John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask that the Chair recognize the distinguished Senator from Nevada for comments that he may care to make on the motion to proceed and on the upcoming vote at 12:30 on cloture regarding that issue. I want to perhaps tee it up a little bit and talk about why I think this motion to proceed is so important. I am only going to do so for a few minutes, and I will talk some more after the Senator from Nevada has had a chance to speak, and perhaps someone on the other side who wishes to speak. I worry that our system of litigation has simply become too expensive and too time-consuming to serve the needs of consumers and the public. Those of us who have represented people in court, whether they be a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit, know that sometimes after the lawsuit is over, even though lawsuits invariably have winners and losers, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between the two because the process, as I say, costs so much and takes so much time. Unfortunately, because of that, a lot of people with valid claims, who have been dealt an injustice and should have access to our courts or some means to vindicate those claims, are simply frozen out. That is something we need to work on not just on this bill, on this day, but going forward. I hope we will. This bill, I believe, is very important because, indeed, I think the purpose of a class action lawsuit is a good one. It does, as originally intended, serve the purpose of providing individuals with relatively small claims an opportunity to get access to the court to get justice, even though it may not be economically sustainable because, of course, they have to hire a lawyer, pay court costs, and all the like. The purpose, I believe, is laudable, but as in a lot of areas, experience and scholarship by the Nation's leading thinkers and just plain common sense tell us that, with the circumstances that confront us today when it comes to class action lawsuits, the system is not just broken but that it is falling completely apart. Mr. President, I reserve any remaining comments that I may have and, according to the time that has been split between the parties on this issue, recognize the Senator from Nevada for comments he may care to make at this time.

Mr. CORNYN. That is certainly fine.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may inquire of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Ensign was here when I started, and then Senator Leahy came in after I started, so I apologize. May I inquire approximately how long the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak?

Mr. CORNYN. How much time is on the Republican side?

Mr. CORNYN. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for his constructive efforts to get involved in class action reform. He has made a good contribution to the debate by offering some additional ideas for those that were considered in the Judiciary Committee when we voted this Class Action Fairness Act out of the committee. It makes no sense to me to say vote against bringing the bill up in order to fix class action abuse. If people are serious about class action reform, then they would want us to bring up the bill. They would vote in favor of cloture and we would simply have a debate, as we do on all legislation on the merits of the bill, as voted out of committee or at least brought up for consideration here with whatever amendments may be offered. The Senator from Louisiana has some constructive amendments, no doubt, and he has shown himself to be a master at bridging the gaps in this body and achieving consensus. He is to be commended for it. We need more people willing to look at the merits of legislation and vote on those merits. That is all we are asking. I point out that, while there are a lot of different newspapers in the country, one that watches what happens in Washington, in particular, is the Washington Post which has observed that: . . . ``clients'' in class action lawsuits get token payments while the lawyers get enormous fees. This is not justice. It is an extortion racket that only Congress can fix. Very strong words. Not mine but those of the editorial board of the Washington Post. Others who should be in a position to know a lot about this subject-- for example, the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court--have acknowledged problems with the class action system. While they are not in the business of lobbying for specific language, certainly we want to pay attention to some of the suggestions they may have about ways we can correct some of those problems. That is what this is all about. This is some of the language I was referring to, obviously, speaking of the Judicial Conference: . . . thanked Congress for ``working to resolve the serious problems generated by overlapping and competing class actions.'' Ultimately, I think we are all interested in the same thing; that is, that people who are hurt due to the wrongful conduct of others have a means to redress those injuries and make sure the wrongful actor pays. But we are not in the business of making sure that a few benefit at the expense of many. That is what happens now with an abusive class action system which enriches entrepreneurial class lawyers who find a so- called class representative and are then able to manufacture a huge lawsuit where they reap millions of dollars in fees and the consumer gets a coupon. There is an old country and western song ``she gets the gold mine and he gets the shaft.'' In this instance, it is the lawyers who get the gold mine and consumers get the shaft in modern class action litigation. We ought to be about fixing that. We cannot fix it until this matter comes up on the motion to proceed and at least 60 Senators vote on the motion to proceed. I hope my colleagues will heed the eloquent words of the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and Senator Kohl, my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, and vote to bring the matter up. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has made an eloquent plea for class action reform. Unless we have cloture, there will be no class action reform anytime in the near future. We know the Senate has a very busy calendar of conference committees working on an Energy bill, on Medicare, prescription drug reform, and many other issues. The time is ripe, and I suggest to my colleagues the time for reform is now. Finally, this is not a matter of lawyer bashing. This is about jobs. This is about added cost to consumers. When frivolous litigation is filed which, in essence, once a class action is certified becomes legal blackmail because class action lawsuits are rarely, if ever, tried with a jury because the risks are so enormous, it literally becomes a ``bet the ranch'' or I should say ``bet the company'' lawsuit. So what happens is they are almost always settled but under unequal terms and really amount to, in too many instances, legal coercion. But what happens is, when that money is paid, that cost is not necessarily absorbed by that company, that job creator, but is passed on to consumers; and consumers pay and, ultimately, job loss occurs. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who believe we need to address this tremendous problem, we need to address job loss, we need to address consumer cost, we need to address this abuse, to vote for cloture.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 9:30 am on the Federal Involvement in the Regulation of the Insurance Industry.

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 Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing Anti-Semitism In Europe.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a business meeting to consider pending Committed business. Agenda Legislation 1. S. 129, Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003. 2. S. 1741, National Women's History Museum Act of 2003. 3. S. 1267, District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2003. 4. S. 1522, GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2003. 5. S. 1561, a bill to preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 6. S. 1567, Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. 7. S. 1612, Homeland Security Technology Improvement Act of 2003. 8. S. 1683, Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003. 9. H.R. 1416, Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. 10. H.R. 3159, Government Network Security Act of 2003. post office naming bills 1. S. 1405, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois, as the ``David Bybee Post Office Building.'' 2. S. 1415, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, Connecticut, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.'' 3. S. 1590, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 315 Empire Boulevard in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, New York, as the ``James E. Davis Post Office Building.'' 4. S. 1659, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 57 Old Tappan Road in Tappan, New York, as the ``John G. Dow Post Office Building.'' 5. S. 1671, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis, Jr., Post Office Building.'' 6. S. 1692, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building.'' 7. S. 1718, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ``Senator James B. Pearson Post Office Building.'' 8. S. 1746, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey Post Office Building.'' 9. H.R. 1610, to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, Missouri, as the ``Walt Disney Office Building.'' 10. H.R. 1882, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail, in Orlando, Florida, as the ``Arthur `Pappy' Kennedy Post Office Building.'' 11. H.R. 1883, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 1601-1 Main Street in Jacksonville, Florida, as the ``Eddie Mae Steward Post Office Building.'' 12. H.R. 2075, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 1905 West Blue Heron Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, as the ``Judge Edward Rodgers Post Office Building.'' 13. H.R. 2254, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 1101 Colorado Street in Boulder City, Nevada, as the ``Bruce Woodbury Post Office Building.'' 14. H.R. 2309, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Signal Hill, California, as the ``J. Stephen Horn Post Office Building.'' 15. H.R. 2328, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.'' 16. H.R. 2396, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 1210 Highland Avenue in Duarte, California, as the ``Francisco A. Martinez Flores Post Office Building.'' 17. H.R. 2452, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, as the ``Brian C. Hickey Post Office Building.'' 18. H.R. 2533, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis, Jr., Post Office Building.'' 19. H.R. 2746, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 141 Weston Street in Hartford, Connecticut, as the ``Barbara B. Kennelly Post Office Building.'' 20. H.R. 3011, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service, located at 135 East Olive Avenue in Burbank, California, as the ``Bob Hope Post Office Building.'' Nominations 1. Jerry S. Byrd to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Family Court). 