John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. First, Madam President, my remarks pertain to the issue of marriage. Of course, I have been here this morning while the distinguished Senator, the current occupant of the chair, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, comprehensively laid out the reasons why this is an important debate. I have also heard Senator Allard from Colorado and Senator Smith from Oregon speak about this issue. I would like to associate myself with each of those comments. But I want to explain briefly my own reasons why I believe this is such an important issue. First, I would like to respond to the comments made by the ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. This is something that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has already touched on, but I think it is so important. We keep hearing the same argument over and over again, so we really need to hit this issue hard. But I think it is so important. It is amazing to me to hear the Senator from Vermont and others say we have no time to talk about the issue of marriage and the American family because there are more important issues we ought to be debating. The truth is, while there have been Members on this side of the aisle talking about this issue all morning long, there has been virtually dead silence on the other side of the aisle. Then we hear comments that are made about, well, this really isn't that important, and there are more important issues for us to talk about: homeland security, the budget, appropriations, and the like. But I concur with the comments made this morning by the present occupant of the chair, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that there is no issue more important in this country today than the American family and preserving the traditional institution of marriage as the most basic building block in our society, one created for children in their best interests. You know this common theme, that this issue is not important; it is not one that has been demonstrated by the lack of presence on the Senate floor by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or even the overt comments made about this not being an important issue. We have had numerous hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I am honored to chair, and other committees in the Senate. Essentially, we have been met with either overt hostility or, in many instances no-shows, where Senators have chosen to boycott a good-faith desire to have an honest discussion about this issue and the threat that has been posed to the traditional family. I, for one, am shocked and amazed at the attitude. Unfortunately, it is the reality we confront today and which the American family confronts. Of course, I have been concerned about this issue, as I think most Americans have been, for a long time. But I note that in January of 1999 when I served as Texas Attorney General, one of my responsibilities--it was one of the few attorney general offices that had this responsibility--was child support enforcement. It was my obligation, my duty, my privilege to enforce child support orders for about 1.2 million Texas children. It is no secret to any of us that due to the growth of out-of-wedlock childbirths now--about one out of every three children born in America are born outside of marriage; unfortunately, a fact that we all bemoan but a real and present reality--that half of the marriages end in divorce; that the American family is in fragile condition. That is one reason I was so concerned when on May 17, 2004, we saw an assault launched on the American family and the institution of marriage. But the truth is, we should have seen this coming. There were a few people who did, but most did not. I worry that the American family will not be able to sustain itself against this continued attempt to marginalize the importance of traditional families and the importance of every child having a loving and supportive mother and father, which we all know as a matter of common sense, a matter of observation, and as a matter of social science is the optimal situation for a child to be raised and grow up in. I would be the first to say that there are heroic parents--single parents and children living in other arrangements--that adults do a heroic job of raising children in other-than-traditional family households. I congratulate them, and we ought to do everything we can to support them in every way we can because we know the optimal is not always possible. But that shouldn't cause us to shy away from or refuse to defend the importance of the traditional family unit as the optimal situation in which children are born and raised into productive adults and have a chance to live up to their God-given potential. We know that, as a sad fact of social science, children who are raised in a less than optimal situation through no fault of their own are at higher risk, that they are at higher risk of a host of social ills. We hope and pray that they may overcome these higher risks. But we know, tragically, that too many cannot. We see the evidence of that with dropout students who fail to pursue their education because they simply drop out of school, children who become involved in drugs and other self-destructive activity, children engaged in premature sexual experimentation and pregnancy, and other problems that affect their ability to grow up as fully productive and contributing citizens. So we should not shy away from this debate when it comes to talking about what is optimal, what is in the best interests of American children and American families. I believe that fundamentally is what this debate is about. Some people have asked me, Why is it that some seem to shy away from this debate? I will tell you this: I think part of the reason is that some people just prefer not to be called names or to have their motives cast in doubt. But I will tell you this: I believe with all my heart that the people of this country believe in two fundamental propositions in addition to others. No. 1, the American people believe in the essential dignity and worth of every human being. At the same time, I think the American people overwhelmingly believe in the importance of traditional marriage and the traditional family as the bedrock institution of our society and in the best interests of children. I don't think there is any conflict there. I think you can believe in both at the same time. This is not about phobias. This is not about a desire to hurt anyone. This is a discussion--an important discussion that we ought to have and we are going to have about the institution of the American family and traditional marriage as the optimal situation. I fail to see how any one of us can remain neutral or on the sidelines when this debate is going forward. Indeed, we did not choose to engage in this debate at this time on this amendment. There is a difference between launching an attack and acting in self-defense. The American people know the difference. But I believe we must answer the call to action now on behalf of the American family. It was on May 17, 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared traditional marriage--remember these words because these are important--``a stain that must be eradicated.'' The Supreme Court, four members, the majority of that court, called it invidious discrimination to limit marriage to persons of the opposite sex, what we call traditional marriage. They said ``limiting traditional marriage between members of the opposite sex lacks any rational basis.'' As has already been noted and as we observed on cable television and the nightly news, this attack on the family and on traditional marriage that occurred in Massachusetts was joined by lawless officials in San Francisco and elsewhere around the country. Soon the American people saw same-sex unions occurring on our television screens, in our newspapers, and reported on the radio. Tragically, it is not the adults who pay the price for the marginalization of marriage as our most basic societal institution, it is our children who pay and pay and pay some more. Social science confirms what common sense and simple observation dictate: When the institution of marriage is marginalized, children are at higher risk, as I mentioned before. In short, they are at higher risk for the sort of consequences that will follow them for the rest of their lives. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court, following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which I will discuss briefly in a minute, launched into this radical social experiment in redefining the institution of marriage, we have some glimpse of what that experiment may yield by what social scientists have been able to evaluate in Europe and elsewhere. We have seen what happens when government pretends this problem does not exist until it is too late. We cannot afford to look back years from now and say we stood idly by while the American family was marginalized into irrelevance. How did we get here? How in the world did the Massachusetts Supreme Court, on May 17, 2004, decide that traditional marriage was a stain that must be eradicated, represented invidious discrimination, and had no rational basis? They did not dream it up on their own. The origins of this language and this rationale for that decision came from the case of Lawrence v. Texas. I have excerpted a segment of Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority of the Court because this is the germ, this is the seed out of which this concept has grown and which now, as I have stated, threatens to jeopardize the American family, further marginalizing the American family and, indeed, the traditional institution of marriage. Relying on an earlier decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the due process clause. For nonlawyers, they were relying on this earlier decision and said that they were reaffirming the basis of that decision here. The Court went on to say: The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and traditions afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In this following sentence, stated in the same place where they talked about the liberty interests that protect marriage, they conclude by saying: Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, it was this juxtaposition of marriage and this right of individual autonomy in one's relationships that extends not just to heterosexuals in marriage but also to homosexuals in their relationships that is the basis for the Court's decision here. Not surprisingly, that was the very case cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Goodridge case when they held that traditional marriage was a stain that must be eradicated, that it represents invidious discriminations to allow heterosexuals to enter into that relationship but not homosexuals, and said that limiting marriage to traditional marriage between persons of the opposite sex had no rational basis. Of course, the American people have not had a chance to express their views on this issue. As was pointed out eloquently earlier, neither did the people of Massachusetts. As it turned out, when the people of Massachusetts had the chance to have their voice heard on this issue, they chose to overrule the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The problem is in Massachusetts a constitutional amendment takes two consecutive sessions of the legislature, and they cannot amend the constitution until 2006 in that State. In the meantime, as we all know, since May 17, clerks have been ordered to issue licenses for same-sex marriages, and this pending constitutional amendment of 2006 is too late to effectively let the people's voice be heard and control this debate. We have seen what some have called ``government by the judiciary.'' We believe in our fundamental constitutional documents. Our Constitution provides for government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not government of the judiciary, by the judiciary, and for the judiciary but government of the people, by the people, and for the people. When we see an overturning, in essence, of the Massachusetts Constitution, 224 years after it was written, by a radical redefinition of marriage by a majority on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, it amazes me some of our colleagues would expect us to stand on the sidelines, mute, and expect us to be mere spectators in what is perhaps one of the most important debates we could possibly be having in this body or anywhere else around this country, and that is the preservation of the American family and the preservation of traditional marriage as the