John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Spencer Chambers, a staff person in my office who does not currently have floor privileges, be admitted to the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommitee on Public Lands and forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 432, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and support research into alternative treatments for timber produced from public lands and lands withdrawn from the public domain for the National Forest System and for other purposes; S. 511, which would provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program, and for other purposes; S. 849, which would provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership, and S. 1582, which would amend the Valles Caldera Preservation Trust Act.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the senate and Thursday, September 11, 2003, for a hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs' Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2 p.m.

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 Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on United States-China relations.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2003, at 3 p.m., in closed session to receive a classified briefing regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom ``Lessons Learned''.

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 Thursday, September 11 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in our own streets and cities, we must labor on undeterred, always confident in pursuit of our ultimate goal. We seek not domination, not occupation; we seek a just, free, and peaceful world for ourselves, for our allies, and for future generations, no matter where they may be found on this planet. The passengers on Flight 93 were everyday Americans, men and women with jobs, with families and dreams. Like all of us, they made promises to their loved ones before they boarded that plane; perhaps promises of vacations and baseball games, of presents and anniversaries, birthdays--small promises and big ones. We know that some promises don't come cheap. Some cost us nothing. Others require that we risk all, even our very lives. The crash site of Flight 93 in the quiet hills of Pennsylvania is filled with memories of the promises those heroes made and will, sadly, never keep. But we have made a promise that we are dutybound to keep-- we, the living--a promise to the Nation we love and to all our countrymen and to the loved ones these heroes left behind: a promise that says the story of freedom will not end here in the violent acts of evil men. It will persist, it will endure, and it will not be destroyed. Those of us left behind must fulfill that promise. We must prepare for all contingencies as we continue to hunt the agents of terror and dedicate ourselves, once again, to ensuring that the promise of freedom shall not perish from this Earth. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of the majority leader, the bill's managers, and Senator Nelson and Senator Reid. Before we get on to the business of the day today, I wish to say a couple of words about our guest Chaplain, Max Lucado, who opened the Senate with prayer this morning. Max is a longtime friend of mine and our family and is the minister of the Oak Hills Church in San Antonio. He has a wonderful wife, Denalyn, and he is a loving father to their children: Jenna, Andrea, and Sara. Most people will know Max because of his best-selling books. Currently, he has more than 33 million books in print, and is America's leading inspirational author. A half century ago, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote about the difference between ``cheap grace'' and ``costly grace'' when it comes to our faith. Cheap grace, he said, requires nothing of us but vague sentiment--but costly grace requires a lifetime of faithful sacrifice and service. Someone who understands and embraces that kind of costly grace with a whole heart is a true disciple. By that definition, Max Lucado is a man who exemplifies what a disciple is and can be. I thank Max for his service to Texas, to America, and today to the Senate, and also to his Creator who chose to set a disciple like him among us for such a time as this. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the importance of the Defense of Marriage Act. Recent and pending cases, before the Supreme Court and the state court of Massachusetts, raise serious questions regarding the future of the traditional definition of marriage throughout America as embodied in the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it is important that the Senate consider what steps, if any, are needed to safeguard the institution of marriage that the Defense of Marriage Act has expressly defined since 1996. In very simple and easy to read language, the Defense of Marriage Act stated that a marriage is the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and that a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. That declaration did not break any new ground or set any new precedent. It simply reaffirmed the traditional definition of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Houses, as you would expect. The House passed the act by a vote of 342-67, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 85-14. President Clinton signed the measure, stating that: ``I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position.'' And since that time, 37 States have passed defense of marriage acts at their own level, defining marriage for purposes of State law. In the words of the eloquent senior Senator from West Virginia, a sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act Throughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society--a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection . . . He went on to say: The suggestion that relationships between members of the same gender should ever be accorded the status or the designation of marriage flies in the face of the thousands of years of experience about the societal stability that traditional marriage has afforded human civilization. Senator Byrd was echoing an understanding of marriage shared by many, if not most, and particularly the late Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote: Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal it is a status, an office that joins you together. Marriage is so fundamental to our culture and to civilization itself that it is easy to forget how much depends on it. Marriage provides the basis for the family, which remains the strongest and most important social unit. A wealth of social science research and data attest to this commonsense fact. And as columnist Maggie Gallagher writes: When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and mental and physical health problems. Clearly the family is the fundamental institution of our civilization. It fosters successful communities, happier homes, and healthier lives. The family provides the foundation for raising each generation of Americans. And when families are weakened, it is the children who suffer most. We recognized these facts in 1996, by passing the Defense of Marriage Act overwhelmingly, and reiterating the traditional understanding of what marriage is. Now, by decisions of our courts, concerns have been raised again, and I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to reexamine and, if necessary, reaffirm this important determination. The great Sam Houston, whose seat I am honored to hold in this body, once said: The time is fast arising when facts must be submitted in their simplest dress. I believe that time is now. The facts deserve examination and, if necessary, action. The question before us now is whether the popular and bipartisan legislation known as the Defense of Marriage Act will remain the law of the land as the people and, most particularly, the Representatives of this body intend, or whether we will be undermined or overturned by the courts. As many in this body have stated in the past, the Founders could not have anticipated that our Nation would ever reach the point where marriage would ever require such definition. But neither could they have anticipated the method through which the courts would unilaterally upend our Nation's laws, reading penumbras, emanations, and ``sweet mysteries of life'' into the legal text as justification for overturning legislative acts. On an issue as fundamental as marriage, I believe it is the job of the American people, through their Representatives, to decide. We should not abandon this issue to the purview of the courts alone. Some have suggested a legislative answer. Others have suggested a constitutional amendment is needed. In any case, we must consider what steps are now needed to protect and safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act. Toward that end, I will convene a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, in the first week after we return from the August recess to find out what steps, if any, are required to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and the congressional intent as embodied in that measure. I hope my colleagues, including the bipartisan majority who overwhelmingly supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, will join me in these efforts. Perhaps no legislative or constitutional response is needed to reinforce the status quo. And if it is clear that no action is required, so be it. But I believe that we must take care to do whatever it takes to ensure that the principles defined in the Defense of Marriage Act remain the law of the land. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ken Ende, a fellow with Senator Murkowski's office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the Energy bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. on the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

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 Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 3 p.m., to hold a subcommittee hearing on corruption in North Korea's economy.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 10 a.m., for a hearing titled ``Terrorism Financing: Origination, Organization, and Prevention.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on solutions to the problem of health care transmission of HIV/ AIDS in Africa during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., on pending committee business.

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 July 31, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a markup of S. 627, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill, and H.R. 659, The Hospital Mortgage Insurance Act of 2003. After the markup, the Committee will meet in open session to conduct a hearing on ``Addressing Measures To Enhance the Operation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Steven M. Colloton to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; P. Kevin Castel to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Sandra J. Feuerstein to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Richard J. Holwell to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; R. David Proctor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; Stephen C. Robinson to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York; Rene Alexander Acosta to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice; Daniel J. Bryant to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice; and Paul Michael Warner to be United States Attorney for the District of Utah. II. Bills S.J. Res. 1, A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims [Kyl, Chambliss, Cornyn, Craig, DeWine, Feinstein, Graham, Grassley]. S. 1177, Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act [Hatch, Grassley, Kohl]. S. 1451, Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act [Hatch, Leahy]. S. Res. 30, A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate the week beginning September 14, 2003, as ``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week'' [Graham]. S. Con. Res. 25, A concurrent resolution recognizing and honoring America's Jewish community on the occasion of its 350th anniversary, supporting the designation of an ``American Jewish History Month,'' and for other purposes [Voinovich, Chambliss, DeWine, Feingold, Schumer, Sessions, Specter]. S. 204, National Veterans Awareness Week [Biden, Chambliss, Hatch, DeWine, Durbin, Feingold, Grassley, Kennedy, Kohl, Leahy, Sessions,].

