John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is no secret that every Senator who comes to Washington, DC, comes with a few select issues in mind which he makes his own, and which he takes a particular interest in. For me, open and transparent government has been one of those issues. From my time as a Texas lawyer, supreme court justice, and attorney general I know firsthand the importance, but also the difficulty of creating and enforcing open government and the free flow of information. I have always taken to heart, however, the words of James Madison, who once declared: ``The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.'' Of course, I have the advantage of coming from Texas, one of the strongest States in terms of free information and open government. In Texas, it is a matter of principle that everyone should be able to quickly and easily find out what their government is doing and how. That is why I was so pleased last week when the Senate passed the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government, or OPEN Government Act of 2007. Now, the House has likewise passed this important bill, and I eagerly await the President signing it into law. I have to thank my colleagues, the chairman of the Judiciary committee, Senator Leahy, and Lydia Griggsby of his staff; Senator Kyl, and Joe Matal of his staff; and two of my former chief counsels, James Ho and Reed O'Connor. Without their hard work, we wouldn't be celebrating this legislative victory today. I have spoken on several occasions in this Chamber about the importance of reforming and updating the Freedom of Information Act, so that undue delays and onerous burdens which plague American citizens looking for information that they by right should have. After 40 years of FOIA there still remain pending requests for information more than a decade old. And many requests result in costly and drawn out lawsuits which effectively prevent the average citizen from receiving the information they deserve. This bill will restore this most fundamental principle of a free and informed citizenry. It reinforces Lincoln's notion of a government ``of the people, by the people, for the people,'' placing information back in the hands of Americans. It is nothing short of a victory for democracy. This bill restores meaningful deadlines with real consequences to the FOIA system, ensuring Government agencies will provide timely responses to requests. It creates a new system for tracking pending FOIA requests and an ombudsman to review agency compliance. At the same time it closes loopholes and strengthens FOIA law ensuring all journalists have equal access to information. These reforms are long overdue, and are but a part of creating a government focused on openness. Still, I look forward to the President signing this bill and pacing the way for a culture of transparency in America. In my home of Texas, we have worked hard to establish the ideals of openness and transparency, and I know that the Nation can follow suit. It is in everyone's best interest to throw a little more sunshine on Washington, DC.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for what I think is an outstanding product--a bipartisan product. I can't think of an area that is more important for us to act in the interests of our national security in a bipartisan manner than the subject before us today. We should resist with all of our might any impulse or tug that we might feel to emphasize partisan differences, but instead we ought to pull together to try to do what is necessary to keep our eyes open and our ears to the ground when it comes to the collection of foreign intelligence. Of course, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 to ensure that Americans' civil liberties were being protected. At the same time, we made sure we were able to listen to our enemies, which has become even more important today with terrorists taking advantage of the Internet, cellular phones, and other means of communications, and it is critical that we continue to take advantage of every opportunity to detect and deter future terrorists attacks on our own soil. We were told last August by the Director of National Intelligence-- this has been widely published since--that because of some of the archaic provisions in the FISA law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and because it had not kept up with changes in modern technology, that we were being blocked from receiving as many as two- thirds of the communications of one foreign terrorist to another foreign terrorist because of the way these calls were being routed. We were told time and time again that the burdensome requirement of getting the paperwork necessary in order to get a FISA authorization in cases where the Congress never intended to require that sort of authorization, which was required because of these changes in technology, that it was actually causing delays in our ability to get timely information in a way to protect our country and our men and women in uniform serving in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. We know the ability to obtain the right information at the right time is of critical importance in our struggle against radical Islamic terrorists who hide among civilian populations and who don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. They don't wear a uniform. They don't recognize a chain of command or the laws of war. They hide among civilian populations and quietly plot deadly attacks against civilians--innocent men, women, and children--as they did on September 11, 2001. I serve on the Judiciary Committee, so I am very much aware of some of the arguments made during the time we considered this bill on a serial referral against providing immunity to the telephone companies that have cooperated with the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and the intelligence community in facilitating the collection of this actual intelligence. Mr. President, I think the Intelligence Committee version got it about right. Why in the world would we want to do anything to