2. Joseph Michael Ryan to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Family Court). 3. Dale Cabaniss to be Chairman, Federal Labor Relations Authority. 4. Brian F. Holeman to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 5. Craig S. Iscoe to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 22, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Counterterror Initiatives in the Terror Finance Program.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Hart Senate Office Building room 216. Witness List: Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Janice R. Brown to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast Guard be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on Fisheries Oversight to be held in SR-428A.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this bill is important for so many reasons. I will generally lay out what I believe to be some of the important reasons the Senate should take up this bill that was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis, why the Senate should take this bill up, vote it out, and do everything in our power to see it is enacted into law. My colleague, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, deserves a great deal of credit for his hard work on this issue and for promoting this important legislation. I publicly acknowledge his leadership on the issue as well. Like a number of the Members of this body, I have been a member of the bar, a lawyer, for a number of years. I have seen the ways in which the law and lawyers have contributed in a tremendous fashion both to the public administration of justice and to that maxim, that saying, that is engraved into the edifice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is really a national value and ideal: Equal justice under law. That is indeed one of the fundamental values upon which this Nation was founded. But I do not think it is news to anyone that that aspiration, that value, that we all agree is important, has suffered in the administration when it comes to class action lawsuits. I wish to make clear, I believe class actions do have an important role in the administration of justice. In other words, the class action was created so that individuals with relatively small claims and who would not be able to bring those claims forward in an economical way-- indeed, the economics would discourage them from doing so--would not be denied access to the courts and access to justice simply because their claims were rather small because, indeed, if in fact that were the case and there were no mechanism to bring those small claims forward, there would be those who would abuse individuals and who would know they could continue in that posture because individuals would not be able to economically bring those claims forward. So the class action mechanism provides a means for aggregating or collecting those claims so that it can be done in an economical fashion, in a way that will not deny those individuals who are aggrieved access to the courts so they may have access to that justice that I mentioned a moment ago. So the intent of the class action mechanism was to provide consumers with access to the courts. The problem is, today, the reality is that our system has turned into one that now benefits the few at the expense of the many. In other words, the people who benefit from class actions today, too often, are the lawyers who bring those lawsuits rather than the consumers for whose benefit this whole procedure was first conceived. I think it ought to be our goal in the policy of the U.S. Government and our courts to see that those with valid claims have a means to vindicate those claims, but it should not be a means by which the few can be enriched at the expense of consumers who may not even know they are involved in a class action lawsuit, where they receive token compensation whereas the class action lawyer receives millions, literally, in attorney's fees. Modern class action litigation has brought forward what we have now come to recognize as the entrepreneurial lawyer. That is a lawyer who may not have a client but if they are smart enough to try to figure out a way to create a claim or find somebody who arguably has a claim, then they can go out and seek a class representative; that is, somebody whose claim is representative of perhaps hundreds or thousands or even millions of other people who might be in a similar situation and, thus, seek certification of a class action and settle the case because, frankly, class action lawsuits are almost never tried because the consequences of a trial and the loss are so devastating that the person who has been sued or the company that has been sued does not really want to risk an adversarial proceeding in a court of law. So class action lawsuits are filed to be settled and to use the economic pressure that is created thereby because the number of claims that are aggregated and the amount of money that is at stake is literally a bet-the-ranch lawsuit or, I should say, bet-the-company or bet-your-life-savings lawsuit. The problem is, our system of class action litigation is not just broken; it is falling apart. That is not right, and that is not justice, and that cries out for reform. I believe this bill is an important step forward in providing that reform. Now, the truth is, as great as I believe this bill is that has passed out of the Judiciary Committee, it, frankly, is not all we should strive for when it comes to class action fairness. For example, many people find out only after they