John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I wish to express my gratitude to the majority leader for his important comments. He brings an expertise to this debate no one else in this body can offer by virtue of his training, education, and extensive practice as a medical doctor in Tennessee. I am not going to speak from the perspective of a doctor because I am not one. I am going to speak from the perspective of a patient because, like it or not, I will be one at some point in my life, and from the standpoint of other prospective patients which would include not only my family and loved ones, but literally everyone within the sound of my voice. I want to express again my appreciation that the majority leader would bring this issue back up. This is our third attempt in recent months to enact significant medical liability reform. The reason why it is so important to bring this issue back up is to ask our colleagues across the aisle who have obstructed our ability to go to a vote on this important issue to reconsider because the truth is their obstruction of our ability to get meaningful medical liability reform is not hurting doctors only, it is not hurting insurance companies only, it is hurting everyone who has been or will be a patient in a medical care facility or at the hands of a doctor. We have had the opportunity to discuss these issues before, as I said, but before I get into what I consider the meat of this issue--and that is access to good quality health care for all Americans--let me say on other issues that affect American competitiveness in terms of our ability to compete in a global economy, the ability of employers to provide health insurance for their employees, which is diminishing day by day because the costs of health care continue to go up in part because of our broken medical liability system, that, in turn, puts pressure on the uninsured in our society. Where employers are unable to carry medical insurance on their employees, that means that too many people who cannot afford health care coverage are forced to emergency rooms where they know they can and will be treated. In the vast majority of those cases, they could be more efficiently, more humanely, and more cost-effectively treated in a primary care setting in a doctor's office or in a clinic, but because of the pressures being put on our health care system by a broken liability component, it is hurting us in so many different ways. As I said, I want to talk about access, but it also hurts us in terms of our global competitiveness, in terms of job creation and job growth, and in terms of diminished access to health care because people have nowhere else to turn if they do not have medical insurance, except the emergency room where they know they can and will be treated but in a way that is insufficient, inhumane, and certainly not cost effective and causes a host of other problems in all of our big cities and everywhere else where emergency rooms are frequently put on divert status because they are so clogged up with cases that probably, in a medical sense, should not be there because they could be treated more cost effectively and more humanely in another setting, but they are there and then the true emergencies are diverted to emergency rooms that are farther away. The majority leader, Dr. Frist, talked about the medical consequences of delayed treatment when people have to travel sometimes many miles just to get treated, what complications can occur because of a traumatic injury or because a baby that is delivered because the mother cannot find a hospital that can take her nearby. My point is, it creates a cascading of problems that are not just limited to medical liability but which have a lot of ramifications and a huge ripple effect. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are offering no solutions but are merely trying to score political points, trying to divert the attention to other nonissues and will not allow us to do what we have been sent here by the American people to do and that is to pass legislation that will meaningfully and significantly improve the quality of their lives. We have had a chance to deal with this medical liability problem before and, unfortunately, we have not done so. My hope is that our colleagues will reconsider and we will do so today. If those on the other side of the aisle are truly serious about their concern for the American people and the quality of health care they receive, I hope they will join us in passing the bill we are discussing today. The solutions to their professed concerns are right before us. They just need to allow an up-or-down vote. I hope the American people are paying close attention to what is happening, because if we do not get an up-or-down vote it is they who will pay the price for those who would prefer to score political points over actually producing results. The bill offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, is designed to improve access to health care, both for women who need obstetrical and gynecological care and for patients who need emergency care. As I am sure every Member of this body has, I have heard complaints from our constituents about how badly the system is broken. There are those on the other side of the aisle who would say that, because we have been rejected twice before, by bringing it up a third time this is somehow just a political exercise. I assure them that is not true. We were not allowed to vote before, despite support from a bipartisan majority. The bottom line is, we are simply unwilling to put up with or to accept, without a fight, the kind of obstruction we have seen on this and so many other important issues. This bill would provide desperately needed relief to a health care system that is in crisis, focusing especially on emergency room doctors and obstetrics, baby doctors, to critical areas that deserve our support. This chart has been seen before, and my colleagues will notice that this chart reflects in red States that are