most important stabilizing factor in our society in a relationship that is most important for the raising and nurturing of children. Some have suggested that this is not a Federal issue, this is not something the U.S. Congress should have anything to do with. Some have said in good faith--I think naively so but in good faith--well, let Massachusetts deal with that; that does not affect us. As already has been pointed out, people have married in Massachusetts under Massachusetts law and moved to 46 different States. Indeed, there are a number of lawsuits--I think at last count roughly nine lawsuits, maybe more--where those persons, same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts, have moved to other States and filed lawsuits seeking to require those States to recognize the validity of those marriages even though the laws of those other States do not recognize same-sex marriage. As was pointed out a little earlier, we should have seen this coming. It has been coming for quite some time. It really did not start with Lawrence v. Texas. Some of the most well-known legal scholars in the United States, such as Laurence Tribe, have been advocating this position all along. He concludes after Lawrence, as he did beforehand, that this was the death knell for traditional marriage in America. But he said, ``You'd have to be tone deaf not to get the message from Lawrence that anything that invites people to give same-sex couples less than full respect is constitutionally suspect.'' That is what left-leaning liberal legal scholars have been saying for some time and what the Supreme Court embraced in Lawrence and now we have seen carried to the next step, the logical conclusion, by the Goodridge court in Massachusetts. But I guess what causes me such disappointment at the absence of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and of their statements-- those who have come to the floor and those who have shown up in committee--is saying this is not an important issue, that there are more important issues. This is not a partisan issue. The reason I say that is because in 1996 the Congress passed--indeed, the Senate passed, by 85 votes--the Defense of Marriage Act which, as a matter of Federal law, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Now what I fear is our colleagues who oppose this amendment, who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act--they understand the Defense of Marriage Act is under threat and that a constitutional challenge will be made to the Defense of Marriage Act based on this Lawrence rationale. Indeed, that has already occurred in the States of Utah, Florida, and Nebraska, a Federal constitutional challenge that says: Your laws that limit marriage to traditional marriage, a marriage between one man and one woman, now violate the Constitution, using the very rationale I described earlier in Lawrence, agreeing, perhaps, with Professor Tribe. We are told this is not important, this is not worthy of debate, and there are other things that are more important. I disagree. I think the American people, when this finally begins to sink in, will disagree as well. Some people have asked me: Why is it there is not a greater popular uprising and outcry about this issue? Well, I remember when we saw people getting married in San Francisco, same-sex couples there, and in Massachusetts, there was sort of a blip on the radar screen. Polls showed that the American people, once they realized what was going on, disapproved of what they saw. But, of course, we are all busy raising families and going to work, and this perhaps has not been something that has been sustained in their consciousness and their awareness. But, indeed, this is an important issue and one that is under attack. Some have said, though: Why can't we let Massachusetts do its own thing? And why can't each State decide for itself what its policy will be? Well, we have seen, because of same-sex couples getting married in Massachusetts and moving to other States, that is not possible. Realistically that is not possible. If you think about another aspect of what we call family law--let's say the law of adoption--if one State says you can adopt a child under certain circumstances, when that family moves to another State--when they move to Texas, Utah, or somewhere else--we recognize the validity of that adoption, of that family law decision. What I believe is some of our colleagues, indeed some of the American people, are, No. 1, in shock at this radical transformation in our society's most basic institution. Secondly, after shock, people sometimes are in denial. They do not want to believe it. They do not want to think they are going to have to deal with it. And then, after a while, the reality begins to sink in that this is indeed something that needs to be addressed. There are some who said: Well, if this is such a threat, why can't we wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court joins the Massachusetts Supreme Court in saying you cannot limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, based on this rationale and the logical conclusion of the language I have already described? As you know, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. We have some history, some track record of how long it takes the process to go forward. It requires, of course, as you know, a two-thirds vote in the Congress. It requires ratification by three-quarters of the States. In other words, it takes a little time. Some amendments have been adopted and ratified in as short as 8 months, but typically they take a little bit longer. So what people are saying--if they want us to wait until after the Federal courts declare traditional marriage unconstitutional, if they want us to wait until that time to raise this constitutional amendment--they are, I suggest to you, inviting the same sort of chaos we are seeing happening in Massachusetts. Because once same-sex marriages occur, if months and maybe years later the Constitution is amended to reinstate the status quo of traditional marriage, it may very well be too late. So I will conclude, because I see the distinguished Senator from Alabama in the Chamber, who I know has been waiting to address this issue. This is an important issue. This is an issue that deserves serious debate by serious people. This is an issue that cannot be limited to one State. And this is an issue the American people deserve a right to be heard on through the amendment process. I would say, in conclusion, there are some who say the U.S. Constitution is a sacred document and should not be amended. If the American people do not exercise their rights under Article V of the Constitution to amend the Constitution as they see fit--given that high bar, and given the deliberation that is required in order to meet that high standard--the only people who are going to amend the Constitution are judges--Federal, life-tenured judges who are accountable to no one. I submit that is antidemocratic, it is contrary to the concept of self-government that is ensconced in our Constitution and was embraced by our Founding Fathers, and simply will not stand up under any close scrutiny. The whole concept that Federal judges ought to be the only ones to speak on what the laws are that govern us is antithetical to a constitution that guarantees government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Finally, I would say we have on this last chart a statement of intent by those who intend to pursue legal action across the country until they reach their ultimate goal: We will not stop until we have [same-sex] marriage nationwide. This was stated by a spokesperson for Lambda Legal, which is an organization that supports much of this concerted legal action across the country in State and Federal courts, the logical conclusion of which is the judicial mandate of same-sex marriage. I look forward to the additional debate and the words offered by my colleagues on this subject. I hope those who have a different view will have the courage to come here and tell the American people why it is they think the preservation of the American family and the preservation of traditional marriage is unimportant. I think we can have a pretty good debate. I hope they do not choose, instead, to stay in their offices or at home and hide from this issue. This is simply too important to the kind of country America is and the kind of country we will become. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yes, on all points.

Mr. CORNYN. Section 3 addresses a serious piracy issue facing the movie business: the use of camcorders in a motion picture theater. Sad to say, there are people who go to the movie theater, generally during pre-opening ``screenings'' or during the first weekend of theatrical release, and using sophisticated digital equipment, record the movie. They're not trying to save $8.00 so they can see the movie again. Instead, they sell the camcorded version to a local production factory or to an overseas producer, where it is converted into DVDs or similar products and sold on the street for a few dollars per copy. This misuse of camcorders is a significant factor in the estimated $3.5 billion per year of losses the movie industry suffers because of hard goods piracy. Even worse, these camcorded versions are posted on the Internet through ``P2P'' networks such as KaZaa, Grockster and Morpheus--and made available for millions to download. The goal of our bill is to provide a potent weapon in the arsenal of prosecutors to stem the piracy of commercially valuable motion pictures at its source.

Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely not. The offense is only applicable to transmitting or copying a movie in a motion picture exhibition facility, which has to be a movie theater or similar venue ``that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture.'' In the example of Best Buy--the store is being used primarily to sell electronic equipment, not to exhibit motion pictures. For the same reason, the statute would not cover a university student who records a short segment of a film being shown in film class, as the venue is being used primarily as a classroom, and not as a movie theater.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from Vermont because I do think the characterization he gave to some of what has gone on is at least incomplete. I disagree with some of his conclusions, and I want to point out why because I believe the Members of this body deserve to have a complete picture and at least have the benefit of considering alternative conclusions from those drawn by the Senator from Vermont. I have the high honor of serving on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Certainly, the Senator from Vermont is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, but I would remind this body that the Senate Armed Services Committee, under the leadership of our chairman, has been investigating the Abu Ghraib prison situation and the interrogation practices and policies of the U.S. Government since at least May 11. We have had a series of hearings there which have been very helpful in understanding both the nature of the problem and the nature of the investigation that is ongoing, ultimately, hopefully, leading up to a conclusion as to who did what, whether there were, indeed, as there appears to be, some violations of American policy with regard to the interrogation of detainees, and, of course, to hold the guilty accountable. That is what we are: We are a nation of laws. We believe in the rule of law. We believe the law applies equally to everyone, no matter how high up in the chain of command you are or how low you are in the chain of command. And I believe we will be true to our ideals in that regard. But I would say that much of what the Senator from Vermont has suggested needs to be produced is sort of in a vacuum of sorts, without the benefit of a lot of what the Senate Armed Services Committee has already done, to find out what happened, what the policies were, what the circumstances were, whether this represents an aberration or whether it represents something worse. To date I would say it is pretty clear that what we saw, as a result of a handful of actions on behalf of American soldiers, was an aberration. And thank goodness. There is no question, though, that these soldiers lacked the proper training and, indeed, the proper leadership. Those are chain of command problems and ought to be taken as high as they go as a result of the investigation. But as the Presiding Officer knows, there are at least six different investigations into the circumstances at the Abu Ghraib prison. We need to let that process