discourage private citizens, whether they be individuals or corporate citizens, from cooperating in the security interests of our country? This is perhaps analogous to a police officer who knocks on your window and says, I need your car to go capture a dangerous criminal before they do harm to somebody else. Well, if an individual were worried that they would be sued as a result of their being a good volunteer and a good member of the community in allowing a law enforcement officer the use of their car to capture a dangerous criminal, do you think they would be more inclined or less inclined to cooperate with the lawful authorities? I think it is pretty clear that they would be far less inclined. If we don't do everything in our power--and it is within our power-- to encourage individual and corporate citizens to cooperate in the security interests of our country, then shame on us. To tell them that you are going to have to endure ruinous litigation costs, that you are not even going to be able to defend yourself because some of the evidence is the subject of a State secrets privilege, and you are not even going to be able to explain what you did, while at the same time suffering the reputation damage that they could very well suffer if their participation was known in other parts of the world, is not fair. It is not fair to them and, even more importantly, it is not fair to us because to fail to give them the immunity for their cooperation with the lawful request of the President of the United States, after the Attorney General, the country's chief law enforcement officer, has said this is a lawful request, to fail to give them immunity and protection against that ruinous litigation and damage to their reputation is less than responsible. I think the thing more likely to protect our security from this point forward is to show citizens who cooperate with the lawful authorities of the U.S. Government to help keep us safe that they are going to be protected against litigation and the vast costs that could be associated with it--not to mention the potential that classified information might become public and be known to our enemies. It makes absolutely no sense not to give that immunity to these individuals and these corporations. The Protect America Act, which is scheduled to sunset in February, moved our intelligence capabilities in the right direction. But now we need to make those tools permanent. Changes in technology, combined with a court ruling that hampered the intelligence community, required that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be updated. That is what the Protect America Act was, although it was a temporary patch of about 6 months. Now we need to make those provisions permanent and take this opportunity to further expand and enhance the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make sure it works in the security interests of the American people, while taking the appropriate protections on American citizens here at home. In the period between the court ruling that required the Government to obtain FISA orders for foreign intelligence that happened to pass through the infrastructure in the United States and the passage of the Protect America Act, collection of foreign intelligence information decreased by two-thirds. That is what prompted Congress to act in August without further delay, the likelihood that being blind to two out of every three communications between terrorists would likely make us less safe and would make it more likely that they would be successful in killing innocent Americans and our allies. Common sense informs us that this great drop in the percentage of intelligence collection harms our national security efforts. Of course, as I mentioned, in August we took a temporary patch to close these intelligence gaps and clarify that the intelligence community does have the authority to monitor communications of foreign individuals without receiving a court approval first. Now is the time for us to make that authority permanent. It has never been required, in listening in to foreign subjects talking to other foreign subjects, to get a court order, and the Protect America Act made that temporary fix. We need to make that permanent. Some have made arguments which, in the end, would hamper our intelligence capabilities, requiring procedures never before in place. Intelligence community resources--both funding and expertise--are scarce and should be focused in the manner that best protects our national security. Our intelligence analysts should not be distracted from the important job of listening in and using information to deter further attacks by having to fill out a bunch of paperwork, particularly in areas that Congress never intended that they would have to do so. The Senate and House Democratic Judiciary Committee proposals, I am sorry to say, would greatly hamper our intelligence community. As I mentioned a moment ago, I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and proudly so. Unfortunately, in voting this alternative out of the Judiciary Committee--along strictly partisan lines--I think we failed to meet the standards that were set by the Intelligence Committee version of this bill. Although there are changes that I think need to be made, by and large, the bipartisan vote in the Intelligence Committee--their product was superior to the product out of the Judiciary Committee. The House bill would require court orders for foreign targets in foreign lands--something that has never been required in the 30 years since FISA was enacted and would completely reverse the important reforms, albeit temporary, we made a few months ago. Delays inherent in obtaining court approval could, in fact, put American security interests in jeopardy. Here is a concrete example. This last summer, three American soldiers were thought to be kidnapped by al-Qaida in Iraq. Because of delays in obtaining emergency authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, our intelligence community was unable to set into place surveillance that may have saved the lives of these