realize that their dark ideology of hate will not-- cannot--survive the spreading light of freedom. The spread of democracy, the new foundation of the rule of law, and the creation of fledgling representative governments that honor and respect human rights--together these actions spell out the increasing marginalization of the terrorists, as they have fewer and fewer places to run and hide. Ultimately, they herald the end of terrorism as we know it. Of course, none of us asked for this task. We cannot erase 9/11, as much as our hearts desire it. We cannot change the past. But we must acknowledge that this responsibility has fallen to us--in this time, in this generation--and we must and we will win by fighting this enemy where they plot and plan, so we do not have to fight them on American soil. I want to reiterate: We must always remain conscious in this body as elected officials, as representatives of our States and of this great Nation--we must always be conscious of the fact that the words we say, particularly during an election season, can have a broad and negative effect on the morale of our soldiers in the field. We must continue to give our forces all the support they need and stay focused on our goal. And while our enemies began this fight on their terms, we will finish it on ours. We will widen the span of the democratic peace into places where the enemy trains and recruits. We will liberate the people held under the yoke of darkness and despotism for generations. And around the world we will hear the rumble of millions of people waking to discover that yes, at long last, they are free. Madam President, the terrorists have heard a great noise in Iraq--and it is the sound of their doom. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for so much time as I may consume.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, to make sure I do not run out of time--my remarks may take a couple minutes more--I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for so much time as I may consume, not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand that morning business is set to expire soon. I ask unanimous consent that period be extended so other Senators may speak during this extended period of morning business for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Reynaldo Guerra Garza, who passed away yesterday in Brownsville, TX, at the age of 89. Judge Garza was the first Mexican American to serve as a Federal district court judge and a Federal appellate judge. Today, I join my fellow Texans in mourning this loss, along with his wife of 65 years, Bertha Garza, and his five children. By any measure of Reynaldo Garza's stature in the community, he was a mountain of a man. Reynaldo Garza was born in 1915 in Brownsville, TX, a first- generation American whose parents had fled civil unrest in Mexico. It was during the Depression when he decided to become a lawyer, so he worked as a laborer for the WPA to save money for tuition at the University of Texas. He excelled in his studies at the University of Texas and developed a great many political friendships, including a longstanding friendship with then-congressional candidate Lyndon Baines Johnson. In 1939, he graduated from the University of Texas Law School and opened his own law office in Brownsville, TX. A solo firm was financially risky for such a green young lawyer, but Reynaldo Garza strongly believed he should practice law in his community, among his family and his friends. Reynaldo Garza served for 4 years as a gunnery sergeant in World War II and returned to Brownsville with a growing reputation as a civic leader and a brilliant lawyer. He was invited to join the largest firm in town as a partner, where he practiced commercial and insurance law for more than a decade. When a Federal judicial vacancy came up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy nominated Reynaldo Garza to fill the seat with broad support from the Texas leadership. After being confirmed, Judge Garza plowed through a heavy 2-year backlog of cases in exceptional time. As his profile grew, Judge Garza became a symbol for many young, hard-working Hispanics to pursue their goals of leadership within the legal, business, and social community, blazing a trail for others to follow. Those in Brownsville, TX, who saw Judge Garza as a model to follow included a junior high school student named Juliet Garcia, who became the first Mexican-American woman president of a university, and a young attorney, Federico Pena, who was to become U.S. Transportation Secretary. Garza wrote: I've always said I hope I got the appointment because I was qualified, not because I was Mexican American. But I knew I had to do a good job or else my actions would reflect not only my ability, but also that of other Mexican Americans. It was in December of 1976 when President-elect Jimmy Carter called Judge Garza personally to ask him to join his Cabinet as Attorney General. But Judge Garza thought it was a prank call, so he simply hung up the phone. Eventually, after being convinced this was indeed the real thing, a request from the President-elect, Judge Garza gracefully declined the offer because he wanted to stay close to home and stay close to his community. But it was in 1978, when President Carter called again, and this time offering him a nomination to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--after having been confirmed by the Senate--he became the first Mexican-American Federal appellate court judge. At every step of the way, Reynaldo Garza blazed a trail for others. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza, who practiced law in Brownsville from 1983 until 1988, told the Associated Press today that everybody who knew Judge Garza had a story to tell. He said: I remember him telling me when I was a lawyer, ``Don't ever forget you'll have a lot of clients, if you're lucky, but hopefully your clients will only have one attorney.'' The Ambassador said: I will never forget that advice. Judge Garza retired from active service in 1982, but he continued to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with a reduced workload. His last court sitting was in 2001, and he continued working as a circuit court judge until the time of his death. He never lost that dedication or belief in the importance of hard work and perseverance. Let me share with you one additional story. This one is from the Brownsville Herald of today. It was reported: Garza touched many [lives] in the legal community, both professionally and personally. Undeterred by his illness, he officiated the swearing in of U.S. District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa in McAllen as chairman of the federal sentencing commission. The ceremony was performed in [Judge] Garza's hospital room in Brownsville on Aug. 3, Hinojosa said. [Judge] Hinojosa met [Judge] Garza when he was on the bench at the federal courthouse in Brownsville. Their two courtrooms were located on the same floor. ``Judge Garza was a great mentor and immediately made me feel at home . . . he was always ready to provide advice and counsel,'' [Judge] Hinojosa said. Hinojosa said he has admired Garza since he was a boy. He remembers attending naturalization ceremonies in Starr County, which [Judge] Garza presided over. ``I remember sitting there and not realizing that someday I would be working on the same floor as he did,'' Hinojosa said. ``He's an example of anything that is possible in this great county.'' ``The rest of us have come along after him because he opened doors for us. He opened doors that remain open for the rest of us.'' Mr. President, today, I offer this salute to the memory of Judge Reynaldo Garza. I remember when I served on the State judiciary, we were at Southern Methodist University School of Law trying to help young law students become effective advocates on a moot court panel. He and I served on the same panel. I remember his great humor, his great intelligence, and his incisive questioning. It may seem as if Judge Garza is gone from us now, but he is still here as long as we bear his memory in our hearts, as long as we honor what he gave to us during his time here on Earth, and as long as his example inspires a child to dream of greater things. May God bless Reynaldo Garza. And may God bless his family. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it was 1 year ago today that the voters in my home State of Texas passed proposition 12, a referendum that paves the way for substantive medical liability reform and provides hope that quality health care will win out over the interests of a handful of politically powerful personal injury lawyers. The people of Texas spoke, and the doctors across the State are reopening their doors. In fact, two obstetricians in the small town of Fredericksburg, TX, announced their return with an advertisement in the local newspaper that proclaimed: ``We're Back!'' One of these obstetricians, Dr. David Cantu, had been working for more than 10 years as an obstetrician with no claims, but he and his partner had to quit practicing obstetrics because of the cost of insurance. Dr. Cantu's overhead was hitting 100 percent, and he had a 3-month stretch with no pay. As soon as they stopped delivering babies, the practice saw an immediate decrease in insurance costs, but their patients were forced to travel elsewhere to have their babies delivered. This was doubly difficult for them considering the fact that 70 percent of Dr. Cantu's patients are Medicaid patients, and 40 percent were Spanish speaking. But with proposition 12, Dr. Cantu and his partner are now able to deliver babies again. Proposition 12 has placed a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases. When Dr. Cantu was asked, How has that helped you and your patients, he said: Because now I come out ahead instead of paying to be an Obstetrician. Prop. 12 made the practice of Obstetrics affordable. When it comes to health care, I strongly believe the proper role of Government is to protect the freedom of all of us to improve our own health and to deal with our own health care needs. We must ensure that decisions about a patient's health are not made by the Government but by individuals and families; that is, between the patient and his or her doctor. Patients and their doctors--not lawyers, not bureaucrats--should be trusted to decide what treatment is best for them. I strongly believe when people have good choices in health care, it ultimately translates into higher quality and better care. Dr. Cantu's story shows us that our current medical liability system is the biggest challenge we face in this regard. Our current system is wasteful and dangerous, and it too often serves the interests of greed, not justice and common sense. The overall results of our current system are sky-high costs for liability insurance, costs that have created a crisis of enormous proportions--a crisis that is threatening quality of care, diminishing access to care, and exploding the cost of care. But there is hope. Evidence is mounting that reforms such as proposition 12 in the State of Texas are working. We can see that in real terms and not just because of advertisements of doors to doctors' offices reopening. Even though these reforms have been in place for only 1 year in Texas, early results are encouraging. After a decrease in Texas insurance carriers from 17 to 4--that is the number of medical liability insurance companies that would actually insure a physician or a health care provider against medical liability claims--proposition 12 has created an environment where 10 different carriers have now sought reentry into the Texas market to write physician policies. The largest insurer in the State, Texas Medical Liability Trust, reduced its premiums by 12 percent. A Texas hospital association survey shows, for hospitals in our State, a 17-percent reduction across the board. Why this response? Lawsuits against hospitals are down 70 percent from last summer's race to the courthouse, when Texas courts were flooded by personal injury lawyers with more than 10,000 medical malpractice lawsuits, shortly before voters approved proposition 12. Let me repeat that because it is important for everyone to understand. Knowing that proposition 12 was likely to pass, personal injury trial lawyers filed more than 10,000 medical liability lawsuits shortly before the reform was to take effect in order to beat the people's mandate that health care should be more widely available and, certainly, medical liability insurance available more readily to more physicians. Why? To help doctors, to help hospitals and the corporations that own those hospitals? Everybody knows that corporations don't practice medicine, and the only way you can get your baby treated or yourself treated is to have a doctor who will see you. So what we are talking about is not a benefit directly to doctors or the hospitals; what we are talking about is a benefit to patients--in other words, to all of us--as a result of this commonsense reform. The best news is that doctors such as David Cantu are responding. In Austin, 16 new obstetricians have started their practice in the last year, reversing a trend over the previous 2\1/2\ years when Austin lost 16 obstetricians due to the medical liability crisis. Driscoll Children's Hospital is recruiting close to a dozen new pediatric specialists, three neonatologists, two cardiologists, a hematologist, a general surgeon, and four other specialists, something they could not do under the earlier environment. These successes are not limited to just the State of Texas. A recent study by the Rand Institute found that California's 1975 medical liability reform, known as MICRA, reduced defendants' liabilities by 30 percent and plaintiffs' attorneys fees by 60 percent. That was a means to an end because the result in California has been that insurance rates have actually risen at a rate of about two-thirds of what the rate has been in the rest of the Nation. These are signs that reforms such as proposition 12, or California's MICRA, have worked. Yet still we find that in the U.S. Senate today, we are unable to get a solution for families all across the Nation in States that have no such reforms in place. This is a national problem and it calls for a national solution. I want to say a few words about our Nation's need for serious medical liability reform and the U.S. Senate's appalling refusal to address that problem with real solutions. Unfortunately, special interests continue to win out over mainstream America, and our health care system continues to bear the burden of costly and frivolous lawsuits. We see that medical care and medical liability insurance rates continue to grow unabated. I couldn't help but notice this quote from Senator Kerry at the Democratic National Convention in his acceptance speech. He noted specifically: Since 2000, four million people have lost their health insurance. Millions more are struggling to afford it. You know what's happening. Your premiums, your co-payments, your deductibles have all gone through the roof. I am actually very pleased to hear this acknowledgment by the Senator from Massachusetts, recognizing the seriousness of our situation. He is right about one thing: These are real problems, and they deserve real and immediate solutions. With all due respect, he and some of our colleagues in the Senate continue to avoid the most obvious and primary cause of escalating health care costs and the decrease in availability of medical liability insurance and the consequential lack of access to real health care-- that is, runaway lawsuits. Three times in the 108th Congress alone Republican leadership has brought meaningful medical liability reform to the Senate which, if passed, President Bush would readily sign into law. This chart shows three different bills that have been brought to the Senate floor by the majority leader: S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003; S. 2061, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act; and S. 2207, the Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act. Over a year ago, the majority leader brought forth a comprehensive reform proposal known as S. 11. Earlier we brought forth two additional proposals which dealt more with specialty practices such as obstetricians who deliver babies and emergency room physicians, hoping that even if we were not able to get broad medical liability reform, we might be able to achieve it for those specialties that are most acutely affected and where access to health care hits the hardest. I do not begin to claim that the legislative proposals we have advanced were the only solution to the problems. Indeed, I applaud other reforms. But it is clear, as this chart indicates, that each time we have tried to come up with a solution, we have been denied an opportunity to go forward with the debate and to have amendments, if any Senator wished to offer amendments, and to try to get good, commonsense medical liability reform that would increase access to health care. I don't believe medical liability reform is the only problem that confronts our health care system today. I applaud many other reforms that have been proposed by the President and others, including the innovation of health savings accounts, which were part of the Medicare bill we passed about a year ago, and the use of new technology to make the practice of medicine more efficient and to reduce the likelihood of medical errors. These and other reforms do represent commonsense proposals that hold great promise, not only for improved health care but to make sure the cost of health care remains affordable and thus more available to more people. Above all, it is clear that any of these bills would offer much- needed relief to the health care system brought to a state of crisis by politically powerful personal injury lawyers in as many as 23 States across the country. I find it sad that any special interest group--and the Senators voting according to the wishes of those groups and not the American people, a list that includes the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President--has denied us the opportunity on each of these three occasions to begin the debate, begin the legislative process, and hopefully accomplish meaningful reform and improve access to health care. But we were denied even the chance to debate and vote on the issue, even when a bipartisan majority of this body agrees that we need reform and we have the tools to effect that reform within our reach. Their choice to deny us that opportunity was not ours; it was theirs. To this day, those who obstruct meaningful medical liability reform leave the American people with the sad reality of the status quo, a broken civil