in crisis because of the difficulty of purchasing medical liability insurance, the huge increases in cost which have simply caused medical doctors either to retire early or to move to States that have provided some commonsense reform or just discouraging people from getting into the medical profession at all. The States in red, including my State of Texas, are indicated as States in crisis. The ones in yellow are the States showing problem signs but do not yet qualify as a crisis State, and the ones in white are States that are currently considered to be OK. I would not suggest by saying that they are currently OK that they have no problems. It is just that they have not gotten to the point that conditions have in my State and other States indicated in red. The truth is, this crisis is not something that just popped up this week. It is a crisis that we had last fall when we were blocked from bringing up comprehensive medical liability reform for an up-or-down vote. It was a crisis that existed a month ago when we were blocked from having an up-or-down vote for legislation that offered immediate help for mothers and their babies, and it remains a crisis today even as we attempt to debate this legislation and bring it up for another vote. The fact is, frivolous lawsuits are causing escalating medical malpractice insurance premiums which are driving doctors out of practice. We can debate what the cause of that is, but we cannot debate the result. It is a fact. Indeed, opponents of this legislation do not appear to debate the fact of the result--that is, doctors leaving, retiring, not going into practice, access being denied. They just want to say there may be other causes, but they do not want to deal with this cause because, unfortunately, an important constituency, the personal injury trial lawyers, simply are unwilling to agree that any change in this current broken system can be made. The problem is that those who are preventing us from taking up this legislation are simply caving in to the demands of this narrow special interest group that are prospering mightily, that are getting rich off the current system, at the same time that the rest of America is getting hurt. This is a picture of a doctor formerly who practiced in Fort Worth, TX, representing medical specialists, especially neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, obstetricians, and emergency physicians, who are being forced to retire early or move their practices to States where effective liability reforms are in place. For example, Dr. Malone comes from my home State. He is an orthopedic surgeon who has practiced more than 20 years in Fort Worth, TX. He reluctantly was forced to leave his practice, citing the extreme costs of liability insurance for physicians as being too much of a financial burden for him to bear. We simply cannot expect physicians to practice their chosen profession after their lengthy education and training and not be able to provide for their families. We don't expect them to do it at a loss to themselves and their families. I don't think we can blame them, when the costs of doing business exceed what comes in the door such that they simply have no choice but to leave. In the State of Texas, this crisis, particularly as it regards baby doctors, obstetrician-gynecologists, means that out of 254 counties of Texas, 154 of them have no OB/GYN specialist. In other words, a woman who is pregnant and perhaps needs prenatal care, so increasing the chances her baby will be delivered healthy, must travel to another county in order to get that prenatal care from a specialist; or once she goes into labor, she must travel to another county to have the doctor, medical specialist in obstetrics, deliver that baby. This means almost 6 out of the 10 counties in my home State alone have no doctor specializing in obstetrics, representing approximately 2 million Texans in my State. Let me talk about another story, another case that is worth referring to also in my State. Just last year a pregnant woman showed up at Dr. Lloyd Van Winkle's Castroville office in south Texas. She showed up in Dr. Van Winkle's Castroville office less than 10 minutes from delivery of her baby. Her family doctor in Uvalde, another Texas town, had recently stopped delivering babies altogether, citing medical liability concerns, and this pregnant woman was trying to drive the 80 miles to her San Antonio doctor from her home in Uvalde. Let me give another story about a woman by the name of Denise Payne. Denise Payne walked into an emergency room recently. The doctors there did not want to treat her. She said, ``They didn't want to touch me because I was pregnant,'' this 38-year-old pregnant woman, who was 6 weeks along in her pregnancy at that time. Luckily for Denise Payne the delay getting treatment didn't kill her. Although she couldn't get a kidney biopsy in Corpus Christi on the gulf coast of Texas, she was able to get one about 150 miles away in San Antonio, but she doesn't blame the doctors. ``I would say it's because of all the lawyers scaring the doctors,'' she said. ``They are scared to death to treat you.'' Indeed, that reminds me of other situations where I have heard doctors, concerned about their patients, but saying because of the broken liability system, every time you walk into an examining room, every time you walk into the emergency room, every time you walk into the delivery room, you are putting at risk everything that you have worked a lifetime to build for yourself and your family. Physicians and others are simply not able to put up with it, resulting in a crisis that even Ms. Payne, who no doubt was frustrated by her inability to get doctors to treat her in Corpus Christi, had to drive 150 miles away to get treated because she was pregnant and she needed a kidney biopsy. But because she was a higher risk patient who is at a higher risk of medical complications but also a higher risk of litigation, the doctors were scared to death to treat her, so she had to travel