soldiers on May 12, 2007. There was a 10-hour delay while the authorities did the paperwork necessary for them to listen in on communications they never should have been required to get a FISA order to listen to in the first place--clearly, foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, PFC Joseph Anzack was found dead a few weeks later in the Euphrates River, and an al-Qaida subsidiary claims to have killed and buried SPC Alex Jiminez and PFC Byron Fouty. Those 10 hours of delay, I believe, contributed to the deaths of these 3 American soldiers. If they hadn't been required to wait 10 hours to do the paperwork, I think there was a better chance that they could have been found safely and returned to the arms of their loved ones. One of the key lessons the 9/11 attacks taught us was that we have to do a better job of connecting the dots. Erecting more walls and barriers to the collection and sharing of intelligence material ignores this important lesson and gives our adversaries an unacceptable tactical advantage, needlessly placing Americans in greater danger of another attack instead of doing everything within our power to keep them safe. Unlike members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am sorry to say that House Democrats refused to work with committee Republicans, or with the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. How the House committee--or for that matter, the Senate Judiciary Committee--could hope to fashion a sensible, workable product without consulting with either the Department of Justice or the Director of National Intelligence is beyond me. I congratulate the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on working so carefully, over a long period of time, in consultation with the appropriate authorities, to come up with a bipartisan product--one that I concede is not perfect, but no legislation is perfect. We are going to be talking about ways that I think we can improve even that bill. But the Senate, unfortunately--the Judiciary Committee--saw important suggestions from the Intelligence Community rejected, again, along partisan lines. No attempt was made to craft a bipartisan proposal. Instead, the committee chose to come up with a party-line vote that raised serious operational concerns. By working with the intelligence community, the Senate Intelligence Committee was able to provide the intelligence community with more flexibility in gathering foreign intelligence. This Senate bill will allow the Attorney General to authorize targeting persons outside of the United States to acquire this necessary information. No longer will they be required to go to the FISA Court for an approval to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas. This will ensure that our intelligence community has the agility and the speed it needs to collect actionable intelligence at a time when it counts. The Senate bill does not restrict the types of foreign intelligence that may be collected. It also streamlines the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, providing for more efficient, timely processing of FISA applications. These are only a few examples of the tools the authors of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence learned that the intelligence community needs to make our country safer, simply by working together across the aisle in a way that protects the American people more. They are to be applauded and congratulated for that effort. When the security of our country is at stake, we should consult the very people in the best position to know what they need to make sure that they have the tools necessary, without causing unintended negative consequences. We should learn from the bipartisan lead of the Senate Intelligence Committee and work with them to craft a responsible, bipartisan bill that keeps our eyes and our ears open, allows us to listen to our enemies, and will help us protect Americans against future terrorist attacks on our own soil and in places where Americans are located around the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, aren't prices of gasoline high enough? Why would we want to raise the price of gasoline for the American consumer by raising taxes and the costs of doing business on the people who produce oil and gasoline for the American consumer? That is exactly the argument I think we heard from the distinguished assistant majority leader: Taxes are not high enough on domestic producers of oil and gasoline. I think this vote we had was a very important vote because what we said is we think prices are too high and should not be any higher. We do not believe we ought to depend more and more on imported sources of oil and gas. We believe we ought to produce more domestically, here in the United States. The kind of arguments we hear from the other side of the aisle so often demonstrate a kind of schizophrenia when it comes to a national energy policy, further burdening those who produce oil and gasoline here domestically and then at the same time railing about the high prices. Congress can pass laws, Congress can repeal laws, but the one law Congress cannot repeal is the law of supply and demand. One of the ways we are going to find our way to a more reasonably priced gasoline at the pump is if we increase the supply. We know we are in a global competition for oil and gas. That is one of the reasons why the prices continue to go up, because supply is not keeping pace. One of the things we need to do is to take reasonable steps to open areas that are now out of bounds to domestic exploration for these precious natural resources--in an environmentally responsible way, as the modern oil and gas industry is capable of doing. It doesn't do any good to rail against big oil or to try to use any sector of the economy as a political football when it hurts the American consumer and the American people. I agree with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that it was important that we defeat this tax increase that would raise the price of gasoline at the pump for the American consumer. Now we can come