justice system and little hope for a national solution. While the problem persists in all aspects of our health care system, the crisis is particularly acute among specialty doctors--for example, neurosurgeons, brain and spinal surgeons, emergency room physicians, and, notably, obstetricians and gynecologists, the doctors who actually care for women who are pregnant and who deliver their babies. A handful of powerfully connected personal injury lawyers is seriously jeopardizing patient care for women and their newborns. I and others find that completely unacceptable. Across the country liability insurance for obstetrician/gynecologists has become prohibitively expensive. Premiums have tripled and quadrupled, leaving OB/GYNs without the ability to get liability insurance at all as insurance companies fold or stop insuring doctors. This last week, the Washington Post wrote an article on a malpractice insurer, known as NCRIC, right here in the District of Columbia, which is ``feeling the squeeze,'' losing over $4 million in 2003 alone. This chart shows that 23 States are on red alert--in a medical liability crisis--while just 3, including Texas, are in crisis pending effect of reform. Others noted by the hash marks on the chart are those where the crisis is still brewing. These skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums literally are driving physicians out of business and leaving Americans without access to quality health care. Between 2002 and 2003, rates rose as much as 40 percent in some States, with the impact hitting specialty doctors such as obstetricians/gynecologists the hardest. When an OB/GYN cannot find or afford medical liability insurance, they are forced to stop delivering babies, forced to curtail surgical services, or close their doors altogether. Now more than one in seven across the Nation is simply leaving the profession and walking away. For example, in my home State of Texas, the entire obstetrics unit at Spring Branch Medical Center in Houston was forced to close just prior to an expected 2003 increase of 67 percent in the hospital's medical liability premiums. Today, because the effects of proposition 12 have not been fully realized, out of 254 counties in Texas--one of the States in crisis pending effect of the reforms--more than half of the counties in Texas simply do not have available a single doctor who specializes in delivering babies. In many cases, doctors simply chose to stop serving certain patients to avoid costly litigation; or even if they were not involved in litigation, they were still forced to pay ultra-high medical liability premiums, making it simply impossible to make ends meet. One rural obstetrics/gynecologist who serves mostly Medicaid, or poor patients, was forced to stop seeing high-risk patients altogether because his insurance premiums had increased 300 percent. The effects are felt almost entirely by the poorer members of our society who depend, of course, on Medicaid to help them with their health care premiums. Perhaps most disconcerting of all, however, is the trend of doctors engaging in defensive medical practice. When we ask why is the cost of health care going up so dramatically and why are health care premiums paid by employers or by self-employed persons going up so dramatically, it is in part because of the effect of defensive medicine--physicians who provide tests and services, not because they think it is medically indicated but because they simply want to defend themselves against a potential lawsuit. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, a majority of doctors say they recommend invasive procedures and painful tests they consider unnecessary in medical terms in hopes of avoiding litigation. That is the point we have reached. The most basic principles of justice require that we embrace national reform as soon as possible, striving to protect access both to the courts and to our hospitals and to physicians. As a matter of principle, those who are wrongly injured deserve their day in court; there is no question about that. We all agree. If a doctor is responsible or negligent, he or she should be held fully accountable. But the sad fact is that the current system does not foster accountability. Instead, it has nearly destroyed any hope for quality and affordable health care in America. The time for that to change is now and we must change it. It is time for Congress to act and to provide a national solution so all Americans can benefit from medical liability reform, so all Americans can open their newspapers and see an advertisement from their neighborhood doctor, who may have once been forced out of his practice now happily, proclaiming: We are back. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak earlier in support of this wonderful nomination, Judge Mike Schneider. I join my colleague in encouraging each of our colleagues to vote for him. I also want to say how much I appreciate the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Hatch for making this vote possible tonight. I urge my colleagues to vote for the nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I rose to address this body in support of a Senate resolution on a profoundly nonpartisan issue. As President Bush and the United States government continue their fight to protect the American way of life in the war against terrorism, they have also been fighting another battle to protect American ideals and principles--a battle against human trafficking and slavery. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the institution of slavery--an institution that hundreds of thousands of Americans shed precious blood to destroy--continues to persist today--not just around the world, but hidden in communities across America. This is a new fight against an old evil. It is the most fundamental civil rights issue of our time. I was pleased to work with my lead Democrat co-sponsor, Senator Schumer, as well as with Senators Graham of South Carolina, Leahy, and Clinton, to introduce and obtain full Senate approval of Senate Resolution 414. That resolution expressed strong support for the Justice Department's recent efforts to combat human trafficking, under the leadership of the Civil Rights Division. The resolution noted that the Justice Department recently held its first-ever National Conference on Human Trafficking in Tampa, Florida, where it announced a new comprehensive model state anti-trafficking law. The resolution encouraged states to consider adopting such laws where they do not currently exist. Today, I rise in support of a Senate resolution on another profoundly nonpartisan issue--the preservation of our system of government in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. Just as most Americans would be shocked to learn about the incidence of forced labor and sexual servitude in communities across the country, I believe most Americans would be shocked to learn that our laws are profoundly inadequate to ensure continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack. I have spent a great deal of time and energy this past year on the issue of continuity of government. Last September, I chaired two hearings to examine continuity of government problems in the two political branches of government. On September 9, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine continuity problems in the Congress, and on September 16, Senator Lott and I co-chaired a joint hearing of the Senate Rules and Judiciary Committees to look at problems in our system of Presidential succession. These are not partisan issues. These are imminently nonpartisan issues, and so I was pleased to work on those hearings with my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, which I am honored to chair. In November, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a proposed constitutional amendment to ensure continuity of Congress. Constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum have recognized that our current laws are inadequate to ensure continuity of Congressional operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack, and that only a constitutional amendment can ensure that the American people will never have to suffer under martial law. The constitutional amendment I introduced implements the recommendations of the bipartisan blue ribbon Continuity of Government Commission, sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. That commission is led by two of our nation's truly most distinguished American statesmen--its honorary co-chairmen, former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford--as well as by its two distinguished co-chairmen, former Senator Alan Simpson and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. The commission is comprised of former high- ranking government officials of both parties, and ably staffed by Norman Ornstein, John Fortier, and Thomas Mann. I know that there are sharp divisions in the House over what kinds of continuity measures to adopt--whether emergency interim appointments are appropriate and necessary, or if expedited special elections alone are sufficient. It is important to recognize that my amendment takes no position in that debate. My amendment would not compel either chamber of Congress to adopt any particular methodology for redressing continuity problems. It would simply empower Congress to adopt legislation to guarantee