a long way to get that treatment. These stories are not unique to Texas. Let me tell you about Linda Sallard of Arizona. At 2 a.m. on the morning of March 20, 2002, 22- year-old Melinda Sallard woke up with labor pains. She and her husband hopped into their car and started driving the 45 miles to Sierra Vista, which housed the only hospital within a 6000-square-mile area with obstetricians able to deliver babies. En route, they passed the Copper Queen Community Hospital, which was forced to close its maternity unit just 2 months earlier because all the practitioners able to deliver babies had lost their medical liability coverage. Just 3 miles past Copper Queen, which is where they had a hospital that could have delivered her baby but had since closed its delivery facilities because of medical liability concerns, just 3 miles past this hospital, while her husband continued to drive their car, Melinda delivered her own baby girl, who you can see here in this picture in her lap. She gave birth on a desert highway to her daughter, Susanna. While Susanna, as you can tell from this picture, looks healthy and thriving today, when she was born she was not breathing. So Melinda, after she had the baby by herself, unassisted, without a physician-- because she couldn't get to a hospital that had obstetrical services in time--Melinda, after she had her baby, cleared the baby's breathing passage and started CPR. Fortunately, the baby started breathing and Melinda wrapped her newborn in a sweater and held her to her chest as her husband drove them all the way to Sierra Vista Hospital, where the ER staff cut the umbilical cord in the parking lot. As a result of the medical liability crisis, Sierra Vista is now the only hospital in a county of 140,000 residents that actually delivers babies. All high-risk patients are sent to Tucson, an hour and a half away, in a neighboring county. I shudder to think what could have happened in Melinda's case. Thankfully, as I said, Susanna Sallard is a healthy young girl--no thanks to a medical liability system that almost left her as a casualty. The skyrocketing liability insurance premiums have also affected emergency and trauma services for patients. This is where the severity of the crisis becomes even more apparent. Let me tell you about Jim Lawson. This is a picture of Jim Lawson, Mary Rasar's father. Mary lost her father in 2002 when Nevada's only level I trauma center was forced to close because of skyrocketing medical liability costs. The majority leader, Dr. Frist, told us earlier that level I trauma centers are the ones that handle the most serious trauma cases. But Nevada's only level I trauma center was forced to close in 2002 because of skyrocketing medical liability costs. Jim Lawson was injured in a car accident in Las Vegas, where he suffered multiple injuries and required immediate care. The State's only level I trauma center, the University of Nevada's medical center, where Mr. Lawson should have been taken, was forced to shut its doors just days before this accident because rising liability costs had forced insurers to drop coverage on high-risk specialists, high-risk specialists like neurosurgeons, like emergency room physicians, and others who handle the most seriously injured patients. Unfortunately, as I indicated at the outset, this story does not have a happy ending. Mr. Lawson was rushed to Desert Springs Hospital, where he died while awaiting air transport to the next nearest level I trauma center facility, more than an hour away, at Salt Lake City, UT. So this gentleman, who was in a car accident in Las Vegas, who could have been treated at the University of Nevada's medical center but for the fact it had to shut down because it lost its medical liability coverage, died because the only facility that could treat him was more than an hour away in Salt Lake City. Let me tell you about Leanne and Tony Dyess. Leanne is a 48-year-old wife and mother of two from Mississippi. This is Leanne and her family. On July 5, 2002, Leanne's husband Tony was involved in a car accident in Gulf Port, MS, and suffered serious head injuries. After removing him from the car, paramedics rushed Tony to Garden Park Hospital in Gulfport, MS. But there were no neurosurgeons there available to treat Tony because rising medical liability costs forced doctors in that community to abandon their practice. Six critical hours passed before Tony could be airlifted to University Medical Center. As a result of the inability to locate a specialist to provide him immediate care, today Tony is permanently brain damaged, mentally incompetent, and unable to care for himself or his children. In addition to this tragedy and the others I have mentioned, there are numerous other examples from my home State of Texas of tragedies, or near tragedies, or worse than injuries as a result of the inability to get medical care close by because of this crisis. Another couple of stories: George Kuempe, who recently retired as a reporter for the Dallas Morning News not too long ago, fell from an oak tree and broke his back on a Sunday afternoon in the Austin area. He had to be flown to Scott & White Clinic in Temple, TX, because there were no neurosurgeons available in Austin, TX. There was a long delay in the amount of time necessary to treat his injuries in order to travel just 60 miles up the road. There were hours of delay. Dr. Path Crocker, chief of emergency medicine at Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, where he could have been and should have been treated had a neurosurgeon been available, said this is a warning flag to the citizens of Texas that a major problem is brewing. In 2002, an elderly man was taken to an emergency hospital room in McAllen, TX, in south Texas in the Rio Grand Valley after falling and injuring his head. After 7 hours, the emergency room could still not locate a neurosurgeon to treat this elderly man's head injury, even though they searched in Corpus Christi, in San Antonio, and Austin. Unfortunately, this