receive a coupon or something in the mail that they were, indeed, a member of a class; in other words, they were a party to a lawsuit, and they did not know it until they received some token compensation, whether it be a coupon or perhaps a few pennies. I think if we were to engage in the sort of class action reform that I think would genuinely address part of the problem, we would have a system not where people are asked to opt out of a class but literally where consumers are given an opportunity to opt in; that is, I do not think we ought to presume somebody wants to be a party to a lawsuit unless they say: Count me in. I do not think that is too much to ask. But that is not what this bill does yet. But that is where I think we need to go ultimately. What this bill does is provide a means of access to a court and the kind of careful review of a legal claim that I think is important in order to preserve the goal of class action litigation; that is, to serve the interests of consumers and not the interests of entrepreneurial class lawyers. I want to give just one or two examples from my own experience. As I said, like many in this body, I have been a practicing lawyer. I also happen to have been a judge in my earlier life and exposed to some of the abuses of class action litigation. And of one I will never forget, I want to just mention a few of those details. Well, it seems that General Motors created a sidesaddle gasoline tank pickup truck, one that was the subject of or involved in a rather spectacular explosion and terrible injury and death in Georgia, which was obviously a personal injury and a wrongful death claim. What happened in Texas, and elsewhere, was we saw that some lawyers realized this was perhaps a product design over which consumers may have a potential claim. So they brought a lawsuit, not for personal injury or death but for the economic loss incurred by consumers who owned sidesaddle gasoline tank pickup trucks. Of course, they had a couple of problems. One, they had the problem of being able to establish a true measure of loss as a result of merely owning them because, in fact, the evidence seemed to be that there was no actual loss in value just by driving a truck that had a sidesaddle gasoline tank. But, moreover, what ultimately happened in this case was that the consumers got a coupon, redeemable upon the purchase of a new General Motors pickup truck, and the lawyers who filed the lawsuit got nearly $10 million in cash. As it turned out, the court on which I served, the Texas Supreme Court, unanimously reversed that decision-- that settlement really, the approval of that settlement, saying: Look, we have gotten this exactly backward. Class action lawsuits are brought for the benefit of consumers, not for the benefit of the lawyers who file them. So in order to correct this abuse represented by the settlement, we said: Look, the consumers have to get something of value, and it has to be more than a coupon redeemable upon the purchase of a new General Motors pickup truck. Now, frankly, what happened was, it looked as though the class lawyers, the class counsel, cut a deal that was good for them, and General Motors agreed to a deal that was pretty good for them under the circumstances, although I am sure they would have rather not been there. But they were able to basically effectuate a marketing scheme for the sale of more GM pickup trucks; in other words, make lemonade out of this lemon. The problem was, consumers in the process got nothing. Indeed, many consumers, because they were constrained by bidding requirements--for example, trucks owned in a motor pool by a municipality or otherwise constrained by those requirements--could not even take advantage of the coupon. Of course, others didn't have the money to buy a new pickup truck and so they couldn't use the coupon which gave them some money as against the purchase of another truck. We can all testify, based on our own experience, how we have perhaps received a notice in the mail. I remember not too long ago when my wife and I went to a Blockbuster video rental store. We got an extra long tape when we rented our video that had a notification of a class action settlement attached to it. Of course, after reading the fine print, we found out that we had, unbeknownst to us, been involved in a lawsuit and had some nominal claim we could make to a few pennies, while the lawyers in the case received $9 million in cash. The consumers got a coupon for about a buck, and the lawyers got $9 million in cash. I don't want to take long today because the chairman of the committee has graciously allowed me to say a few words now. I know we will be continuing to talk about this issue for some time this week, as well we should. But there is another part of class actions that we need to be careful about. It is not just the entrepreneurial lawyers who settle for cash while consumers get a coupon. Class actions can also be used by defendants--that is, people being sued for various claims--to preempt or to stop future claims by those who have them because there is what we lawyers call res judicata. That is, no one else can bring another claim if, in fact, they were notified they had a potential claim and failed to object and thus were included in the class. So some defendants will potentially go out and collude with an entrepreneurial lawyer in order to get a final class action settlement which meets their bottom line but which basically precludes future claims by others who genuinely are aggrieved and harmed and whose rights are totally cut off. This is not lawyer bashing, I assure you, as a lawyer myself. People need to have access to the courts. Consumers need to have a means to vindicate their just claims. But it cannot be through a method which rewards entrepreneurial lawyers with millions in cash and consumers with a coupon. It cries out for reform. I believe the class action liability reform bill Chairman Hatch has navigated through the Judiciary Committee, which enjoys bipartisan support in that committee, is a big step in the direction of reform. With that, I thank the Senator from Utah for allowing me to say a few words. I will relinquish the floor from whence it came.