continuity of Congressional operations--power that Congress does not currently possess. It is modeled after Article II of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to adopt legislation to provide for continuity of the Presidency. On January 27 of this year, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee so that legal experts could examine the need for Senate Joint Resolution 23. And on that same day, I introduced implementing legislation (S. 2031), entitled the Continuity of the Senate Act of 2004. Continuity problems affect both the House and the Senate. Indeed, the Senate arguably faces the most dire problem of all--if a majority of Senators are incapacitated, Congress could be disabled for as long as four years, the amount of time it takes to elect a new majority of Senators. The Continuity of the Senate Act of 2004 would implement the constitutional amendment proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 23. It would simply empower each state to adopt continuity measures for their senators in case of incapacity--following the model of the 17th Amendment with respect to Senate vacancies. I am pleased that Senators Dodd and Lott agreed to serve as original co- sponsors of this legislation. After all, they are the ranking Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the Senate Rules Committee--the committee that would have jurisdiction to consider the Continuity of the Senate Act, in the event that the constitutional amendment I have proposed is approved by two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the states. On May 13, I convened a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights--the subcommittee that possesses jurisdiction over constitutional amendments. I am pleased that the subcommittee approved Senate Joint Resolution 23 on a bipartisan vote. I am particularly pleased that the resolution was supported by my distinguished colleague, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, Senator Feingold. I know from working with him these past several months that he is no fan of constitutional amendments. And of course, everyone in this chamber agrees that the Constitution should not be amended casually. Yet he recognized--as have constitutional legal experts across the political spectrum--that the only way to ensure continuity of Congressional operations is a constitutional amendment. I look forward to working with Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in coming weeks and months so that the full committee can consider the merits of, and the need for, Senate Joint Resolution 23. Of course, Congress is not the only institution that faces serious problems of continuity of operations. Our laws are also inadequate with respect to Presidential succession. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws to address Presidential succession--just as my proposed constitutional amendment would give Congress such power with respect to continuity of Congress. Yet legal experts across the political spectrum have written that the current Presidential succession statute is unconstitutional and unworkable. Accordingly, I introduced legislation in February, right before President's Day, to reform the Presidential succession statute (S. 2073). That same day, I also introduced a Senate resolution (S. Con. Res. 89) to establish a protocol for ensuring proper transition between an outgoing President and a newly elected President. Both measures were cosponsored by Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, which exercises jurisdiction over such matters. I am pleased to introduce a more robust version of that same resolution today for the Senate's consideration, in the form of a Senate resolution that requires the consent of only this body. It is an important step to ensuring that, no matter what, at a minimum, terrorists will never be able to determine, by launching a terrorist strike, which party controls the White House. Imagine if you will that it is January 20, the inauguration date for a new incoming President. The sun is shining, and the American people are watching. The new President and Vice President sit on the center platform just steps away from the Capitol Rotunda, joined by American and foreign dignitaries. Leaders of both Houses of Congress sit nearby as well. It is a beautiful day--but as national security and continuity of government experts have long recognized, it is also a window of vulnerability. If terrorists launched a successful strike on Inauguration Day, it could wipe out not only our new President, but also the first three people who are in the line of Presidential succession under our current Presidential succession statute--the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. What happens next? Well, imagine that the election of the prior year had resulted in a change of political party control of the White House. During previous Presidential transition periods, a new incoming President has had to serve with Cabinet members from the prior administration--including sub-Cabinet officials from the prior administration acting as Cabinet members--for at least some period of time. That means that, in the event of a successful inaugural day attack, the official who could rise to become Acting President, perhaps serving for four full years, could very well be a member of the outgoing administration--indeed, a member of the political party that the American people expelled from office at the most recent election. The resolution I introduce today would help prevent this from happening. As the resolution acknowledges, members of the Senate, regardless of political party affiliation, agree that the American people deserve a Government that is failsafe and foolproof. We agree that terrorists should never have the ability to disrupt the operations of the Government. We agree that continuity of governmental operations in the wake of a catastrophic terrorist attack remains a pressing issue of national importance before the United States Congress. And we agree that, at a minimum, terrorists should never have the ability, by launching a terrorist attack, to change the political party that is in control of the Government--a principle that applies regardless of which party is in power. An incoming President, of course, cannot exercise the constitutional powers of the President, in order to ensure a smooth transition of Government, until noon on the 20th day of January, pursuant to the terms of the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution. Accordingly, cooperation between the incoming and the outgoing President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government. Whenever control of the White House shall change from one political party to another, the outgoing President and the incoming President should work together, and with the Senate to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, to ensure a smooth transition of executive power, in the interest of the American people. Accordingly, the resolution establishes a non-binding protocol--a protocol with three parts. First, the resolution states that an outgoing President should consider submitting the nominations of individuals to the Senate who are selected by the President-elect for offices that fall within the line of succession. Under the current Presidential succession statute (3 U.S.C. Sec. 19), that means the members of the Cabinet, defined as the heads of the statutory executive departments (5 U.S.C. Sec. 101). Second, the resolution provides that the Senate should consider conducting confirmation proceedings and votes on Cabinet nominations, to the extent deemed appropriate by the Senate, between January 3 and January 20 before the Inauguration. Of course, nothing in the resolution purports to alter the constitutional powers of either the President or the Senate, and indeed, nothing in this resolution could constitutionally do so. And third, the resolution encourages the outgoing President to consider agreeing to sign and deliver commissions for all approved nominations on January 20 before the Inauguration--all to ensure continuity of government. I am pleased that this resolution has received such strong support amongst experts in the fields of continuity of government and constitutional law. This is a truly nonpartisan effort, so I am particularly pleased that the resolution is so enthusiastically supported by constitutional legal experts such as Walter Dellinger, Cass Sunstein, Laurence Tribe, Michael Gerhardt, and Howard Wasserman. Rather than repeat their words here, I will simply ask unanimous consent that their letters be included in the Congressional Record at the close of my remarks. Throughout history, Congress has acted consistently and in a bipartisan fashion to encourage measures to ensure the smooth transition of Executive power from one President to another. I think, for example, of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and its subsequent amendments. In that Act, Congress concluded that ``[t]he national interest requires'' that ``the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the inauguration of a new President . . . be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.'' Congress further concluded that ``[a]ny disruption occasioned by the transfer of the executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.'' Accordingly, Congress expressed its intent ``that appropriate actions be authorized and taken to avoid or minimize any disruption'' and ``that all officers of the Government so conduct the affairs of the Government for which they exercise responsibility and authority as (1) to be mindful of problems occasioned by transitions in the office of President, (2) to take appropriate lawful steps to avoid or minimize disruptions that might be occasioned by the transfer of the executive power, and (3) otherwise to promote orderly transitions in the office of President.'' Close cooperation between an incoming President and an outgoing President is the only way to ensure a smooth transition of government. So this evening, just days away from the first of our nation's two great political conventions, I am pleased to introduce a resolution to ensure continuity of government during a unique window of vulnerability--the Presidential inaugural period. And I look forward to further debate and discussion on other legislation to ensure the continuity of our national government.