elderly man, with a head injury, died because he could not get timely medical treatment for that condition. There are even more stories that illustrate the lengths to which patients must go just to receive desperately needed care. Neurosurgeons in Houston, TX, are bombarded with trauma and emergency cases from around the State because doctors have dropped emergency services in efforts to lower their professional liability premiums just so they can earn a living. You can see Houston, TX, located in the southeast part of our State where patients, let us say, down in the Rio Grand Valley--this shows Harlingen, a distance of 330 miles, which is close to McAllen where that elderly man had a head injury and where he would have to be airlifted to Houston to receive those treatments by a qualified neurosurgeon or other specialist. The time it takes to travel 330 miles from the Rio Grand Valley to Houston, the time it takes to travel from the Rio Grand Valley to San Antonio, or San Antonio to Houston, or El Paso to Houston, obviously, has medical consequences which means people who are injured and suffer more serious injuries and people whose lives could have been saved lose their lives because of this medical liability crisis with which our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply refuse to deal. Houston neurosurgeon Bruce Ehni described it like this. He said: We are the recipient of much more serious and risky cases that would have otherwise been cared for locally. Here at our hospital in Houston we are receiving hemorrhages, traumas and other dire emergencies from as far away as El Paso on the opposite side of the State, and Brownsville, which is down near Harlingen in the southern part of the State-- sometimes up to 600 miles or more away. Some of the examples include a patient with head trauma and a blown pupil flown in from Harlingen to Houston, more than 300 miles away; an intracranial hemorrhage flown in from Laredo on the United States- Mexico border 300 miles away; and a brain tumor causing an abrupt paralysis flown in from San Antonio, 200 miles away. Dr. Ehni continued: All of these communities have neurosurgeons. The ``bad'' cases end up in Houston despite the presence of neurosurgeons locally because everyone is trying to avoid being sued. It is bad for patients and it is bad for us. We are being dumped on endlessly. For the rest of this body, and perhaps others listening, let me put all of this in perspective geographically. For a medical transfer from El Paso to Houston, it would be as if a patient was hurt in Washington, DC, and because he could not find a surgeon, he had to be flown farther than Chicago, IL, for surgery. For a transfer from Harlingen to Houston, it would be like forcing a patient to fly from Washington almost to Buffalo, NY. For a transfer from San Antonio to Houston, it is as if a patient were forced to fly from Washington to New York City. Can anyone in this body state they would be content to have their family or loved one suffer those sorts of delays in treatment if they really needed a medical specialist and couldn't find one? Of course, they wouldn't accept that. Neither should the American people. But that is what they are being forced to do because of the inaction and obstruction of those on the other side of the aisle who will not allow us to have a true debate and an up-or-down vote on this reform to our broken medical liability system. The chief obstacle to making our health care system the best in the world is our liability lottery. In the liability lottery, people aren't free to act because doctors simply can't meet the demand, and Americans end up paying more for health care and suffering medical complications because of it. It is not all bad news, I must say. I am glad to say, in response to many of the concerns which I have raised that pertain to my State of Texas, the legislature and the people of my State have acted. Last September voters took to the ballot and passed Proposition 12, an amendment to the Texas Constitution providing caps on noneconomic damages and paving the way for the full implementation of important medical liability reform. We already have, even though this passed just last September, some of the early signs of beneficial results. One medical liability insurance carrier has reduced their medical liability premiums by 12 percent, and another medical liability insurance company has canceled their planned 19-percent rate increase because of these reforms. My home State of Texas recognizes the need for government to step in and help address this urgent problem. But more needs to be done, and there is still too little recourse for patients in States without reform. Let me mention briefly some of those States. In Illinois, more than 15 percent of the neurosurgeons have left the State in the last 2 years. That is according to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. There are currently no hospitals in the northwest suburbs of Chicago that have 24/7 neurosurgery coverage. Most patients in need of care are transferred either to Rockford, which is 60 miles away, or to the University of Illinois in Chicago, 45 miles away--not quite the distances we talked about in my State but still nevertheless consequential distances in terms of the delay in treatment of serious cases. In the State of Massachusetts, the home State of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry, a third of the State's hospital beds have closed in the past decade, and 32 percent of physicians say they plan to leave the State if the practice environment fails to improve. In the 1990s in Massachusetts the number of practicing obstetrician/gynecologists declined by more than 20 percent. In New York, record numbers of people seeking emergency care are overwhelming emergency departments across the State in areas including Long Island, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. Many doctors and higher risk specialties are eliminating services, retiring early, or