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah. It is because of his leadership on this issue, that of class action fairness, it has reached this stage in the proceedings. He is a true gentleman in the finest traditions of the Senate. He also happens to be the iron fist and the velvet glove who helps make things happen in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a place where, unfortunately, things do not always happen the way they should, notwithstanding his heroic, Herculean efforts.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent Lindsey Kiser and Chip Roy, members of my staff, be given floor privileges during the duration of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shay Wester, a staff person in my office who does not currently have floor privileges, be admitted to the floor during the time of my brief remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will say a few words about the supplemental appropriation which the leader just addressed a moment ago and we are addressing all week and also about the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction. I was in a Senate Armed Services Committee briefing when Dr. David Kay, one of the leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group, briefed me, and later briefed Congress as a whole, on the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction. In that briefing and in the published statement he made that is now on the CIA Web site, he says: In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, the ISG [Iraqi survey group] has had to contend with an almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points, many of which exceed 50 square miles-- I had to doublecheck that quote to make sure it was accurate because it boggles the mind. Continuing-- 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance. Of these 130 ASP's, approximately 120 remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordnance and to store it the same as they would conventional weapons, the size of the required search effort is enormous. Dr. Kay has a gift for understatement. Having only in this time since the fall of Saddam Hussein been able to examine 10 out of a possible 130 ammunition sites gives an idea of the tremendous task ahead. Perhaps the critics should give some pause about the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood--indeed, I would say the probability--that we will find those weapons of mass destruction in the end. The search is ongoing, but we know for certain that 17 U.N. resolutions and numerous inspection missions by the U.N. weapons inspection team from 1991 to 2003 were not sufficient to stop Saddam Hussein. Even though we have not yet found the degree of weapons we anticipated, it is clear Saddam Hussein lied to the world about his arsenal despite all the steps taken by the international community. There have also been significant finds that indicate we have only grazed the surface of Iraq's weapons capabilities. According to the same report I quoted a moment ago: The home of an Iraqi scientist brought the discovery of strains of biological organisms, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. The team found new research on [Biological Weapons]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin, none of which were made known to the

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the President, and I thank the Senator from Utah for the courtesy and the opportunity to rise to say a few words about the President's budget request. I want to be clear about this. The sooner we accomplish our mission of securing Iraq and freeing the economy and stabilizing the government, the sooner our young men and women will be able to come home and we can turn Iraq over to the Iraqis so that they can enjoy the blessings of self-government and liberty. By the same token, the longer we delay in voting on this supplemental request, the longer we delay in getting money that is needed both to support our troops and to restructure that troubled region and the longer it will be before our troops will be able to come home to their families. Slowing this funding request merely delays the return of our troops from harm's way. And that should not be the role of the Senate, either unintentionally or otherwise. We all know that the Congress voted to authorize the President to use necessary force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime last November. But there are some in this body today who appear to be playing the politics of the moment, making claims that seem to exploit for political gain the hardships that our military is enduring in serving the cause of freedom. This is nothing more than crass political games. They certainly have no place in this body. I have the utmost respect and regard for my fellow Senators. Yet I must confess that I am dumbfounded at how soon some have appeared to forget the truth of Saddam's vile regime. The fundamental question we ought to be asking is, Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were