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to speak on the resolution that I believe will be passed by unanimous consent of the Senate which pertains to something I thought we would never be talking about now in the year 2004, and that is human slavery and trafficking in human beings. The good work that has been done by the U.S. Congress, since, of course, the ratification of the 13th amendment in 1865 abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude, includes a remarkable tradition, and a bipartisan tradition, I might add, starting, after 1865, in 1909, when the United States Code criminalized slavery. In 2000, the late Senator Paul Wellstone and Senator Sam Brownback joined together as the lead sponsors, together with a number of other Senators and Representatives, to advance legislation to strengthen those laws, specifically the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, which was later signed into law by President Bill Clinton. That legislation was reauthorized in 2003 by a bipartisan effort and signed into law by President George W. Bush. I expressly recognize the contributions of Senator Schumer, Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Leahy of Vermont, and Senator Clinton, who joined in cosponsoring this resolution. Indeed, this resolution lays out the terrible tale of the fact that as many as 800,000 human beings are literally bought and sold worldwide into some form of slavery or involuntary servitude. Approximately 16,000 of those human beings are brought into the United States each year, coerced into lives of forced labor or sexual servitude which, of course, is another way of describing slavery. This has been a bipartisan effort. It is refreshing to know, particularly during an election year where there are differences that divide us, where we know sometimes the rhetoric gets a little overwrought, that we can come together on such an important issue. The fact is the current administration has responded to the call by dramatically increasing efforts into devoting substantially more resources toward combating human trafficking. This has been done principally under the auspices of the civil rights division at the Justice Department which has prosecuted and convicted three times the number of traffickers over the past 3 years as had been done in the preceding 3 years, three times more in this last 3 years than had been done in the preceding 3 years. The Department of Justice has created the Office of Special Counsel for Trafficking Issues to coordinate antitrafficking efforts. It has also published educational and awareness-raising materials and circulated them to officials across America and provided assistance to victims of this trafficking by installing among other things a toll- free hotline. Last week the Department of Justice sponsored a historic national conference on human trafficking in Tampa, FL, bringing together Federal, State, and local officials, social service agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to provide training and coordination to antihuman trafficking efforts across the country as provided in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill. The problem we uncovered was brought home during a recent hearing I chaired for the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Judiciary Committee. We heard testimony about the men, women, and children who continue to be trafficked into the United States. Each of these stories is tragic, disturbing, and heartrending. It is hard to imagine that this sort of thing continues to happen today. Let me mention two of them. In January of 2004, several defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 months to 14 years after a ringleader of a human trafficking ring admitted to running a human trafficking operation bringing women from Central America and then holding them in this country once they were smuggled into the country. They were held against their will. Many of them were sexually assaulted. All of them were forced to work against their will until their smuggling fees were paid by their families. Another instance involved a research assistant and his wife at a university located in my State of Texas who were prosecuted for leading a trafficking ring that victimized young women. These young women were brought from Uzbekistan. They were lured to the United States by promises of lucrative modeling jobs, extravagant lifestyles, and also based on the promise that they would be able to bring their families once they were established here in the United States. The defendants in this case used fraudulently obtained J-1 visas to bring women into the United States through El Paso, TX. The visas purported to show that the women were scientists traveling to the United States to do scientific research. But once here, their immigration documents were confiscated, and these women were forced to work at local strip clubs for the benefit of the defendants who ultimately collected more than $700,000 as a result of their criminal enterprise. These defendants were ultimately convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison and ordered to pay more than a half million dollars in restitution to their victims. One of the things that was brought home to me as a result of this hearing was that the same routes, the same criminal enterprises that engage in smuggling of human beings, who prey on their hopes or their desire for jobs and economic opportunity, it is the same people in many instances and the same routes and organizations that engage in illegal smuggling of human beings who want nothing more than to be able to come here and work and then send money home to their families. It is just that the ones who are the victims of this trafficking are not freed when they are brought into this country but literally kept in involuntary servitude and slavery, some approximately 16,000, we think, although the numbers have to be suspect. They have to be low because, indeed, we know the victims of this activity are reluctant to come forward because they may have come illegally into the country. This is a persistent problem, one that touches on a larger issue, and that is, as we go forward with border security measures, to try to make sure that we protect our sovereign borders and to make sure our immigration laws are brought into modern times and the realities of our demand and indeed our reliance on labor provided by immigrants in this country. I hope we will view this as one of the terrible symptoms of a larger problem, and that is the need for us, as we establish the security of our borders, consistent with the post 9/11 world, that we also address the need to bring our immigration laws into this century. The President's call for immigration reform is part of it. Particularly for those who are, once they are brought into this country based on promises of jobs and opportunity, but then enslaved, that we redouble our efforts to make sure we bring an end to this scourge. I appreciate the bipartisan effort we have seen, the expressions of support for the work that has been done across the years by this administration, by previous administrations in combating the scourge of human slavery. I commend the Justice Department in particular for tripling the number of prosecutions they have obtained in these last 3 years over the preceding 3 years. This is a fight worth fighting. These are some of the most vulnerable victims we could possibly imagine. Their punishment is well deserved.