together and work on another important element of our national energy policy and that is conservation. We need to conserve and to use our natural resources more efficiently. That is what the CAFE provisions of this bill will do. Yes, we need to explore and put money into research and development of renewable fuels to try to find new and more efficient ways to limit our reliance on oil and gasoline. But in the near term, we know that is going to be part of the puzzle. We need to explore clean nuclear energy as a source of electricity. France produces more than 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power; for America, it is around 20 percent. We need to get away from the scare tactics and using the energy companies that we are going to have to, in part, rely upon to find our way out of where we are and come up with a comprehensive energy strategy which says, yes, we need to tap into all sources of energy in an environmentally responsible way and a way that will limit carbon production and will help with the issue of climate change at the same time. But we are not going to do it by raising taxes on the domestic oil and gas industry. I would just point out that the competitors, for most of the people whom the majority wants to add taxes to, are competing with people like Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad in Iran, state-owned oil companies that would not be subject to this increase in taxes. So they are literally targeting the domestic producers in a way that will further harm our ability to become less dependent on imported oil and gas. I am proud of the vote the Senate had today. I hope we will go forward and come up with a commonsense, bipartisan resolution on the CAFE and renewable standards portion of this bill, that we will pass the bill and send it to the President for a quick signature. It would be one of the very few areas where this Congress will have actually done something positive here in the last year, and I think we ought to not give up that opportunity but take advantage of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on this side?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time remaining be evenly split between the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CORNYN. To be clear, we have had objections from the majority, from our Democratic friends, to legislation that is vitally important to our veterans and to our active-duty military: the Veterans' Administration and military construction funding bill that was passed by both Houses of the Congress last summer and which has been held up and held hostage to the political games here in Washington, as well as the emergency troop funding that is needed to fund ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, which we have discussed as well. This is a personal issue, as 1.7 million veterans live in my State in Texas. We have 15 major military bases where military families live and work. One out of every 10 active-duty military members who wears the uniform of the United States calls Texas home, and we have guards and reservists who are also serving valiantly in Iraq and elsewhere. The bill which has been blocked by the majority would provide $20 billion in military construction funds important for our troops and quality of life for our military families, and it is important to my State of Texas because of our support for the troops and military families. It contains almost $90 billion for our veterans, which includes their health care, upgrading facilities, money to hire additional claims processors so veterans don't have to wait so long to get the benefits to which they are entitled. As I said, there are about 1.7 million veterans in Texas and they need these funds, and they shouldn't be held hostage to the political games here in Washington with regard to an omnibus appropriations bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am disappointed, and I think the American people are going to be disappointed if we don't deal with the alternative minimum tax, which, of course, was targeted at the ``rich'' when it was passed but which now affects 6 million taxpayers and which, if we don't act, will affect 23 million middle-class taxpayers next year. My distinguished colleague didn't mention the capital gains and dividends tax relief, which has been so important as a stimulus to the economy, which has resulted in 50 months of uninterrupted job growth since we passed that legislation. I hope we will continue to work on that. Unfortunately, given the compression of time due to the squandering of opportunities earlier this year to act on this important legislation, I am afraid we are not going to get it done before we break for Christmas. The IRS is going to have to send out notices to many new taxpayers of their increased tax bill under this AMT, unless we act promptly. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2318, a bill that provides permanent relief from the alternative minimum tax, which extends the 2001 tax cuts and the 2003 capital gains dividends tax relief, and that the bill be read the third time and passed. I further ask that the bill be held at the desk until the House companion arrives, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate-passed bill be inserted, and the House bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask that 2 more minutes be added to our time; otherwise, I have no objection.

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, Mr. President, that the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, be recognized for up to 10 minutes, followed by myself, followed by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and then the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, for the first 40 minutes of our time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. There is an objection, as I explained.

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from New York said he would yield to me at the end of his statement.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator to----

Mr. CORNYN. I would be happy to.