under Saddam's regime? The answer to that is unequivocally yes. Are the American people safer today than they were when Saddam was in power? Again, the answer is unequivocally yes. The only remaining question is, Have we finished the job we started with Saddam's ouster? The answer to that question is no. But we must and we will. I had the honor of traveling to Iraq with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last June. I was sickened by the inhumanity evidenced by the mass graves, holding some 300,000 Iraqis and others who were victims of Saddam's regime. I was also shocked to learn from a U.N. representative that there are some 1.5 million people simply missing. We do not know whether they are dead or alive. The suggestion in the face of these silent witnesses that Iraq, the Middle East, indeed the entire free world, are not better off today than before we took Saddam down is simply false. Today there is religious freedom and human rights in Iraq unlike anything experienced during Saddam's regime. The Iraqi people now have hope, they have a future, something that must have seemed only like a dream to them a few short months ago. I am proud to commend President Bush for the resolute leadership that he has demonstrated in pursuing the war on terror both in Iraq and around the world. Everyone who has been engaged in this fight, whether it is the most junior recruit or the Commander in Chief, is doing a remarkable job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I strongly believe we must remain committed to finishing the job in Iraq by supporting this supplemental. I ask those who oppose this supplemental or who want to slow it down or who want to cut it in pieces and engage in lengthy delay, what is the message America sends to our enemies in the war on terror if we are shaken in our commitment? Do we doubt our mission so easily? Do our international commitments mean so little? We did not undertake the war against terror because it was easy. We undertook it because it was the right thing to do, because it was necessary to make America safer. As I said, there are some in the Senate who have advocated separating the moneys requested in this $87 billion supplemental between assistance to the troops and reconstruction of Iraq. I am opposed to any such separation and I am glad we voted down an amendment yesterday on that issue. Some argue that we should loan the money to Iraq instead of providing it to Iraq in the form of a grant--that is, that portion that should go to reconstruction. If we are to get our young men and women in uniform back home as soon as possible, which should be our goal, and turn the government over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible, which should also be our goal, we should not allow for any delay in the delivery of these funds. General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that these reconstruction funds are inextricably intertwined with the security of our men and women on the ground. I also believe it would be foolish to extract what would be only an illusory guarantee of loan repayment, and the delay in getting such loan funds to those who need it on the ground will likely jeopardize the security of our troops, according to General Abizaid. The economic assistance and the reconstruction support requested today are essential to the success and security of our troops and essential to our success in Iraq. We must build up Iraqi security, we must gain the confidence of the Iraqi people by improving the infrastructure, and we must begin the capacity to deal with all of the threats they face on the ground. I share my colleagues' concerns and their sense of fiscal responsibility when dealing with taxpayer dollars. I strongly believe we should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money at all times. I wish this newfound concern pervaded all aspects of our fiscal responsibilities in Congress, not just this one. We cannot preach fiscal restraint on one hand and practice fiscal irresponsibility on the other. True, responsibility cannot depend on political convenience. The numbers we are dealing with today are hard for many to grasp but boil down to the American taxpayer, according to a recent USA Today article, this way: Each year American households spend about 1 percent of their income on alcoholic beverages, another 1 percent on tobacco products, and we spent about .7 percent of our income on cosmetics. To put it into context, if this request were approved, our combined operations to combat terror in the Middle East and Afghanistan will have cost .8 percent of our income next year, a bit more than we annually spend on makeup and shampoo and a bit less than we annually spend on alcohol and tobacco. Significant? Yes. Budget busting? No. Worth it? Yes. The American people are well aware that we are engaged in a Presidential election season and they recognize the difference between those with an honest difference of opinion and those who seek to exploit the President's handling of the war purely in order to gain political advantage. I find something particularly unsavory about the comments of those who seek political advantage in questioning our commitment to our troops and our dedication to winning the war on terror. Those who spend their time playing political games with our mission in Iraq, even as our young men and women labor to secure and stabilize that fledgling nation, do a dishonor not only to themselves but to our soldiers in the field and the memories of those who have sacrificed everything they had opposing Saddam's blood thirsty regime. There are clearly obstacles