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I will ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on July 7, 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued an important report regarding flaws in our prewar intelligence on Iraq. Last week, Lord Butler issued a similar report on British intelligence. In a related vein, the 9/11 Commission will issue its report this Thursday. Each of these reports either already has, or no doubt will, shed light on how we can improve our ability to protect this country and our allies from future terrorist attacks. Coming almost 3 years after 9/11, it is important to note that many reforms have already been implemented by Congress and the administration without waiting on a committee or a commission report. Still, the recommendations of each of these reports ought to be carefully considered and debated by Congress. If this were not a Presidential election year, we might be able to even undertake this important work without playing the blame game in order to score political points. My hope is that we will, to the extent humanly possible, strive to do so. If not, we risk politicizing the process to the detriment of long-term solutions to our intelligence problems. Some have used the occasion to criticize our Nation's policies in Iraq and the broader war on terror. Some say, on the one hand, that our leaders did too little before 9/11 to stop the horrible events of that day. Some say, on the other hand, that our leaders did too much in removing Saddam based in part on the remarkable clarity that comes with 20/20 hindsight. I did not say, and consciously so, President Bush's policies but, rather, our Nation's policies because our policies in Iraq and in the broader war on terror have generally been a consensus policy authorized by the Congress and ultimately implemented by President Bush. In fact, the policy of regime change in Iraq was shared by the Clinton and Bush administrations and is now being criticized for political gain by some who voted for those very policies. It is important that we set the record straight. The Senate Intelligence Committee report in particular directly rebuts some of the more outrageous claims that administration officials, including the President himself, intentionally misled the American people. Indeed, due to systemic flaws in our intelligence apparatus, it appears that it was the administration itself that was misled to some extent. But that does not mean we were wrong to remove Saddam Hussein from power. There were many good reasons for the regime change in Iraq in addition to those which have at least so far turned out to be mistaken. There is no question that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein in a prison cell instead of remaining in his royal palaces. There is every reason to believe he is precisely where he belongs. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in October 2002 to authorize military force to defend the national security of the United States and enforce all relevant United Nations security council resolutions, the resolution this body passed noted that Iraq, in 1991, entered into a United Nations-sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed among other things to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them and to end its support for international terrorism. That resolution also noted that the efforts of international weapons inspectors, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery in 1991 that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated. That resolution also said that Iraq in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and development capabilities which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998. That resolution went on to note that the current Iraqi regime at that time under Saddam Hussein has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and against its own people. Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of U.S. citizens. It was on this last point that Acting Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin said just yesterday in an interview: We could, through intelligence reporting, say with some credibility that there had been meetings between senior Iraqi officials and Al Qaida officials. We could also say that there had been some training that had flown back and forth between the two sides. And we could say that there was some degree of safe haven that Al Qaida-related people had obtained in Iraq for a variety of reasons. We could also say with some assurance that operating from Iraq, someone like Abu Musab Zarqawi had arranged the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan. Saddam dared the United Nations Security Council and the free nations of the world to act and act we, the coalition, did. Congress expressly recognized in the authorization it gave President Bush that ``the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations.'' We knew that Saddam had them but we did not yet know what he did with them. Why he kicked out United Nations weapons inspectors in 1998 and never accounted for them, all the while defying resolution after resolution of the United Nations Security Council we may never know for sure. I once thought that no one would question whether America was safer and that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam but some, during this political season, have come awfully close. Put another way: Does any reasonable person truly believe that America and Iraq were better off with Saddam Hussein in power? Surely not. Surely not. But you simply can't have it both ways. You must choose, and choose we did. I believe the Senate made the right decision in supporting our efforts in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nothing we learned since then has changed my mind. It has been our official consensus policy since 1998 under both Presidents Clinton and Bush, under both Democrat and Republican leadership in the Senate. For example, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, we said: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. Everyone, Republican and Democrat, knew that the dictatorship of Saddam raised the prospect of a dangerous and irrational government in the Middle East. Everyone knew that the Iraqi people were living under a brutal and murderous tyrant. And at that time everyone knew that Saddam was armed with weapons of mass destruction. It was in a speech to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon staff generally that President Clinton eloquently described the consequences of inaction. He said: What if [he] fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction. . . . He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. That was President Clinton in 1998. Our intelligence community told us before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction programs--chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear. Now in the past, in 1991, our intelligence had sometimes underestimated Saddam's capabilities; so there was no question that there was reasonable cause for concern for an armed Saddam, ready to lash out, without warning, against Israel, Kuwait, or other countries in the region. We also feared that because of his hatred for America, Saddam might give the weapons he was developing to terrorists for whom he provided sanctuary. These concerns were nearly universally shared, as articulated in the quote I read from President Clinton. At the outset of our military operations against Iraq in December of 1998, President Clinton described the risks of leaving Saddam in power. He said: The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Again, a statement by President Clinton in 1998. We should all be glad Saddam Hussein is out of power. Iraq's fledgling government is taking the first steps toward freedom and democracy. Neither we nor they have to fear Saddam's regime cooperating at any level with al-Qaida or other terrorists who wish to do violence against the American people or our allies. But it is also true that the weapons programs we found in Iraq were not what our intelligence information predicted before hostilities broke out in 2003. Saddam Hussein had the capability and the raw resources to do many things, but he did not at that time have the fully operational weapons systems we believed he possessed. So why, it is logical to ask, did we have this problem with our intelligence? We know, as the unanimous, bipartisan report of the Select Committee on Intelligence said, that despite the insinuations of administration critics, the intelligence we had was not rigged or interfered with in any way. The same conclusion was echoed by Lord Butler's report in Great Britain which found no evidence of deliberate distortion of the intelligence material or of culpable negligence. It is clear that any such allegations to the contrary are baseless, partisan, and have no foundation in the truth. The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate found in conclusion 83: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.'' In conclusion 84, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said: The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated . . . Or did pressure analysts to change their assessments. And in conclusion 102: The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. How did we get here? How did we know that Saddam had these weapons of mass destruction, defied resolution after resolution of the U.N. Security Council, defied every request that he open his country to U.N. weapons inspectors and reveal what he had or, we might say, what he no longer had? Consider in 1993 we saw the first successful terrorist strike by radical Islamists on U.S. soil--a car bomb that exploded in the basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and wounding 1,000. Then in 1996, there was another attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 people and wounded more than 5,000. And in 2000, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39. It was during these same years that Congress made dramatic cuts in funding for the Government agencies most involved in the fight against terror, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. These cuts were