run its course to find out what the facts and circumstances are. As I recall, we are awaiting the report of General Fay and perhaps others. We ought to get to the facts and not succumb to the temptation during an election year to overly politicize what is going on. While we have always respected the rights and the civil liberties of every American, we also need to be concerned about the rights and the health and the welfare of our young men and women who are serving our Nation so nobly in the battlefield. That requires the ability to get good, actionable intelligence. The present occupant of the Chair was there at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. General Jeffrey Miller testified on May 19. I asked him at that hearing: In your opinion, General Miller, is the military intelligence that you've been able to gain from those who have recruited, financed, and carried out terrorist activities against the United States or our military, has that intelligence you gained saved American lives? General Miller said: Senator, absolutely. Then I asked General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander: And would you confirm for us, General Abizaid, that that's also true within the Central Command? And General Abizaid--who I think all of us, as we have come to know more about him, have come to admire him and his leadership capacity-- said forthrightly: Senator, I agree, that's true. I would also like to add that some of these people that we are dealing with are some of the most despicable characters you could ever imagine. They spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to deliver a weapon of mass destruction into the middle of our country. And we should not kid ourselves about what they are capable of doing to us. And we have to deal with them. It is very important to keep in proper context what is going on and the fact that we are at war, a war not of our choosing--of course, we were attacked--but a war that we must and we will finish. I want to point out another thing that is important to the overall context of what the Leahy amendment seeks to get. That is, we have two cases currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hamdi and the Padilla cases, where the U.S. Supreme Court will tell all of us in America what the law requires with regard to the treatment of unlawful combatants, including one who happens to be an American citizen, Jose Padilla, but who joined arms with the enemy, with the terrorists who seek to attack and to kill Americans on our own soil. And that advice, that direction is forthcoming. It could literally come down, of course, any day now, since the Supreme Court's term is about to expire. The characterization my colleague from Vermont gave to these memoranda is not accurate. As a matter of fact, as the Senator may recall--and maybe he said this; I didn't hear it--the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against issuing a subpoena but then authorized the chairman and perhaps the ranking member to engage in discussions with both Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, and Attorney General Ashcroft to determine what legal memoranda they might be willing to voluntarily provide the committee. So we voted against issuance of the subpoena. But whether it is the Bybee memo that has been discussed and covered by so much of the press, that is 50 pages long, or whether it is any of the other memos the Department of Defense and Department of Justice released yesterday, they reveal not a coverup but a careful, deliberate, and scholarly approach to determining what, in fact, the law requires. If, in fact, as the folks who are suggesting there is some sort of coverup or some sort of policy of abuse--either one of direction or in terms of creating an atmosphere where it should happen--these memos that have been released completely refute that idea of lawlessness that they are seeking to spin. I am deeply disturbed by the increasingly politicized nature of the debate on the war on terror. We are at war against a people who will stop at nothing to kill innocent Americans. We paid the price for not aggressively pursuing those terrorists and this information in the past, at least since 1993, with the bombing of the World Trade Center. But after 9/11, our Nation found itself at war with a new kind of enemy from whom we need information, actionable intelligence, that can mean the difference between life and death for our troops and our citizens. As I said a moment ago, there have been many baseless allegations that the Department of Defense has used torture during interrogations as a matter of policy. But what happened at Abu Ghraib was not an administration policy, not DOD policy, not CENTCOM policy, or any other official policy. It was completely beyond the pale of acceptable behavior, and those responsible will be held to account and will be punished. As recently as yesterday, President Bush made the following comments: We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being. Yet despite these unequivocal comments from the Commander in Chief, political opponents of this administration continue to allege, without foundation, that our Nation's leaders somehow support the use of torture. It is important to remind some of our colleagues that, again, the purpose of these interrogations is to gather intelligence consistent with our values, which means no torture and humane treatment of all detainees. The interrogations we have conducted in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay have saved American lives. I believe it is critical that we continue to aggressively, within the limits of the law and humane treatment, seek actionable intelligence and continue to save American lives. Unfortunately, it seems there is an irresistible impulse to score cheap political points by criticizing the careful, deliberative process the administration undertook to ensure that those very important interrogations were conducted within the law. The techniques of our Armed Forces, including those used in Iraq or at Guantanamo Bay, can hardly be described as torture. I, like a number of other Members, have traveled to Guantanamo Bay to observe for myself, because I was concerned. I was interested. I wanted to learn how we are handling these people who have recruited, trained, and financed terrorist activity against the United States and, if given the opportunity to do so, would do so again. For some reason, there are certain Members, and indeed certain elements of the press, who are trying to convince the American public that making a suspected terrorist stand for 4 hours, or giving them only 4 hours of sleep constitutes torture. They want them to believe that poking someone in the chest with a finger or changing their sleep patterns or meal selection is cruel or inhumane. Let me read quickly some of the approved methods of interrogation which some of the critics claim is torture: Asking straightforward questions; incentive/removal of incentive; emotional love, which is playing on the love a detainee has for an individual or group; playing on the hatred an individual has for a individual or group; something called fear up harsh; fear up mild; reduced fear; pride up and ego up; pride and ego down; futility, which is invoking the feeling of futility of a detainee; the we-know-all technique, convincing the detainee that the interrogator knows the answers to the questions he is asking the detainee; establish your identity, or convincing the detainee the interrogator has mistaken the detainee for someone else; repetition approach; file and dossier, or convincing the detainee the interrogator has a damning and inaccurate file, which must be fixed; rapid fire questions; silence; change of scenery down; dietary manipulation. For example, it says in this approved memorandum, a change from hot rations to MREs. That is hardly something that could be said to constitute torture. Next is environmental manipulation, or adjusting the environment to create moderate discomfort; sleep adjustment; false flag; and isolation. These are not torture under anybody's definition. These are legal and humane methods of extracting information from terrorists. It is an affront to our men and women in uniform to accuse them of torturing terrorists when the reality is our policy calls for all detainees to be treated humanely. The time has come to ask at what point does this largely partisan and media-driven witch hunt so damage and detract from the mission of our troops in the field that it irreparably harms U.S. interests, including our ability to collect life-saving intelligence? Because of the onslaught by some on Capitol Hill--a fact not lost upon our enemy--agencies have been forced to disclose procedures al- Qaida and other terrorists now train and use to defend against, which is creating a roadmap. Plain and simple, interrogations save lives. The interrogations we have conducted over the past 2\1/2\ years have saved lives of soldiers in the field and innocent civilians at home. It is high time we get our priorities straight. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the interest of time, I will not belabor the point. I wanted to add my voice to that of Senator Hutchison commending this fine nominee, Jane Boyle, to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud today to cast my vote in the affirmative for Jane J. Boyle who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She presently serves as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. Judge Boyle has a long and distinguished career of public service and is well qualified to return to the bench having served as United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Texas from 1990 to 2002. In addition, she served a previous term as United States Attorney, Northern District of Texas from 1987 to 1990, and was an Assistant District Attorney in the Dallas County District Attorney's Office from 1981 to 1987. Judge Boyle is imminently well qualified, as the ABA has rated her. More importantly, there is bipartisan consensus of those who know her and work with her. Moreover, she has garnered the respect of her colleagues and those who work for her. Most notably, she has gained the respect of the Dallas community, including folks from the entire political spectrum. I ask unanimous consent to have a related article printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesy in allowing me to speak briefly against this amendment which, as we have heard, prohibits any funding both for a feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator and for the advanced concepts initiative. My concern is the premise upon which this amendment is offered. If the events of the last decade have taught us anything, it is that weakness invites aggression by those who see that as an opportunity to terrorize or otherwise wreak havoc on innocent civilians in this country and elsewhere. The concept that we should somehow prohibit important research--and this amendment would eliminate research because, of course, production is prohibited by current law--the suggestion and the logic, if there is any, that by somehow blinding ourselves to the threat and the means to overcome the threats that surround us in an ever dangerous world is beyond me. If we have learned anything in the last decade from the time of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 to the bombing of our American embassies in Africa to the Khobar Towers incident to the bombing of the USS Cole, it is that weakness in the eyes of terrorists and rogue nations invites aggression. I wonder from where the sense of moral equivalency comes that we often hear in this debate. There are those who have said time and again that if we are to try to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, how can America then conduct research on the robust nuclear earth penetrator and on those areas covered by the advanced concepts initiative? But I wonder if those who are making these statements truly believe America's research on such weapons systems to protect ourselves and to defend ourselves is somehow the equivalent of the actions of rogue states and terrorists. Moral equivalency is simply wrong. There are those who suggest that somehow by conducting essential research into hardened weapons like the robust earth nuclear penetrator, that may perhaps be able to protect our country and assist us in exposing hardened bunkers, which can contain command and control or perhaps even biological or other weapons of mass destruction research facilities, that we will start a new arms race. I detect a hint of perhaps the old cold war mentality that somehow they believe we will enter into some sort of arms race which will endanger the world. The truth is, America, as a fraction of its GDP, spends more on defense than the next 20 nations in the world. We are the only superpower that exists in the world and there is no risk of an arms race such as we saw occur with the former Soviet Union. So this is merely a matter of allowing us to do the basic research into weapons that would allow us to protect ourselves against hardened and deeply buried targets where laboratories could store or produce weapons of mass destruction. We can conduct research on these weapons as a way to protect ourselves and indeed make America safer. Finally, this amendment would eliminate the advanced concepts initiative. It is important to reiterate what that initiative will do. The initiative focuses on increasing the reliability, safety, and security of our existing nuclear weapons stockpile. It focuses on assessing the capabilities of our adversaries to ensure we avoid a technological surprise. It focuses on thinking up innovative methods for countering our adversaries' weapons of mass destruction and developing weapons systems requirements, and it focuses on evaluating concepts to meet future military requirements. I fail to see the wisdom of our willingness to blind ourselves to emerging threats in a very dangerous world. As I say, our weakness, our willingness to disarm ourselves and blind ourselves to the danger that surrounds us is an invitation to those who see that as a means for them to use terrorism to accomplish their political goals in this world in which we live. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment today. I thank the manager of the bill for this time and I yield back any remaining time to him.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will approve S. Res. 378, designating today--June 14, 2004--as the National Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Day. The resolution, which I introduced earlier today, is cosponsored by several of my fellow Judiciary Committee members--Senators Feinstein, Craig, Grassley, Chambliss, Graham of South Carolina, and DeWine. I thank them. For Americans across the land, today is a special day. First of all, today is Flag Day. This morning, I was honored to attend a Flag Day commemoration event at VFW Post 2494, located in the city of Grand Prairie in my beloved home State of Texas. Flag Day is the anniversary of the Flag Resolution of 1777. It was officially established in a proclamation by President Woodrow Wilson on May 30, 1916, and on August 3, 1949, President Harry S. Truman signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. I look forward to Flag Day every year, because--as today's resolution notes--Flag Day gives Americans across the land the opportunity to remember and reaffirm that the United States flag is a unique symbol of the United States and its ideals. Millions of Americans instinctively look to the United States flag with reverence, in times of national crisis and triumph alike. No other American symbol has been as universally honored as the United States flag. The United States flag has always played a unique role in honoring the men and women of the Armed Forces who have died in defense of the United States. To the countless families of loved ones who have died in defense of the United States, the United States flag is a treasured possession and a poignant memory of their loss. But today is also special for another reason. As the resolution also notes, today is the 50th anniversary of the modern version of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge has come under attack in recent years, however. Two years ago, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Federal court of appeals based in San Francisco, ruled in the case of Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2002), that the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution forbids public school teachers from leading willing students in the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, simply because the pledge confirms that our Nation was founded ``under God.'' Most Americans were alarmed by the decision, and rightly so. In response, a majority of the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights filed the first amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the pledge on the merits. The Senate legal counsel also filed a brief defending the pledge on behalf of the entire U.S. Senate. Clearly, members of both parties reject the views of the Ninth Circuit, the ACLU, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and instead believe in the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Just last week, the subcommittee convened a hearing, entitled ``Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square.'' At that hearing, scholars testified that our courts have become so hostile to democracy and to religious expression that they object even to patriotic references to God, such as those contained in the pledge. Let us be clear: There is nothing unconstitutional about pledging allegiance to the flag. And thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit decision in the Newdow case just this morning. The Court did so, however, solely on procedural grounds--leaving for another day a determination by the Supreme Court as to whether it agrees with the Ninth Circuit's decision striking down the Pledge as unconstitutional. I am glad to see that at least three members of the Supreme Court-- Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Thomas-- specifically acknowledged the constitutionality of the pledge in their opinions this morning. Their expressions follow a long line of statements in previous Supreme Court decisions supporting the Pledge. See, e.g., Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 440 n.5 (1962) (Douglas, J., concurring) (``The Pledge of Allegiance . . . in no way run[s] contrary to the First Amendment but recognize[s] only the guidance of God in our national affairs.'') (quotations and citations omitted); Sch. Dist. of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring) (``The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance . . . may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded `under God.' Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact.''); Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668, 676 (1984) (``There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found . . . in the language `One Nation under God,' as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year.''); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 78 n.5 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (``In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge . . . serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.' ''); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-3 (1989) (``Our previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge, characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief.''); see also Sherman v. Community Consolidated Sch. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992) (upholding constitutionality of school district policy providing for voluntary recitation of the Pledge). However, the other five Justices of the Supreme Court--Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer--did not see fit to join the other three Justices in supporting the constitutionality of the pledge. They appear to have remained largely silent on the issue. I hope that they are not sending a signal with their silence--a signal that they may strike down the pledge in some future case. Certainly, by reversing the Ninth Circuit on solely procedural grounds, they effectively reserve for themselves the opportunity to strike down the pledge in a future case. The majority opinion does state that, ``as its history illustrates, the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles.'' This passage suggests that the majority would uphold the Pledge of Allegiance against constitutional attack under the establishment clause. I hope that that is ultimately what the Court will do. I hope that the Court will ultimately vote to uphold and protect the Pledge of Allegiance. I am not so optimistic about the Court voting to protect the flag itself, however--as I wrote in an op-ed published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram just this morning, a copy of which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. To be sure, from the founding, of our Nation until 1989, the power to protect the flag was not in doubt. In Smith v. Goguen, 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, that ``nothing prevents a legislature from defining with substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of United States flags.'' Justice Byron White stated in that same case that ``[i]t would be foolishness to suggest that the men who wrote the Constitution thought they were violating it when they specified a flag for the new Nation. . . . There would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial. . . . The Flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection.'' In Street v. New York, 1969, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that ``the States and Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' Justice Hugo Black wrote in that same case that ``[i]t passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate burning of the American Flag an offense.'' And Justice Abe Fortas noted that ``the States and the Federal Government have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration committed in public.'' More recently, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice John Paul Stevens, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have all expressed their belief that nothing in the first amendment prohibits protection of the flag. Accordingly, until recently, 48 States have had laws on the books protecting the flag--most of them patterned after the Uniform Flag Act of 1917. The Federal Government enacted its own law in 1967. And Congress reaffirmed that law in 1989 with the support of 91 Senators. This historic power to protect the flag was eviscerated in 1989, however when the U.S. Supreme Court issued the first of two decisions, both decided by a bare 5 to 4 majority, declaring that flag desecration constitutes speech protected by the first amendment. See Texas v. Johnson, 1989, and United States v. Eichman, 1990. Legal scholars agree that the flag protection amendment is the only way to restore the law as it existed for most of our Nation's history. Constitutional amendments are the only way for the American people to reverse judicial constitutional decisions they reject. The Eleventh, Fourteenth, Sixteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth amendments were all ratified in order to reverse judicial decisions with which the American people disagreed. So I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the flag protection amendment, S.J. Res. 4. That resolution was introduced by Senator Hatch and by my Democrat cosponsor of today's resolution, Senator Feinstein. The amendment states simply that ``[t]he Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'' I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the flag protection amendment, because I firmly believe that the flag occupies a unique place in our Nation and deserves constitutional recognition as such. Of course, the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and thankfully so. And of course, the requirement that constitutional amendments be approved by two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-fourths of the States guarantees that the liberties we hold dear will not be taken away, just because we have acted today to protect the U.S. flag against physical desecration. Moreover, the first amendment itself already contains exceptions. For example, the law does not allow individuals to yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater--even though such laws do impose a burden on the freedom of speech, albeit a minor one. Likewise, the vast majority of Americans agree that the Nation is better off when our flag is protected. The House has approved the flag protection amendment five times in the past five Congresses--including just last year. All 50 State legislatures have approved resolutions asking Congress to give them the opportunity to vote on the amendment. The last time that the amendment was brought to a vote on the Senate floor, in 2000, 63 Senators voted in favor of it--just four votes shy of the necessary two-thirds. I urge my colleagues at least to give the States the opportunity to consider this amendment. And I urge my colleagues at least to give constitutional recognition to the importance of the United States flag to millions of Americans--even if they ultimately would oppose implementing legislation to protect the flag against physical desecration. After all, the flag protection amendment does nothing more than to recognize that the United States flag occupies a unique position as the symbol of our Nation and, accordingly, deserves constitutional recognition as such. The amendment would empower Congress to take action to protect the flag, but it would not require Congress to do anything whatsoever. There are many ways to express one's political views. But there is only one United States flag--and it deserves constitutional protection. I look forward to the debate over the flag protection amendment, and I look forward to a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court affirming for all time the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. Until then, I am pleased that, because of the Senate's action today, today will forever be known as the National Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Day. Exhibit 1 [From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 14, 2004] Our Banner Deserves Constitutional Protection (By John Cornyn) For Americans everywhere, Flag Day is special. And today we mark not only the annual celebration of the U.S. flag but also the 50th anniversary of the modern Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. flag is a uniquely powerful symbol of our nation and of our commitment to freedom and democracy. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable that our democratic system of government to date has not properly protected it. A June 2 hearing of the Senate subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights got to the heart of this problem. Legal scholars testified that our courts have become so hostile to democracy and to religious expression that even patriotic references to God, such as those contained in the Pledge of Allegiance, are being wrongly struck down by the courts. Let's be clear: There is nothing unconstitutional about pledging allegiance to the flag. Yet a federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down the pledge anyway simply because it acknowledges that our nation was founded and exists ``under God.'' The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether the First Amendment forbids schoolteachers across America from leading students in voluntary recitation of the pledge. The vast majority of Americans believe that the pledge is constitutional and reject the views of the 9th Circuit Court and the American Civil Liberties Union. A majority of the Constitution subcommittee members filed the first amicus brief in the Supreme Court defending the pledge on its merits. Many legal observers predict that the Supreme Court will reverse the 9th Circuit's decision. The same cannot be said, however, for protecting the flag itself. The ability to protect the flag against physical desecration was not in doubt throughout most of American history. For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court held that ``nothing prevents a legislature from defining with substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of United States flags.'' Congress' power to protect the flag has also been supported by Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist and Justices Byron White, Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor. This power, however, was eviscerated in 1989 when the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 majority that flag desecration constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment. The flag deserves constitutional protection, and legal scholars agree that the Flag Protection Amendment is the only way to restore the law as it existed for most of our nation's history. That is why the Constitution subcommittee recently approved the amendment, and the full committee is scheduled to vote on it this month. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, and rightfully so. The requirement that constitutional amendments be approved by two-thirds of each chamber of Congress and three-fourths of the states guarantees that the liberties we hold dear will not be taken away just because the American people decide to take action to protect the U.S. flag against physical desecration. The House has approved the Flag Protection Amendment five times in the past five Congresses--including just last year. All 50 state legislatures have approved resolutions asking Congress to give them the opportunity to vote on the amendment. The last time that the amendment was brought to a vote on the Senate floor, in 2000, 63 senators voted in favor of it-- just four votes shy of the necessary two-thirds. This year, the prospects for passage could be even better. In times of national crisis and triumph alike, it is the U.S. flag that Americans look to with reverence. No other American symbol has been as universally honored. In a time of war, it is even clearer that the flag plays a unique role in honoring the men and women of the military who died for the ideals that the flag represents. If a soldier dies in defense of our nation, the United States gives the family a flag in honor of that service. To countless families, the flag is a treasured possession and a poignant memory of their loss. There are many ways to express one's political views. But there is only one United States flag--and it deserves constitutional protection.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the whole world knows by now, America and the world lost a great man, Ronald Reagan, last Saturday. After battling Alzheimer's disease for the last 10 years, he finally succumbed and left this life for the next. This week, in this Senate, on television, in the newspapers, and all around the world we will hear people talking of their memories of this great man and what a difference he made in this country and to freedom- loving people all around the world. I offer a few of my own comments in that regard out of respect for him and his family and the great example he was for all who believe in freedom, hope, and opportunity. Ronald Reagan, perhaps during his entire political career, was underestimated. He was written off by some as an actor or by some as a nice man but maybe not particularly effective. Because he was a man of good humor who loved a good joke, some thought he could not and should not be taken seriously. The fact is, Ronald Reagan demonstrated for everyone how a serious person--that is, someone who believes deeply in their principles, indeed in the principles upon which this country was founded, and who is willing to put themselves out in the public domain and to argue and fight, sometimes to lose but sometimes to win, in advocacy of those principles--Ronald Reagan reminded us that a good man, indeed a kind human being, a gentle person, a loving husband and father, can also survive in this sometimes difficult, some might even say ugly, world of electoral politics. In many ways, his death gives another reason to remember that politics today seems in many ways to become personal, so adversarial. Indeed, it need not be. There is no reason why individuals cannot disagree about public policy and differing points of view. There is no reason they cannot do that without becoming personal and hurtful. I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who once said that a person who reverts to name-calling simply has run out of anything else to say. Indeed, what we ought to be focused on is the policies we believe are in the best interests of the American people and avoid the sort of personal acrimony and hurt which too often seems a characteristic of our modern politics. Ronald Reagan taught us you can be a successful politician, you can rise to the greatest heights in our system--indeed, to be the leader of the free world--and still keep your good humor, still treat every person with dignity and respect, and still show the milk of human kindness to others. The one thing that made Ronald Reagan such an attractive person in public life was his basic principles. Indeed, there are some who underestimated him his entire political career. What they failed to appreciate was the power of his convictions and the ideals for which he stood. One of those convictions was putting people first. Ronald Reagan said putting people first has always been America's secret weapon. It is the way we have kept the spirit of our revolution alive, a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and to take great risks for a greater good. I know Ronald Reagan has been touted as a great man. I believe he was a great man. But he never considered himself to be a great man, merely a man committed to great ideas. He also was sometimes criticized for being too much of a dreamer, but he made no apologies about that. He said: There's no question I am an idealist, which is another way of saying I am an American. But when I think of the policies of the Reagan administration and the successes of what some have called the ``Reagan Revolution,'' but which I think in many ways was not revolutionary as much as it was a restoration of our basic principles upon which this country was founded, I think of the fall of communism and the subsequent liberation of tens of millions of people who had known nothing other than oppression and tyranny and dictatorship, and, also, the resurgence of the American economy. First, so far as his role in the fall of communism, although he was a genial, friendly, humor-loving optimist, he was a hardnosed realist when it came to the terrible impact and consequences of communism on people across this globe. Indeed, he knew it was important for us to maintain a strong military and made no apologies when it came to the importance of peace through strength, not going hat in hand to our allies or our enemies asking them to do us a favor but recognizing that America has a unique role in the world as the one remaining superpower, after the fall of the Soviet Union, and recognizing the failure of communism as an alternative to freedom and democracy. But it was, in large part, his commitment to rebuilding our military and peace through strength and hardnosed negotiating across the conference table with various opponents of our country and leaders of other countries that caused freedom to reign for tens of millions of people who had never known freedom due to the fall of communism. The other thing he believed in was the freedom here at home. He believed that big government was the enemy of individual freedom, and that if, in fact, we were going to be able to continue to enjoy the kind of prosperity and opportunity that has been synonymous with America, we needed to get a handle on big government. Indeed, when Ronald Reagan became President, it is hard to believe now, but the highest marginal income tax rate was 70 percent. By the time he left office, it was 28 percent. Today it stands at 35 percent. But Ronald Reagan understood, as all Americans understand--all folks outside of Washington especially understand--that in order to grow the economy you do not tax it more, you cut taxes, because only then can you provide the incentive for the individual American worker to work hard, save their money, invest their money, perhaps in their small business, and then create jobs and opportunity for others who may not have those jobs or that opportunity. It was by growing the economy, by providing that incentive for work and investment and savings and risk taking that we have all been the beneficiaries of that new economic freedom was brought in, in modern times, by Ronald Reagan's leadership. Most of all, I think my memories of Ronald Reagan center around his call for us to believe in ourselves once again, to believe in America again, and believe in the ideals we all identify with this great country of ours. America is different from virtually every other country in the world in that it was founded on ideals, on an ideal of liberty and justice for all, something not shared by any other country in the world that was formed or based on history or collective experience. But, of course, our country was formed on the basis of these ideals, and Ronald Reagan believed in them fervently and, more importantly, he fought for them, even against those who suggested that perhaps it was not possible for America to be great again. There were those who suggested that somehow America's greatest days were behind us. Ronald Reagan never believed that. He always believed America's greatest days lay ahead of us. And indeed they do, even today. He understood and