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 Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thu7rday, July 31, 2003, at 2 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office building Room 226 on ``Department of Justice Oversight: Funding Forensics Sciences--DNA and Beyond.'' Witness List Panel I: Sarah Hart, Director, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Ms. Susan Hart Johns, President, American Society of Crime Lab Directors, Springfield, IL; Dr. Michael Baden, Co-Director, Medicolegal Investigative Unit, New York State Police, New York, NY; Randy Hillman, Esq., Executive Director, Alabama District Attorneys Association, Montgomery, AL; Frank Clark, Esq., District Attorney, Erie County, Buffalo, NY; Peter Neufeld, Esq., Co-Director, Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY; and Ms. Rosemary Serra, Victim, New Haven, CT.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the free trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are consistent with the longstanding policy of the United states to negotiate agreements that reduce foreign trade barriers, increase export opportunities for American businesses, and create jobs for American workers. I understand the concerns of my colleagues about certain immigration provisions contained within these two agreements. I recently helped chair a Judiciary Committee hearing where representatives of the United States Trade Representative's office explained the reasoning for such provisions. I also had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Ambassador Zoellick last week in person. The fact is that our lack of a free-trade agreement with Chile today costs American exporters an estimated $800 million per year in sales, affecting approximately 10,000 U.S. jobs. That's an enormous amount and that's just one of the reasons I am in favor of these free-trade agreements, because I believe they will be good for American markets, American businesses and American workers. Immigration policy is the responsibility given to Congress under the Constitution. I assure my colleagues that enactment of these agreements does not infringe in any way on that authority or responsibility. The United States Trade Representative has been very responsive and open to the concern of Senators. On at least seven occasions since October of last year, USTR provided formal briefings to Judiciary Committee staff about the immigration sections in these treaties. USTR has welcomed the input of Senators on immigration and other issues covered by these treaties. Over the past several months, some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about the temporary nature of the visits under these agreements, as well as the funding for the new visa program, time limitations for these temporary visas, and numerical limitations. The legislation we are being asked to vote on today represents the results of negotiations between the members of both parties on the Judiciary Committee and the USTR. With respect to the substance of the immigration provisions, there was bipartisan consensus about the content. All of us want to promote trade, but we also want to protect American workers from those who abuse our immigration laws. Ambassador Zoellick recently expressed to me that he does not approach negotiations with the intention of including immigration provisions. Circumstances vary according to each negotiation and each country involved. Negotiating flexibility must be maintained to produce agreements that provide maximum benefits to American workers. The inclusion of the immigration provisions protects the interests of U.S. businesspeople and will better enable them to pursue overseas opportunities to increase American exports. In most immigration matters, the United States expands the number of visas for foreign workers without receiving reciprocal assurances from other countries for access for Americans. The Chile and Singapore free-trade agreements will enable an unlimited number of American businesspeople to reside in these two countries while capping the number of annual entries at 1,400 from Chile and 5,400 from Singapore. These limits will protect American business interests and American workers. And I applaud the U.S. Trade Representative's office for its efforts in reaching these agreements with Chile and Singapore. At the same time, I believe this initial experience with this new authority which Congress has conferred on the President, to negotiate these agreements subject to an up-or-down vote in the Congress, has given the U.S. Trade Representative an increased appreciation for the need to actively consult with Congress on matters as sensitive and significant as immigration issues. Failing that, there is no question in my mind that future free-trade agreements are unlikely to receive Senate approval, and that would be a shame. The United States-Chile free-trade agreement will provide numerous opportunities for United States workers and manufacturers. U.S. companies currently operate at a disadvantage because competitors such as Canada, Mexico, and the European Union already have free-trade agreements with Chile. As I said before, our lack of an agreement costs American exporters an estimated $800 million per year in sales, affecting approximately 10,000 U.S. jobs. The agreement with Chile will eliminate tariffs immediately on more than 85 percent of consumer and industrial goods, and most remaining tariffs will be phased out within the next 4 years. The result will be a $4.2 billion increase in the US GDP and a $700 million increase in Chile's GDP. The U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreement will have a similar effect on trade and economic liberalization in Southeast Asia. Despite its small size, the economy of Singapore is robust and highly competitive. Roughly 1,300 American firms have a significant presence in Singapore, including 330 regional headquarters for American businesses. The establishment of a free-trade agreement with Singapore will further increase opportunities for American workers through improved access to this important market. I believe these free-trade agreements will be good for American markets, American businesses and American workers, and I will vote accordingly. I respectfully ask my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a few remarks I would like to make on the free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore. Before that, I have some matters of housekeeping. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time Senator Hollings consumed be counted against the time he controlled on H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, the trade agreements.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session, to receive a briefing on the work of the Iraq survey group.