contemplating leaving. The exodus of 4,000 doctors in New York alone from 2000 to 2002 has been attributed to a litigious atmosphere in that State. In North Carolina, in 2002 alone, medical liability rates increased by 50 percent and high-risk specialists are facing increases between 50 percent and 100 percent. Physicians are simply going out of business, leaving a State, or substantially increasing prices as they pass along costs, as they can, to their patients. But the problem is especially acute for obstetricians, neurosurgeons, and emergency physicians. Finally, the last State I will mention is the State of Washington. Since 1998, Washington State has seen a 31-percent increase in its physicians moving out of the State, and between 1996 and 2001 the number of retirements increased 50 percent with the average age of those retirees dropping from age 63 to age 58. We know this liability reform can have a beneficial impact on reducing costs and improving access because some States have done it for a while. My State has done it since September and has not yet seen the full benefit although we have seen some very hopeful early signs. California has adopted something called MICRA, which has been the medical liability tort reform package. With MICRA, California has achieved a more stable marketplace and lower premium increases over the years than have other States without the kind of medical liability reform we are advocating today. According to the data, California medical liability premiums grew 167 percent over the past 25 years compared to 505 percent for States without medical liability reform. I have taken more time than perhaps I should, but I thought it was important to go over in detail what the problem is, what we think the solution may be, at least in part, and demonstrate for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they would allow an up-or-down vote on this legislation, we could see some very real, substantial benefits, not just to physicians. I like physicians. I respect physicians. But this is not something we ought to do to help members of the medical profession. The reason we ought to do it is to help patients. Like it or not, all of us will be patients at some future point in our lives. The best way we can ensure the good quality health care is available for us and our loved ones, should we need it in the future, is to pass this meaningful reform. I ask our colleagues to seriously reconsider and not to obstruct this important reform. We know it can help. If they have other ideas they think will add to the substantial beneficial effect of this legislation, let them come to the floor and talk about it. We will be willing to talk to them and engage them on it. If a consensus develops that an even better package can be produced as a result of the kind of debate and negotiations and compromise that characterize this body and which this body is so good at when it works properly, I say, bring it on. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Adam Aston and Tiffany Kebodeaux, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on S. 2207.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is day 7 of the Democratic leadership's unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's nominees for various executive positions and judicial nominations. In fact, I have in my hand the Executive Calendar which reflects 46 of the President's nominees who stand ready to be confirmed by the Senate so they can get to work on behalf of the American people. But unfortunately, as appears to be a growing trend and one where our Democratic colleagues continue to dig in their heels, the answer to every entreaty we might offer, every suggestion we have in terms of creating jobs, in terms of putting people on the bench to decide cases that go unheard because judges are not being confirmed to these posts, we continue to get a consistent response on behalf of our Democratic colleagues of ``no.'' The answer they give to jobs and manufacturing, medical liability reform, a national energy policy, workforce investment, judges, small business, class action reform, and faith-based and charities legislation is ``no.'' Particularly on the judicial nominees, I point out, once again, that this obstructionism is unprecedented in the history of the Senate. Where we have a bipartisan majority in the Senate who stand ready to confirm highly qualified nominees, such as Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court of my home State, people such as Janice Rogers Brown who serves on the California Supreme Court, or people such as Miguel Estrada who, after waiting for so long to have his confirmation heard on the Senate floor, finally had to give up and go about his daily life because of this unprecedented obstruction. The worst part of this is that it has not only been about blocking President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees and other people who he has proposed for various boards and commissions serving the American people, this, unfortunately, has also involved a character assassination as well. Judicial nominees have been called names by Senators on the other side of the aisle that are really unbecoming of the dignity of this body, names such as ``kooks,'' ``Neanderthals,'' ``turkeys,'' and other names that are just entirely inappropriate to the civil discourse and debate that people have come to expect and deserve a right to hear from Members of the Senate. We can disagree about policy matters. We can have a different proposal for the American people about which direction this country should go on a number of these issues. But surely--surely--the Senate should continue to conduct its discussions in a civil way and one that allows majorities to govern, not that allows obstinate minorities led by the Democratic leadership to block vote after vote on matters that are important to the people of the United States. The problem we now hear is they are objecting to proceeding on any nominees because President Bush has