preached, perhaps better than anyone, that big government and high taxes are the enemy of individual freedom, that smaller government and lower taxes would be an incentive to work and savings. I mentioned a moment ago his belief in the individual initiative of risk takers, of entrepreneurs, of those who would take the risks, make the investment, and create jobs for the American people. At one point he said: Too often entrepreneurs are forgotten heroes. We rarely hear about them. But look into the heart of America, and you will see them. They are the owners of that store down the street, the faithful who support our churches, schools, and communities, the brave people everywhere who produce our goods, feed a hungry world, and keep our homes and families warm while they invest in the future to build a better America. Now, those who only saw the genial, friendly, humor-loving side of Ronald Reagan did not know the entire man. As I mentioned, behind that genial countenance was a man of strong principle and a man as tough as they come. For example, when the air traffic controllers defied a back- to-work order, he fired them, emphasizing the fact that the greater good is always paramount and more important than special interests. Of course, he survived an assassin's bullets with great humor, telling his wife, ``Honey, I forgot to duck,'' and expressing to his physicians, the ones who saved his life in the emergency room: ``I hope you're all Republicans.'' With every fearsome challenge he encountered in life, he met it with good humor, humanity, kindness, and optimism in a way that inspired and continues to inspire the American people, which, to me, will be one of his greatest legacies. He also taught us that politics can be a noble calling. Unfortunately, today, it seems that is forgotten too often and people ask: How in the world can you be involved in politics and be a good person? How can you believe in doing the right thing and be involved in politics since it is all about getting reelected and raising money and a fight for power? But, indeed, Ronald Reagan exemplified the fact that a good person, with strong convictions, committed to great ideals and the principles upon which this country was founded, can be successful in life and in politics, which, indeed, he was as the leader of the free world. Mr. President, as the Nation grieves with his family, we also celebrate the life of this great man, a quintessential American whose hopes and dreams knew no bounds. Ronald Reagan loved America, and America loved him back. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, symbols are important. Symbols, even more than our words, are powerful communicators of intent, of value, and of commitment. We know, for example, what the pictures that have recently come to light of the abuse of a few Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison have communicated in a way that mere words could not. Indeed, out of all of the terrible consequences of that criminal activity by a few, there has been a positive. I believe that positive is, No. 1, the commitment of the Department of Defense, from the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, all the way down to the troops in the prison themselves, to make sure we get to the facts, that we hold those guilty accountable, and that we do so in a public way which demonstrates that in a democracy we do things in a way that people can judge for themselves whether they are being handled appropriately. I trust by the time we get through with these investigations--about six of them in all--and by the time the prosecutions of the seven who have been charged with criminal conduct, misconduct, and possibly others who will be charged as well, by the time we get through, the world will see our commitment to the rule of law and to minimum standards of human decency. When I think about symbols, I also think about, for example, what has happened in Madrid with the attacks on the trains there which killed many of that country and which, in the eyes of some, caused Spain, because of the election, to pull their troops out of Iraq. We know there is very likely a different explanation for the outcome of that election, but I am haunted by the words of GEN John Abizaid, commander of the central command, including Iraq and that whole troubled part of the world, who said al-Qaida was emboldened as a result of the reaction that they perceived occurred by that attack. That is another example of how symbols are enormously powerful in ways that it is hard for us to articulate or explain in mere words. I would like to also talk about another symbol that I think is very important for us, beyond the perseverance that we see, and that Senator Hatch talked about so eloquently, of our troops in the battlefield who have put themselves in harm's way to protect us and to liberate the Iraqi people. I believe there is another important symbol that we can send which will tell our enemies that we are absolutely committed to defending ourselves against terrorism. That is the legislation that has been filed today by Senator Kyl of Arizona, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This bill is one page in length. It is very short. I believe it is a powerful symbol. If we act, as I believe we should, to adopt this legislation, that would send a powerful message to our enemies that we remain committed to defending ourselves in this new and dangerous world we live in since 9/11 and that we have not lost our resolve in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else where the war on terrorism rages. This bill that has been filed would simply do this: It would take the USA PATRIOT Act, which has a sunset provision that causes a number of elements of that bill to expire at the end of next year, and it simply repeals that sunset provision, thus making the USA PATRIOT Act a permanent part of our laws. Yesterday, we heard from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who voiced strong support for renewing the PATRIOT Act, which this would do. He said, for 2\1/2\ years the PATRIOT Act has proved extraordinarily beneficial in the war on terrorism and has changed the way the FBI does business. Many of our counterterrorism successes, in fact, are the direct result of provisions included in the act, a number of which are scheduled to sunset at the end of next year. I strongly believe it is vital to our national security to keep each of these provisions intact. Indeed, Director Mueller is not alone. We heard bipartisan support in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, which is studying lessons learned from that terrible event in our history and the aftermath, of what it is we can do to make our country stronger and to defend ourselves from the extremists who simply want to kill us and eliminate our way of life. One by one, from former FBI Director Louis Freeh to former Attorney General Janet Reno to Attorney General John Ashcroft--just to name a few--they touted the impact of the PATRIOT Act in reducing the wall that prevented information sharing between criminal investigators and our counterterrorism intelligence officials. They talked about how important the PATRIOT Act was in bringing down that wall that prevented information sharing at the Federal level. As a former State law enforcement officer myself, I can tell you, since 9/11, another thing that has made America safer is not just greater information sharing at the Federal level, between Federal agencies, but indeed it has also been the information shared with State and local law enforcement officials. Director Mueller made that point again yesterday about how important it is that we work collectively, using all of our resources at the State, Federal, and local levels to make sure we protect this country and keep our citizens safe. I ask unanimous consent that excerpts of quotations from a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, which I have reduced to one sheet, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with this background and context, you might wonder who would possibly object to this legislation that would repeal the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act. Some might say, well, if the PATRIOT Act provisions are not set to expire until the end of next year, why now? My response is, why not? Indeed, if we want to send a powerful message that we have maintained our resolve and commitment to defend our country against the scourge of terrorism, this would be a powerful symbol, a powerful message that this body could send that our commitment is strong, that we will maintain our resolve, and we will fight the war on terrorism and defend ourselves from those who would kill our innocent civilians in this country and elsewhere; that we will maintain that resolve and we will fight until the very end. So I think it is very important that we pass this legislation. Let me also mention, there is a bipartisan consensus which appears throughout Washington and throughout this country about how important the PATRIOT Act has been to protect American citizens; that there are those who would use the tactic of fear to try to convince the American people--or at least some segment of the American people--that the PATRIOT Act jeopardizes their civil liberties. I must say the debate about the proper balance between civil liberties and security is not a new one. It is one that we have had since the beginning of this country, where we have attempted to strike that balance, where the Founding Fathers, when they gathered in Philadelphia, debated long and hard about how to maintain our civil liberties but at the same time provide the Federal Government enough power to do the things that only the Federal Government can do, such as protect our national security. So it is not a new debate. I think, indeed, the debate is healthy. But it bothers me when we begin to see those who would use scare tactics to mislead the American people about their civil liberties being in jeopardy because of the existence of the PATRIOT Act. Indeed, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, with whom I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, if they could document a single instance--just one--of the civil liberties of the American people being in jeopardy or being trampled upon because of the PATRIOT Act. She said it was reported back to her that they could come up with none. Zero. Zip. That troubles me a great deal because of another thing I would like to mention, which is a solicitation I happened to receive in the mailbox at my residence from the American Civil Liberties Union, which attempted to use the PATRIOT Act as a fundraising tool by scaring the reader, saying that somehow the PATRIOT Act was jeopardizing their civil liberties, and indeed the only way the American people could protect themselves against the trampling of their civil liberties was to send money to the ACLU so they could fight against the PATRIOT Act on behalf of our civil liberties. That solicitation troubled me a great deal. I cannot honestly say that it surprised me because we know that fear is a powerful motivator and, indeed, there are those who use fear to raise money for a variety of purposes. But I think it is important that the facts be known, and the fact is what Senator Feinstein pointed out before the Senate Judiciary Committee; that when put to the test and asked to document a single instance of a violation of the civil liberties of any American citizen as a result of the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the ACLU could not come up with any. So it is deeply disturbing but perhaps not surprising to see them take a contrary position, one designed to help them raise money and grow their membership in a mail solicitation sent to my home and, no doubt, to many other people in this country. We also know that there are those in the political arena who would use the PATRIOT Act to scare the American people into believing that somehow President Bush, the Republican leadership in this Congress, or perhaps even Attorney General John Ashcroft who has taken a solemn oath to defend the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, indeed including the PATRIOT Act, that they would use the PATRIOT Act to scare people and to cause them to question the commitment of the leadership of this Nation of providing for the security of the American people, but at the same time question their commitment to protecting the civil liberties of the American people. It is discouraging to see that sort of rhetoric. Ultimately, I believe the American people--they get it. If given the facts, they will make their own decision, and it will be a good decision