significant, including letting go nearly 40 percent of those recruited to spy for America's interests. The number of officers in the clandestine service was downsized by roughly 25 percent and nearly one- third of our overseas offices were shut down. All of these cuts seriously hampered the intelligence community's ability to monitor and analyze the rising threat posed by terrorism. Again, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McLaughlin, said yesterday, because of these cuts, we were almost in Chapter 11 in terms of our human intelligence collection. This much seems clear: Our early warning system was blinded by a self-inflicted wound. There is simply no way that President Bush's administration could have filled all the holes of an underfunded and demoralized intelligence community in a mere 8 months after it had been dismantled systematically and deliberately during the preceding years. So when President Bush came to office, he inherited an intelligence community that was ill prepared to meet the challenges of the war on terrorism. We should not make this merely a game of election year ``gotcha.'' We must debate the causes of our intelligence flaws in a way that commands the confidence of the American people and in a way that makes them safer and freer. We must also remain committed to our task in Iraq, to finishing that task and not allow election-year politics to create a climate that undermines the morale of our brave troops in the field. Let us finish the task we have undertaken in good faith and with the noblest of aspirations on behalf of free people around the world. Let us not let partisan politics lead us into the trap identified by Winston Churchill when he said: Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of the Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature. September 11 forced the civilized world to realize that the terrorist foe we had been fighting for years sought a more deadly goal than we ever suspected. Once Congress and the administration came to grips with the horrible truth of this new breed of terrorism, we knew what had to be done. We knew we had to take action. Under President Bush's leadership, we resolved that our aim was to defeat terrorism as a threat to our very freedom and our very lives. Nor could we achieve our aim merely by maintaining a defensive posture. Fighting terrorism on American soil is not enough. That is merely a holding pattern and a capitulation of our responsibility. When it comes to confrontation with terrorists, we must either change the way we live or we must change the way they live. We chose the latter, and I believe we chose wisely. It is a policy of action rather than inaction, and one clearly warranted by the new reality of our post-9/11 world. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be recognized for 5 minutes out of the 25 minutes remaining on our side until the chairman comes to the floor and the leadership time is reserved under a previous consent, and then Senator Santorum be recognized as our next Republican speaker for 10 minutes on our side, and then finally the last 5 minutes of that 25-minute segment, that Senator Sessions be recognized.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate I learned a new aphorism, referring to the debates and sometimes repetitive arguments you tend to hear by Members of Congress. Someone told me: ``Well, everything has been said; it is just not that everyone has had an opportunity to say it yet.'' Sometimes I wonder if that reflects the fact when we are debating important issues like this, people aren't listening or maybe they made up their minds and they are not open to the facts or persuasion or perhaps some preconceived notion they have about the motivation for legislation is flat wrong, but they have already locked in, they have already gone public, they have taken a position and then it becomes two contending adversaries across some demilitarized zone and we try to fight it out the best we can and then count the votes. But I think two things are most important about this debate. Despite some of the repetition of erroneous arguments, we have had an important debate. I think two things will come out of this that have been very positive, regardless of what happens in the vote today. First, we have had a debate on the importance of traditional marriage, the importance of the American family and steps we should be taking in order to preserve the traditional marriage and American family and to work in the best interests of children. That is a debate that has been long overdue. I am told it has been perhaps at least 8 years, since the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, since this body has even talked about the most basic building block in our society. I think that has been very positive. I also think it has been positive that we have been able to direct the American people's attention to the erosion of our most fundamental institutions by judges who seek to enforce their personal political agendas under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Now I come to the Senate and hear some of my colleagues, including the Senator from Massachusetts, say this is all part of a right-wing conspiracy, or words to that effect. Surely, when the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by a vote of 85 Senators, an overwhelming bipartisan consensus which defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, that was not the product of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Indeed, that was the Senate and Congress functioning at its best, coming together to protect the fundamental institution, one we have fought hard and should continue to fight hard to preserve and protect against all challenges. We have heard and I have read in the press that this side of the aisle has been castigated for not accepting the Democratic leader's offer to go to an up-or-down vote on this amendment. The problem is, of course, that they only tell half of the offer. The other part of the offer was banning consideration of any further amendments that might be offered in the Senate--in other words, constraining the debate, stifling the debate, and limiting the right of any Senator on any piece of legislation, whether it is a constitutional amendment or an ordinary bill, to offer alternatives for the body to consider as a means of advancing the debate. My understanding is the majority leader countered by saying, okay, we will go to an up-or-down vote, but we are not going to limit our right to offer amendments. The amendment most talked about is the so-called Smith amendment, which is, lo and behold, the first sentence of the amendment offered by Senator Allard hardly a surprise to anybody--which merely defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were apparently afraid to allow the Senate to consider alternatives as a way of advancing the debate because they were afraid an alternative, perhaps along the lines of Senator Smith's amendment, the one-sentence amendment, would garner more votes. I am advised it would garner perhaps as many as ten new votes.

Mr. CORNYN. I will gladly yield after I complete my remarks. It is a bogus offer. It is a bogus argument that somehow by refusing their attempt to stifle the debate and stifle the amendment process that this has somehow become nothing but bare partisan politics. There are those who would raise their voices, those who would call Members names, Members who believe it is important to defend the traditional institution of marriage, in hopes we would lose the courage of our convictions. In hopes that we would simply be silent while we see the ongoing march of litigation as part of a national strategy to undermine the traditional institution of marriage that we know is the most important stabilizing influence in our society and one that functions in the best interests of our children. But we are not going to lose the courage of our convictions. We are not doing to sit on the sidelines. We are not going to be quiet. We are not going to give up. In fact, regardless of how this vote turns out at noon today, I know of no important piece of legislation considered by Congress that has been successful the first time it has been introduced into the Senate. What I have learned is probably the most important characteristic of a Member of the Senate is someone who is willing to persevere over weeks and months and even years until ultimately they are able to see the fruit of their labor and the legislation they have sponsored be accepted by the Senate. It is part of a building process, it is part of an awareness process that is very important. Part of the awareness process is also to knock down some of the unfounded statements that are made during the course of the debate. It was, I believe, the Senator from Massachusetts who said that no court has called the Defense of Marriage Act into question. Perhaps he was not able to listen yesterday when I read a paragraph out of the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Goodridge, relying on the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that plainly calls the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act into question. As a matter of fact, you cannot really believe, as the court did, that the marriage laws of Massachusetts were unconstitutional and believe that the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional as well. To be fair, the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is an argument the Senator from Massachusetts made back in 1996 when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, as did the other Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act then and who stated that if passed, it would be unconstitutional. This has been a consistent theme, although they have some of their facts wrong. I hope that helps clarify. The question before the Senate today is simple: Do you believe traditional marriage is important enough that it deserves full legal protection? As I said, an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in 1996 voted that it did by passing that statute. President Clinton said as much by signing that legislation into law in 1996. This debate is important. It is long overdue because we have, in essence, a stealth operation going on today. It is an effort where a handful of courts around the country, as well as those who have engaged in a nationwide litigation strategy, are basically operating off the radar screen of most Americans. The only time the American people know very much about it is when a blockbuster decision is handed down, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Court in May of this year, or when they happen to see local officials engaged in civil disobedience, for example, in San Francisco, issuing same-sex marriage licenses and same- sex marriages in that location. This is not, despite the wishes of some of the people who are opposed to this amendment, something that can be solved at the State level. I believe in the principle of federalism. I believe people at the local level, closest to the problem, are best prepared and are in the best position to try to address that problem. But we have seen how, with one State recognizing same-sex marriage, people have moved now, we know, to 46 different States and how there are lawsuits pending in at least 10 of those States--and no one knows how many there will be in the future--seeking to compel those States, in violation of their current State law, to recognize those same-sex marriages. Some people have said, don't worry. The Senator from New York, Senator Clinton said, don't worry, we do not have to amend right now, we can wait until after the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is held unconstitutional. In fact, she said no one had challenged it, and I have attempted to clarify that by my earlier statements. In the interest of completeness, let me ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the cover sheet from a lengthy petition in both cases, one filed in the Western District of Washington, in re Lee Kandu and Ann C. Kandu, and another complaint, Sullivan v. Bush, filed in Federal court, the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, seeking to hold the Federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional as a matter of Federal law.

Mr. CORNYN. Some have said there are more important issues to debate. Certainly, the Senate has debated and I hope and trust we have passed legislation that has done a lot of good on behalf of the people who sent us here. If we haven't, we have not been doing our job. I believe we have a record we can be proud of when it comes to defending America and the war on terrorism, when it comes to rejuvenating our economy to see it come roaring back the way it has, indeed, providing a prescription drug benefit to senior citizens. We have done a lot of which we can be very proud. And for someone to stand up and say that preservation of traditional marriage is not important enough for us to talk about, to me, is breathtaking in its audacity and its sense of obliviousness to what the concerns are of moms and dads and families all across this country. We know for years, for a variety of reasons, the American family has been increasingly marginalized. We know we have a crisis in this country of too many children being born outside of wedlock, too many marriages ending in divorce, and too many children being raised in less than optimal circumstances, putting them at risk for a whole host of social ills for which ultimately the American taxpayer has to pick up the tab. And I have not even mentioned the human tragedy involved, as some child fails to live up to their God-given potential. I do not believe that we can remain neutral or to remain merely spectators in this further marginalization of the American family. We cannot allow for a process that puts more and more children at risk through a radical social experiment. And if we want to look for the only evidence that we know is available, we can look to Scandinavia, where less people get married, more children are born out of wedlock, and more children become, thereby, the responsibility of the State. It is not good for them, it is not good for us, and we should not, without letting the American people have a voice in the process, merely sit back while judges radically redefine our most basic societal institution. Now, let me click through a number of other arguments that have been made. I know Senator Durbin has said we should not talk about constitutional amendments during an election year. My question to him is: Isn't Congress still in session? Aren't the American taxpayers still paying us to do our job? As a matter of fact, six times Congress has successfully proposed amendments in an election year. Some have claimed that the text that is before us--Senator Allard's amendment--prevents States from enacting civil unions if they should wish to do so through their elected representatives. Yet the Democrats' own legal expert, Professor Cass Sunstein, answered this very question: Of course not. This amendment does not prevent the States from enacting civil unions should they decide to do so. Some have even gone so far as to claim that the Allard text would regulate private corporations, churches, and other private organizations. As the Presiding Officer well knows, and as virtually everybody in this body should know, the Constitution regulates State actors, not private actors. These arguments do not hold water. But they do not have to work for our opponents on this issue to say them because that is not the point. The point is, if you cannot convince them, confuse them. Their aim is to distract the American people away from the real question, which is, as I said at the outset: Do you believe that traditional marriage is important enough that it deserves full protection under law? I would ask the opponents of this amendment, if you believe in traditional marriage--as some of you but certainly not all of you have said you do--but you do not support this amendment, what is your plan? What do you think the American people should do when courts run red lights and act in excess of their authority by legislating from the bench, redefining our most basic institutions? What are you going to do to stand up on behalf of the American family to prevent the increasing marginalization of the American family? But I am confused by the arguments that are made by some on the other side of this issue. When some of their very own leaders say the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional--such as Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry--when your very own leaders say, as the senior Senator from Massachusetts did yesterday, that traditional marriage is a ``stain on our laws''--repeating the language of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in saying that traditional marriage is a ``stain that must be eradicated'' because it, in essence, represented discrimination--what do the opponents of this amendment think we should do? Do you want the courts to strike down traditional marriage? What you are saying is that you do not want the American people to know about it, much less have a voice in correcting this radical social experiment. Of course, everyone has a right to file lawsuits. But the American people have rights, too, rights preserved by Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides a process of amendment, particularly when courts engage in a radical redefinition of our most basic institution under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Indeed, the only way the American people have of responding is through a constitutional amendment. So we have no choice but to offer this amendment by way of response. I think no one should be fooled into thinking that on this side of the aisle we are afraid of a full and fair debate and a vote on the various proposals that may come to the floor. But, indeed, under the offer made by the Democratic leader last Friday, it would have cut off any amendments, would have stifled a full debate, which I think has been on the whole very positive. I appreciate my colleague for letting me finish my prepared remarks. I do not know if he still has a question, but I would be glad to respond if he does.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would be glad to respond to my colleague's question, but I first ask unanimous consent that the time engaged in question and answer be charged to the other side, in fairness.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry, I was otherwise distracted.

Mr. CORNYN. That is what I was afraid of. I want to make sure, are we pushing back morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. CORNYN. No objection.