to overcome in Iraq and there will certainly be setbacks along the way, as we have seen. I only hope the politics of the moment do not drive criticism that only serves to undermine our commitment to winning the war on terror and American resolve. We must not cut and run. We must not leave the Iraqi people with a promise unfulfilled. We owe it to our young men and women in uniform to give them our unequivocal support as they labor on in a dangerous place for an honorable cause. Our troops, I am convinced, have the will to win. I only hope our politicians share that will to win. As President Kennedy said 42 years ago: Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. I only wish those who are consciously or not intent on denying our troops what they need to finish the job and to get home as soon as possible will stop to reconsider. We have liberated Iraq of Saddam Hussein and now we must simply finish the job. We seek to make Iraq secure, to make it a place where the rule of law can be established so that civilian leaders, including the Iraqi Governing Council, can establish a new government for a new nation. This is not an easy task and it is not without cost. But it must be done, so Iraq can flourish as a free nation, and so that the victories won, the lives lost, will not be in vain. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains on our side.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand Senator Dole is coming to the floor, and I just want to, until she gets here, say a few words about what happened at the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday when the confirmation of Governor Leavitt of Utah was being considered. I have the honor of serving on four committees in the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, which, as we all know, has proven to be a particularly contentious committee, with the unprecedented filibuster of some of President Bush's most highly qualified nominees. But yesterday, for the first time, we saw some of the politics of the Judiciary Committee, the obstructionism there, pervading the Environment and Public Works Committee, for the first time, when it came to considering and voting on the nomination of Governor Leavitt of Utah to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than have a debate, rather than have an honest debate, and then an up-or-down vote on this important nomination, what we saw was simply a boycott. Members of the committee on the other side of the aisle simply decided not to show up, making it impossible for us to achieve a quorum and impossible for us to vote on the confirmation of Governor Leavitt. For the life of me, I cannot understand how those who claim to be pro-environment would simply obstruct the confirmation of a highly qualified nominee and leave the Environmental Protection Agency headless. Denying leadership to that large agency concerned with the protection of our environment and enforcement of our environmental laws and claiming to be pro-environment strikes me as inconsistent. So I fear that as the primary season approaches for the Presidential race in 2004, what we are seeing again is the unfortunate intrusion of Presidential election politics into the work of the Senate. Unfortunately, what that means is the people's work is not being done; the Environmental Protection Agency is denied the confirmation of a highly qualified nominee and is left leaderless. Certainly that cannot be pro-environment under any stretch of the imagination. Some said there were 400 questions in writing that had been submitted to Governor Leavitt, which, in fact, he did his best to answer. But at least one Senator said: Well, I don't really care about the answers to the questions. I am going to vote to confirm him, but I want him to go through the exercise of answering those questions anyway so we can get him on record. Well, the problem is that the nominee is somebody who has not yet served in that position. He is hobbled, to some extent, to be able to answer some of the questions that have been proposed. So he has to say: Well, if confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, I will do everything within my power to investigate this issue, and to get to the bottom of it, and to respond to your concern, Senator. But, otherwise, he is left without the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, and the EPA is left without a head--hardly a place where we need to be. We would not be in that condition if it were not for Presidential election politics pervading yet another committee's work when it is concerned with the protection of our environment. I know in the Judiciary Committee this morning we have another nominee of the President who we are going to take back up, Judge Charles Pickering. It remains to be seen whether Judge Pickering's name will be added to the growing list of those who are being denied an up- or-down vote in this body because a minority of the Senate refuses to allow that up-or-down vote--an unprecedented act of obstruction and something which has not occurred before the obstruction of Miguel Estrada's nomination, that of Priscilla Owen, that of Bill Pryor. I hope that list is not further lengthened by adding the name of Charles Pickering. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Judge Marcia A. Crone to serve as U.S. District Judge in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Crone is an outstanding nominee with a fine legal mind and fair judicial disposition. She has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas since 1992. During her tenure on the Federal bench thus far, she has already authored approximately 700 opinions, over 130 of which are published. Prior to her service as a U.S. magistrate judge, she practiced law for 14 years. She is an active member of several legal organizations in the Houston area. She is a native Texan and a mother of two. And she is an active participant in her community. She is a member of the Chapelwood United Methodist Church, the Houston World Affairs Council, and the P.T.A. at Second Baptist School, and a former member of the board of directors of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. In short, Judge Crone is an outstanding nominee with solid credentials and a reputation of fairness and impartiality. I support her nomination, and look forward to her distinguished service on the bench of the Eastern District of Texas, where the citizens of Beaumont need her good legal judgment and wisdom.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we have a moment of silence to be observed at 10:06. I will make a few remarks preceding that and, if necessary, I will complete those following the moment of silence. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words to supplement the eloquent comments made by the Senator from New Jersey, the two Senators from Virginia, and the others who have spoken today on the second anniversary of the tragedy of September 11. I was not serving here in Washington at that time, as many were, but as were so many Americans, I was at home in Texas preparing for work when I heard the terrible news and then saw the terrible images--the clouds of flame from a plane that ripped a hole in the bright, blue sky and took down the World Trade Center in New York. I will never forget that site as long as I live, nor should any of us forget it. I know many of my friends and colleagues who were here on that horrific day feel a very deep and personal debt to the heroes of September 11, particularly those on Flight 93. As was noted, the brave passengers on that flight did more than just save the lives of their fellow citizens. Absent their courageous sacrifice, it is likely that Flight 93 would have reached its final destination in this very building, an attack that would have virtually eliminated an entire branch of the United States Government. Even as we dedicate ourselves to fighting terror at home and abroad, even as we hope and pray that the tragedy of September 11 will not be repeated, we must always remain conscious of our oath as Senators, as representatives of the people, to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, and make sure the Constitution has representatives here arguing for laws and appropriations and defense that is needed on behalf of the American people. In the aftermath of September 11, it is clear that our current system of providing for the continuity of our Government in the event of a disaster is inadequate to address the reality of a post-9/11 world. As unthinkable as another attack of that magnitude might seem, we in this branch must be ready for the worst. We must provide for the stable continuance and function of Government, despite all possible calamities. Even if we in this body fall, we should not leave our Nation's citizens without representation, without order, without defense. We owe it to the American people to ensure that our Government remains strong, even in the face of disaster. Two years ago, our Nation was attacked by evil men who wanted to leave us weak, vulnerable, and divided. Instead, they saw a world strong, determined, and united. They gravely underestimated America's resolve. America will never surrender to tyrants or terrorists. We will not cut and run in the face of danger. Instead, we are taking the fight to freedom's enemies, fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and wherever else necessary so that terrorists can no longer export their evil to our streets or those of our allies. Many challenges lie ahead, but now is not the time to stop or show a lack of confidence or resolve. While we mourn our dead and wounded in the war on terror, we must remain dedicated to finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever terrorists or their allies spread their doctrine of hate. Here at home, we must support our brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day for the cause of security and freedom. Two years later, it is clearer now how the world grew so much smaller on September 11. We can no longer allow for the evildoers to plot and scheme in nations on the other side of the globe. We cannot wait to be attacked again. We cannot allow for another tragedy. We must hunt down the enemies of freedom wherever we find them, or we risk the spilling of blood again on our own soil. Like the passengers on Flight 93, we must not sit back and allow our destiny to be determined by freedom's enemies. No, we must take the fight to them. The minions of terror have shown their capability for inhumanity, and we cannot underestimate their desire to do so again. In July, Prime Minister Blair, speaking before a joint meeting of Congress, reminded us of our duty as a powerful nation to take great care regarding what kind of world we leave for our children. I believe that task falls to us at this moment in history to continue spreading the blessings of liberty. Mr. President, I understand in 1 minute we will observe a moment of silence, and certainly I will pause in my remarks to do so. But I will say before then that I believe now that the task falls to us at this moment in history to continue making sure that others may enjoy the blessings of liberty that we in this country even on occasion take for granted.