Mr. CORNYN. Well, Mr. President, responding through the Chair, I would say I did attend that meeting, at which time we were told that civilian employees at the Department of Defense would, at about the middle of December, receive a notice that they would be laid off just prior to Christmas because of 60-day notice requirements, and that, in fact, the military was only able to sustain the effort in Iraq fighting al-Qaida--the same people who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001--by moving money from one account to another, causing a lot of disruption, increased expense, and a lot of other problems. I do not know why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, after having 63 votes on Iraq so far, attempting to propose surrender dates and to countermand the orders of our generals in the field, are resisting supporting our troops during a time of war. It is unthinkable to me. So I am sorry they are continuing to block this necessary funding for our troops and putting 100,000 employees at the Department of Defense-- civilian employees--in jeopardy during the holiday season. But I was there, and I did hear those comments, in addition to the comments I have just added.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is objection by Senator Coburn on our side. I asked for a modification, and I have not heard an objection to that.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I personally have no objection to the request, but there is objection by Senator Coburn on our side. But I believe if the Senator would modify the request to include a similar time agreement immediately following the time agreement he has requested on this bill to debate and vote on S. 2340, the troop funding bill, that we might be able to reach some agreement. So I would ask him to modify his request to include that.

Mr. CORNYN. I have asked the Senator to modify--I have asked unanimous consent to modify his request to include a time agreement debate, and a vote on S. 2340, the troop funding bill, as a modification of his unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORNYN. I have not heard an objection to that.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see Senator Coburn on the floor. I believe there is an objection on this side. Perhaps it is appropriate to ask Senator Coburn to respond. But let me just say I believe we could reach an agreement, a time agreement on both bills if the Senator would consider modifying his request. Until we can have a chance to discuss that further, there is objection on this side of the aisle.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am sorry the majority leader has objected. The fact is, unless we act promptly, the Department of Defense will be forced to issue potential furlough notices to almost 100,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense, since they are required to do so at least 60 days in advance--hardly something anyone would welcome during the holiday season. Our Army will be out of funds by mid-February, the Marine Corps by March. This demonstrates almost sort of an attention deficit disorder when it comes to finishing the work of the Congress. We have been on the farm bill. Now we are off the farm bill to do something else without finishing the work before us. I am disappointed, but the Senator does have a right to object. I respect that.

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator modify his request to include the passage of S. 2340, the troop funding bill?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the senior Senator from New Hampshire for bringing this important amendment to the Senate floor. We just heard from the distinguished assistant majority leader, who is one of the best lawyers we have in the Senate. But I want to offer a different perspective; that is, it does not do pregnant women a lot of good to be able to sue for unlimited damages if they are injured in a medical liability case if they cannot find a doctor to take their case or to deliver their baby. Really, what this amendment goes to is, how do we increase access to health care and how do we deal in an area where I know there have been complaints that it only addresses pregnant women and their ability to find doctors? The fact is, if we could get agreement on the other side of the aisle, I think this should be extended to cover all doctors and hospitals and all types of cases. But, as the Senators know, there are issues of germaneness that mean there is only a limited ability to deal with a part of the universe of the problem, and that is why Senator Gregg has offered this legislation--which is called Healthy Mothers Access to Rural Care--on this particular bill. This legislation, as Senator Durbin noted, is modeled after recent reform efforts that have taken place in my State, my home State of Texas. I would like to talk a little bit about the dramatic improvements in access to care that this commonsense legislation has provided. This is the subject of an interesting story in the New York Times, dated October 5, 2007. The title of the story--apropos of my comments a moment ago--is ``More Doctors in Texas After Malpractice Caps.'' I would say to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, this is not about denying people access to the courts and recovery. There is unlimited ability to sue for and recover economic losses as a result of a medical liability incident. But it does place reasonable caps on noneconomic losses, specifically pain and suffering. The good news is, we do not have to guess as to whether this approach works. We know because it has worked in that laboratory of democracy known as the great State of Texas. As I mentioned, this article highlights some of the successes of this legislation passed a few short years ago in Texas. For example, it says: In Texas, it can be a long wait for a doctor: up to six months. [But] that is not for an appointment. That is the time it can take the Texas Medical Board to process applications to practice. In other words, there have been so many doctors moving to Texas who want to get a Texas medical license because of these