based upon factual information. The problem is when people misstate the facts or simply mislead the American people and provide them false information, it is hard to reach the right conclusion if you do not have accurate information. That is why I sought to stand here today and talk about what the facts really are. One last example I will give you, Mr. President, is about how much this rhetoric of fear, the scare tactics have been successful. I believe at last count, there were 317 city councils across this country, the governing body of cities across this country, that have passed resolutions condemning the USA PATRIOT Act because they fear that the existence of the act has somehow compromised the civil liberties of their constituents. I say that because it is a grave concern when public officials use the bully pulpit that we are provided by virtue of our office to provide their constituents with false information, whether wittingly or unwittingly, and it would be my sincere hope that each of those 317 city governments would reconsider their decisions in light of the information I have shared with you this afternoon and that others would be glad to share with anyone. The truth is, we are a diverse country. We have different experiences. We come from different regions. We have different traditions in many ways, but we are all Americans. We are all committed to our national security and the protection of our people, just as we are dedicated to the protection of the civil liberties of every American. While we may have a variety of opinions about the wisdom of this or any other legislation or any other course of action, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to mislead the American people about the facts. In conclusion, if this body were to take up this legislation quickly, as I hope it will, and were to pass this legislation that would repeal the sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act, which would otherwise cause portions of the act to cease to exist at the end of next year, if we were to pass this legislation in a consensus, bipartisan fashion, it would send a powerful message to our enemies that our determination remains strong, that we remain resolved to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people, whether it is by defending them from the terrorists who would strike us at home by breaking up terrorist cells, by getting good intelligence and other information we need in order to defeat the terrorists before they can attack, such as they did so tragically on 9/11, or whether the issue is our resolve to finish the job we have started in Iraq and to honor those who have sacrificed so much to protect our national security and to make sure that the blessings of liberty are exported beyond our borders to the people of Iraq who have previously known only oppression and tyranny at the hands of a terrible tyrant such as Saddam Hussein. I thank the Chair for the time I have been given to talk on this important subject. Exhibit 1 Senator Baucus (D-MT): ``I believe the bill we passed today balances the needs of protecting the country from terrorism and protecting our rights as citizens of this great country.'' (Senator Baucus, Press Release, October 25, 2001) Senator Schumer (D-NY): ``If there is one key word that underscores this bill, it is `balance.' ... The balance between the need to update our laws given the new challenges and the need to maintain our basic freedoms which distinguish us from our enemies is real.'' (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001) Senator Schumer (D-NY): ``[T]he scourge of terrorism is going to be with us for a while. Law enforcement has a lot of catching up to do. There is no question about it. In this bill, at least, we give them fair and adequate tools that do not infringe on our freedoms but, at the same time, allow them to catch up lot more quickly.'' (Senator Schumer, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001) Senator Levin (D-MI): `[T]he antiterrorism bill [Patriot Act] which the Senate is about to pass reflects the sentiments the American people have expressed since the events of September 11--that we must act swiftly and strongly to defend our country without sacrificing our most cherished values. The Senate antiterrorism legislation meets that test. It responds to these dangerous times by giving law enforcement agencies important new tools to use in combating terrorism without denigrating the principles of due process and fairness embedded in our Constitution.'' (Senator Levin, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001) Senator Daschle (D-SD): ``This reflects the balance between protection of civil liberties and privacy with the need for greater law enforcement.'' (Leon Bruneau, ``U.S. Senate Passes Anti-Terror Bill, Sends it to Bush for Signature,'' Agence France-Press, October 25, 2001) Senator Biden (D-DE): ``The agreement reached has satisfied me that these provisions will not upset the balance between strong law enforcement and protection of our valued civil liberties.'' (Senator Biden, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001) Senator Feinstein (D-CA): ``As we look back at this massive, terrible incident on September 11, we try to ascertain whether our Government had the tools necessary to ferret out the intelligence that could have, perhaps avoided those events. The only answer all of us could come up with, after having briefing after briefing, is we did not have those tools. This bill aims to change that. This bill is a bill whose time has come. This bill is a necessary bill. And I, as a Senator from California, am happy to support it.'' (Senator Feinstein, Congressional Record, October 25, 2001)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator for those kind comments.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say, while the Senator from Utah is here, how much I appreciate his wise words on so many subjects that are important to our country and to our culture and to American families. He has spoken eloquently about the importance of persevering in Iraq, the importance of traditional families as the bulwark of our culture and in the best interest of children, and the importance of making sure we keep the American military the dominant force in the world by making sure we transform in particular our Air Force by the implementation of the F-22 Raptor which, not coincidentally, is built in part in the State of Texas which is important both for our national security and in terms of the jobs it creates in my State. I say to the Senator how much I appreciate him and his wisdom and his great leadership on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on May 17th, this Monday, the State of Massachusetts will begin to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples so they may marry. This rather surprising development, particularly for those who have not been following the events in Massachusetts over the last few months, is not the result of the vote of the people of Massachusetts. Once a court decision--which I will speak more about in a moment--was handed down, which compelled State officials and local officials to issue these licenses to same-gender couples, there was an attempt made to amend the Massachusetts Constitution. The first step in a three-step process has been accomplished and if that constitutional amendment is ultimately passed in 2006, it will ban same-sex couples from marrying. But because of the structure of the constitutional amendment process in Massachusetts, the court order takes effect Monday, May 17th. Essentially the people of Massachusetts are left out of governing themselves. They have been subjected to a court edict and their views considered irrelevant. When we held the first of three Judiciary subcommittee hearings on this issue last September, that was before the Massachusetts Supreme Court had made this ruling. It was a 4-3 decision, holding that the Massachusetts Constitution barred any restriction on marriage license issuance to exclusively one man and one woman. The issue that we raised last September was, Is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in jeopardy? We had witnesses on both sides, some of whom concluded yes, it was, and some who concluded no, it probably was not. I suggest the passage of time has proved the accuracy of the prediction of those who said yes, it is in jeopardy--that their views seem to be correct, while those who say no, it is not, appear to be wrong. Because the Massachusetts Supreme Court is the only state supreme court in the Nation that has ruled marriage licenses must be issued to same-sex couples, there are many people, many well-intentioned people who say this is a local issue, and others--perhaps not being as informed as they might be about constitutional law--say this is surely only going to be confined to one State. They say that this is an issue that ought to be handled on a State-by-State basis and requires no action by the Federal Government or by our elected officials in Congress. I submit the evidence is becoming increasingly clear this is not a local phenomenon, nor is this a matter that can be addressed on a State-by-State basis. This is a national issue that requires a national response. As we all recall, shortly after the decision in Massachusetts, the mayor and other officials in the city of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in that city--not just people who lived in that city but people who traveled to that State from other States. The New York Times has reported in at least 46 cases out of those several thousand illegal marriages, that took place in defiance of California State law--there is the potential now for lawsuits in 46 states filed by those individuals who were married in San Francisco who then moved back to their State of residence. In all but four states, the seeds are there for lawsuits to be filed by couples demanding that the court compel their State to recognize the validity of same-sex marriage. In addition, there are lawsuits that are pending now in Nebraska, in Utah, and most recently in Florida, asking the court to hold as a matter of Federal constitutional law that restrictions on marriage only as between a man and a woman violate the Federal Constitution. It is important to look back at what the first signal was that traditional marriage was in jeopardy when it came to the courts. It goes back to a decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Lawrence v. Texas. This was a case that struck down the anti-sodomy provisions of Texas law. The most remarkable thing about that decision is not the result, it was how the Court got to that result. Indeed, as many predicted, the Court overruled the decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld the anti-sodomy law of Georgia years ago. But in this case, the Court not only struck it down on an equal protection basis-- Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court, created a new constitutional right: To be free in one's intimate sexual and personal relationships, such that he held the Constitution now prohibited any sort of restriction by legislation or by official policy on those intimate relationships between adults. Indeed it was predicted at that time, I believe it was Justice Scalia in dissent, who said this was the first step toward a ban on traditional marriage. Lawrence v. Texas was a Federal constitutional decision that was one of the bases upon which the Massachusetts Supreme Court interpreted its State constitution to require same-sex marriage in that State, a rather ominous succession of events. It is an ominous situation for those of us who support traditional marriage and believe it is important to our society and to our children. Now, there are those who want to say this debate that has ensued over same-sex marriage is designed to be hurtful or harmful to those who might take advantage of the opportunity to marry same-sex couples. I want to make clear that is not true. I believe that Americans instinctively believe in two fundamental propositions: First, we believe in the essential worth and dignity of every human being. Yet at the same time, we also believe in the importance of traditional marriage. It is no accident that it was not until 224 years after the Massachusetts Constitution was written and ratified, in 1780, that an activist supreme court mandated same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, contrary to the wishes and the will of the people of that State. As I say, now this is not just a local issue, nor a State issue; indeed, this is a Federal issue, requiring a Federal national response. So in all sincerity, I reiterate