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few months, the Medicare debate has focused our attention on a range of issues related to the future of health care in America. Central to our debate has been how to pay for the dramatically rising costs of health care and whether we can afford a prescription drug benefit to treat the disease of an aging population. The Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases, diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer and arthritis. We have discussed options for paying for the treatment of these diseases, but have spent far less time exploring ways to prevent them in the first place. I believe that disease prevention and the promotion of healthier lifestyles offers us an excellent opportunity to begin reversing the steep rise in health care costs we are facing today. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. A physically fit population results in a decrease in health care costs, reduced government spending, fewer illnesses and improved worker productivity. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe we have a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the coach and up and moving. With this in mind, I have introduced the Workforce Health Improvement Program, WHIP Act. The WHIP Act mirrors similar legislation introduced by Rep. Pat Toomey, R-PA, in the House of Representatives and would allow for the favorable tax treatment of health club memberships as an employee benefit. Specifically, it would clarify an employer's right to deduct the cost of subsidizing or providing health club benefits for their employees. In addition, this legislation would exclude the wellness benefit from being considered income for the employees, i.e., employer contributions to the cost of health club fees would not be taxable income for employees. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. However, if a business wants, or needs, to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the current tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. It also would be an important step in reversing the devastating health trend that our country is facing by promoting physical activity, reducing obesity and preventing disease. According to the Surgeon General's ``Call to Action to Prevent disease Overweight and Obesity,'' published in 2001, there are 300,000 deaths a year in the United States that are associated with overweight and obesity. Repair physical activity reduces the risk of developing or dying from some of the leading causes of illness and death in the United States. Further, physical activity can: reduce the risk of dying prematurely; reduce the risk of dying prematurely of heart disease; reduce the risk of developing diabetes; reduce the risk of developing high blood pressure; help reduce blood pressure in people who already have high blood pressure; reduce the risk of developing colon and other types of cancer; reduce feelings of depression and anxiety; help control weight; help build and maintain healthy bones, muscles, and joints; help older adults become stronger and better able to move about without falling; promote psychological well-being. Public Health experts unanimously agree that active lifestyles result in decreased health care costs, reduced governmental spending, fewer illnesses, and improved worker productivity. I ask you to join me in supporting this preventive health and fitness bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few months, the Medicare debate has focused our attention on a range of issues related to the future of health care in America. Central to our debate has been how to pay for the dramatically rising costs of health care and whether we can afford a prescription drug benefit to treat the disease of an aging population. The Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases, diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer and arthritis. We have discussed options for paying for the treatment of these diseases, but have spent far less time exploring ways to prevent them in the first place. I believe that disease prevention and the promotion of healthier lifestyles offers us an excellent opportunity to begin reversing the steep rise in health care costs we are facing today. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. A physically fit population results in a decrease in health care costs, reduced government spending, fewer illnesses and improved worker productivity. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe we have a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the coach and up and moving. With this in mind, I have introduced the Workforce Health Improvement Program, WHIP Act. The WHIP Act mirrors similar legislation introduced by Rep. Pat Toomey, R-PA, in the House of Representatives and would allow for the favorable tax treatment of health club memberships as an employee benefit. Specifically, it would clarify an employer's right to deduct the cost of subsidizing or providing health club benefits for their employees. In addition, this legislation would exclude the wellness benefit from being considered income for the employees, i.e., employer contributions to the cost of health club fees would not be taxable income for employees. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. However, if a business wants, or needs, to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the current tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. It also would be an important step in reversing the devastating health trend that our country is facing by promoting physical activity, reducing obesity and preventing disease. According to the Surgeon General's ``Call to Action to Prevent disease Overweight and Obesity,'' published in 2001, there are 300,000 deaths a year in the United States that are associated with overweight and obesity. Repair physical activity reduces the risk of developing or dying from some of the leading causes of illness and death in the United States. Further, physical activity can: reduce the risk of dying prematurely; reduce the risk of dying prematurely of heart disease; reduce the risk of developing diabetes; reduce the risk of developing high blood pressure; help reduce blood pressure in people who already have high blood pressure; reduce the risk of developing colon and other types of cancer; reduce feelings of depression and anxiety; help control weight; help build and maintain healthy bones, muscles, and joints; help older adults become stronger and better able to move about without falling; promote psychological well-being. Public Health experts unanimously agree that active lifestyles result in decreased health care costs, reduced governmental spending, fewer illnesses, and improved worker productivity. I ask you to join me in supporting this preventive health and fitness bill.