reforms that the number of doctors has increased dramatically, and, thus, access to care has increased dramatically throughout the State. The article goes on to say: Four years after Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, doctors are responding as supporters predicted, arriving from all parts of the country to swell the ranks of specialists at Texas hospitals and bring professional health care to some long-underserved rural areas. This is particularly important, as the article says, in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology and neurosurgery and other areas where it is hard to find doctors to come to practice because of skyrocketing medical malpractice rates. Well, this reform, in Texas, 4 years ago, and what this amendment proposes are specifically designed to deal with those skyrocketing malpractice rates by providing some reasonable limits on recovery for noneconomic damages. It is fallacious to say it denies people access to the courthouse or recovery. It doesn't do that at all. This article goes on to say: The influx, raising the State's abysmally low ranking in physicians per capita, has flooded the medical board's offices in Austin with applications for licenses, close to 2,000 at last count. It was hard to believe at first; we thought it was a spike, said Dr. Donald W. Patrick, executive director of the medical board and a neurosurgeon and lawyer. But Dr. Patrick said the trend--licenses up 18 percent since 2003--has held, with an even sharper jump of 30 percent in the last fiscal year, compared with the year before. The article continues to talk about the experience of a pediatric neurosurgeon--a high-risk specialty: Dr. Timothy George, 47, a pediatric neurosurgeon, credits the measure in part with attracting him and his long sought- after specialty last year to Austin from North Carolina. ``Texas,'' he said, ``made it easier to practice and easier to take care of complex patients.'' Why would we want to make sure there are more pediatric neurosurgeons or specialists with that kind of ability and training and skills, to make that available to more children who need that skill? That is what this amendment would provide. The article goes on to say: The increases in doctors--double the rate of the population increase--has raised the state's ranking in physicians per capita to 42nd-- Up from 48th in 2001-- according to the American Medical Association. It is most likely considerably higher now, according to the medical association, which takes two years to compile the standings. The Texas Medical Board reports licensing-- More than 10,000 new physicians since 2003, up from roughly 8,000-- in the prior 4 years. It issued a record 980 medical licenses at its last meeting in August, raising the number of doctors in Texas to 44-- Almost 45,000-- with a backlog of nearly 2,500 applications. It is another example of people voting with their feet when we allow conditions to exist that allow doctors to practice their profession in a reasonable environment rather than appear as a victim of the litigation lottery. They are going to come, and more doctors--more high-risk specialties mean more patients are going to get access to the kind of health care they need. We know the opponents of some of this have basically said: Well, people are going to be hurt if you limit noneconomic caps. The fact is the people who are going to be hurt are the patients who are not going to be able to get the doctors. Of course, we can't forget our friends, the trial lawyers, who usually take 40 to 50 percent of every award in a medical malpractice case. I submit that is part of the resistance we have here, because trial lawyers who specialize in these kinds of cases don't want to get hit in the pocketbook. They don't care as much about access to health care as they do their own pocketbook. In some medical specialties-- This article goes on to say-- the gains have been especially striking. For example, an increase of 186 obstetricians, 153 orthopedic surgeons, and 26 neurosurgeons. This is the reason why physicians and health care providers have found it a better place to practice their profession and why access to care has increased as a result. This article goes on to say there was an average 21.3 percent drop in medical malpractice insurance premiums, not counting rebates for renewal. Justice requires that we embrace a national reform, particularly in light of the fact that the American taxpayer, the Federal taxpayer, pays roughly 50 percent of every health care dollar in America today. This is no longer an isolated issue that can be handled or should be handled State by State. We ought to look at the reality, and that is that we need a Federal and national solution too. We are doing fine in Texas because we passed this reform 4 years ago. But shouldn't we make sure that more Americans--particularly more pregnant women--have greater access to health care as a result of this commonsense reform? As a matter of principle, those who have been wrongly injured deserve their day in court. No one is suggesting we ought to close or bar the courthouse door. If a doctor is at fault, he or she should be held fully accountable. But we should also at the same time take care not to destroy our health care system in order to protect unlimited damages and the lawyers who bring those lawsuits. The Texas approach has proven successful. This bill would simply give the same boost to all Americans, particularly those most in need-- particularly rural patients and more particularly pregnant women who need access to an obstetrician and gynecologist to take care of their baby. It would be a shame if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to block, as they have done time and time again, commonsense reform legislation that is guaranteed and proven to give greater access to health care and doctors and to make sure all Americans have access to the best health care possible. I urge all of our colleagues to stand up for better access to rural health care, particularly in obstetrics and gynecology, by passing this important amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.