that those of us who argue in favor of a remedy to ensure the protection of traditional marriage do not do that with an intent to disparage anyone personally. But we do believe that traditional marriage is a positive good for our society, as the most stabilizing and positive influence on family life in this country, as well as being in the best interests of children. The fundamental question we are going to have to address, sooner or later, is who will define marriage in the United States? Will it be the American people, or will it be activist judges who are reading a newly found right into a Constitution that for the last 200 or more years has not included that right, or at least it was a right that went undiscovered by activist judges prior to this time? Put another way, the question is, are the deeply held convictions of the American people when it comes to the importance of traditional marriage irrelevant? I suggest to you the answer is no--unless, of course, we are giving up, after all this time, on what Lincoln called ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' So the question is, what do we do? What do the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States of America do, those who believe in the fundamental importance of traditional marriage for the stability of families and for the best interests of our children? What are we to do to respond? Well, the majority of States have responded but I would suggest to you in a way that does not protect them anymore when it comes to the definition of traditional marriage. And that is, a majority of the States, back in the middle of the 1990s, passed what are called defense of marriage acts, which defined marriage as exclusively an institution between one man and one woman. Congress itself, as a matter of Federal policy, passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act. But it is that very statute, that very law, that very expression of the national will that has now been challenged most recently in a Florida Federal district court, claiming that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. The only response I know of, to judges who are basically making the law up as they go along, or trying to write their own personal or social agenda into the Constitution and to deny the American people the fundamental right of self-government, is a constitutional amendment. I know--and we all know--the American people have been historically reluctant to amend our Constitution. In fact, it has only happened 27 times in our history. But it is important to recognize, at the same time, that there is written into that very same Constitution a mechanism, under article V, which allows two-thirds of the U.S. Congress to vote on an amendment, which is then ratified by three- quarters of the States. This allows the American people to retain their fundamental right to determine what kind of nation America is and what kind of nation it will become, even against a judiciary run amok. There are those I respect a great deal in this body and elsewhere who would suggest that the Constitution is sacrosanct. Indeed, we put our hand on the Bible and we pledged to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States when we were sworn into this body. But I submit that we take an oath to the whole Constitution, not just part of it, including article V, which provides a procedure for amendment so that the Constitution can continue to reflect the will of the American people. I suggest to you that the Constitution is not a holy covenant to be interpreted or amended by nine high priests on the U.S. Supreme Court. These judges do not have the exclusive rights to the Constitution. We, the American people, do. And sometimes--and this may very well be one of those times--it may be necessary for the American people to reclaim their right to determine what kind of nation we are and what kind of nation we will become, particularly when it comes to an issue as fundamental as traditional marriage. If, out of ignorance or apathy, we sacrifice our right to self-government, we have allowed the very nature of our Nation to be altered, and that would be very tragic indeed. So I say in conclusion: this is a very serious matter. It ought to be discussed rationally and seriously in a dignified and civil manner, with enmity toward none, but with a desire on the part of the American people, who believe in the importance of traditional marriage and its benefit to our society--we ought not to be afraid to stand up and say so. Nor should we be deterred by those who might be less civil, be less dignified and less temperate in their remarks. Indeed, we know that can occur. But it is my hope that as we go forward, and particularly as we mark this watershed event in America's history on Monday, May 17, with the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Massachusetts by virtue of court edict and not a vote of the people. This is a matter that will not go away, and ultimately the American people will insist that we deal with it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that Meredith Mino, a member of my staff who does not currently have floor privileges, be admitted to the floor for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Missouri for his advocacy on the part of his constituents and, indeed, all the American people, to make sure more have access to good quality health care. I will talk about the work of the task force created by Majority Leader Frist, which was chaired by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. This work, over the last number of months, promised a lot in terms of new ideas and new approaches. It will help make sure health care is accessible to more Americans. It is amazing, but we spend in this country somewhere between $1.4 trillion and $1.7 trillion on health care. That is a lot of money, even in Washington. Most people cannot even get their minds around what $1 trillion is. I promise you, I cannot. But I do know that is an enormous amount of money. If we ask people who should know about it, they will say there is enough money in the health care delivery system in the United States of America to make sure everyone has access to health care. The problem is what we call sometimes a ``health care system'' is not a system but a patchwork of different delivery methods. It is a local taxing jurisdiction, hospital districts, using property taxes in some States, of course supplemented by other taxes, and of course there is Federal Government-provided health care available, partially, at least, through the CHIPS Program, through Medicaid and through Medicare. We do know there is a tremendous challenge to make sure everyone in this country has access to good quality health care. Those who do not have health insurance represent one of the biggest challenges. One of the things we have learned is this is not so much a challenge of getting everyone insurance. The real question is, How do we make sure everyone has access? Even for those who do not have health care insurance, we need to make sure they have access to health care. Right now the irony is the Federal Government has already gotten into this area and mandated if you have nowhere else to turn for health care, you know you can always show up at the local emergency room at your hospital and get that health care provided. If you cannot pay for it, it is provided without charge to the patient. The problem is, in many major metropolitan areas on any given Friday or Saturday night, when the demands on the emergency room are great, many emergency rooms are on divert status, which means they cannot take anymore patients because they are full. However, 80 percent of those people being treated in emergency rooms could be and should be more humanely, more efficiently, and less expensively provided health care in some other setting--in a clinic, for example. One of the most amazing things about our health care delivery system in our country, while we do compensate--although some argue it is not as generous as it should be--we do compensate health care providers for providing health care to people after they are sick, we do a pretty lousy job of trying to give people access to what they need in order to prevent their getting sick. We have made good strides forward with the Medicare bill we passed last year to provide prescription drugs to many seniors who did not have that. Of course, this Medicare discount drug card Senator Talent talked about is an interim step that leads to the full implementation of that program in a couple of years when the vast infrastructure can be created to deliver that system. For example, for someone who has not previously had access to a drug like Lipitor, one of the statin drugs--and there are a number of them; that is just one trade name--that perhaps can prevent someone from having to have more expensive, invasive, and dangerous surgery, either bypass surgery or angioplasty or perhaps placement of a stent, or something that costs a lot of money to treat if the basic cause that could be prevented is left untreated through the use of prescription drugs. We have made a great step forward to broaden the number of people, to increase the number of people preventive measures are available to. That is smart. We ought to continue along that trend. Mr. President, I ask to be reminded when I have 1 minute remaining of my time. One of the things I believe is a great safety net in this country, that I have come to learn about and see used so well in my State, is federally qualified community health centers. The great thing about community health centers is they provide clinical--that is, nonemergency room--access to health care in your neighborhood, where you pay based on a sliding scale, based upon your ability to pay. These are actually designated health centers by the Federal Government. They have access to a number of important programs, for example, the Federal 340B Discount Pricing Program. This task force recommends that program be expanded to more people, so we can bring down the price of prescription drugs. But these community health centers provide, on a sliding scale, access to care in one's local community, which I think is very important. I was told by the head of Parkland Hospital, one of the largest public hospitals in Dallas, TX, for example, that people show up in the emergency room to have a baby, where they have no health insurance. Because they have no health insurance, and may never have seen a doctor before they show up in the emergency room, the risk of injury to that baby--either it being born prematurely or some other health risk--goes up exponentially. Even though they do not receive any income for it, Parkland Hospital routinely provides prenatal care for mothers, on a free basis, even though they do not get a penny paid by that pregnant mom. One reason is because they know the cost of 1 day in the neonatal intensive care unit at the Parkland Hospital costs about $10,000. Now, of course, I would like to say we would do that from our sheer desire to see healthy babies, but, unfortunately, money drives access. My point is, in this instance what Parkland Hospital, in Dallas County, has decided to do in a way to help control costs is to ensure more healthy babies are born who do not need access to the neonatal intensive care unit, as they provide free prenatal care to these pregnant moms. But community health centers can make sure this pregnant mom has access to somewhere other than the emergency room of the hospital in which to get that important prenatal care. We also would increase, as part of this task force report, the number of medical volunteers by extending critical Federal tort claims act liability coverage. This is an area that I think is very important.

Mr. CORNYN. That is very important because the medical liability crisis in this country does not only hurt doctors and hospitals, but it hurts patients who are denied access to health care. One of the issues we have to deal with--I know the leader has brought it up several times, and we have been unable to get 60 votes to get an up-or-down vote on the merits of the legislation--is medical liability reform. Whether it is increasing access to specialty care, increasing the number of federally qualified community health clinics, increasing access to prescription drugs by extending the Federal 340B Program, or creating an exemption so religiously sponsored health systems can create community health systems, integrated health systems, we have to do something about this crisis in this country. It is a crisis of access, not only of insurance. But I think we are well on our way to a good start. I yield the floor.