used the authority given to him under the Constitution to make recess appointments. They act as if this has never been heard of, that it is unprecedented in U.S. history. The fact is, there have been more than 300 recess appointments made during the course of this Nation's history, including by President Clinton, before President George W. Bush, and others. Indeed, this is a constitutional response to unconstitutional filibusters. Unfortunately, we know the nature of this process is such that if the Democrat obstructionists get away with blocking President Bush's nominees, not from voting against them but by preventing a vote on them at all, this is a tactic once determined to be successful that will likely be employed by others when the shoe is on the other foot. When the next Democrat is President of the United States and Republicans are in the minority in the Senate, how is it we are going to explain to our Republican colleagues that, no, you should not use this tactic which, up until now, has been out of bounds but which has now been employed successfully against the Democratic minority against this President? We ask for an up-or-down vote today on President Bush's judicial nominees, and we would ask that rather than answering ``stop'' to all of the Republican agenda on behalf of the American people, we could at least get an up-or-down vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments about what I believe to be a better way than we have heard today, which has so far been a proposal for greater Government regulation and intervention, more of a straitjacket on those who create jobs and create those livable wages about which the Senator from Connecticut has spoken. I also want to say a few words in response to the breathless negative comments we have heard in recent weeks about our economy and about job creation in this country, and in the process the attacks that are made repeatedly on this floor and elsewhere against President Bush. Of course, in every election year, we all understand there will be a rise in political sniping, but no one should ever cross the line and mislead the American people about the fundamental strength of our economy or champion this negative view just because they view it to be in their own political self-interest to undermine public confidence in the economy. Sadly, it seems there are some interested in playing on fear and anxiety. Some who talk about job loss and unemployment provoke, rather than actually working, as we have the opportunity to do on this floor, to actually fix some of the problems and some of the conditions that would give rise to job creation and more job security in this country. The truth is we ought to be able to agree on the facts. The public policies we argue based on those facts are something else. We are going to have policy differences. We are going to have differences of position, and that is to be expected, and that is fine. But we should agree on the facts. Fact No. 1: Home ownership is at an all-time high in the United States of America, and that is an enormously good and positive thing. More people in this country are achieving part of the American dream. Interest rates we know are at a historic low. Productivity is booming which, in turn, increases the ability of employers to invest in their business and to create even more jobs. And indeed, the gross domestic product in this country is growing by leaps and bounds. One fact we should and I think we can agree on is the unemployment rate is standing at about 5.6 percent. The interesting thing about that is the story we heard in 1996 from the distinguished minority leader from South Dakota, back at a time when we had a 5.6 percent unemployment rate. Senator Daschle said: The economy is doing extraordinarily well. . . . We have the lowest rate of inflation and unemployment we've had in 27 years. What was the unemployment rate then, and what is the unemployment rate now? It is identical. Today I read the comments of the junior Senator from New York who said with a 5.6 percent unemployment rate, it is obvious the economy is not creating any jobs. But indeed it was another Clinton back in 1996 who said: I was gratified to hear our partners praise the strength of our economy . . . Lower interest rates have helped us slash unemployment-- To what? That is right, to 5.6 percent. It seems for many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a 5.6 percent unemployment rate under a President named Bush is a travesty, but a 5.6 percent employment rate under a President named Clinton is just fine and dandy. We have more than 138 million Americans working today, a figure we should be very proud of, the highest in our Nation's history. But you would not know that from listening to those who try to talk down the economy. Something we can all agree on, I am sure, is any person out of work who wants to work is one person too many. Indeed, I would hope the one thing we would all be able to agree on is we ought to pursue policies which encourage full employment and we ought to provide everybody in this country who wants a job the ability to provide for themselves and their families. Sometimes you get the idea our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to have it both ways. They want to have low unemployment, which is what we all want, but they also want to oppose policies which are designed to reduce unemployment and to encourage full employment. For example, I read this morning the reaction of some in this body to the comments made by Treasury Secretary John Snow who pointed out that outsourcing, a subject of frequent commentary in this body, is an important aspect and, indeed, an inevitable aspect of free trade that ultimately produces jobs in this economy. The Senator from Massachusetts, who happens to be a candidate for President of the United States, said he wants to crack down on ``Benedict Arnold CEOs and corporations'' who engage in outsourcing as a way to maintain their competitiveness in this global economy. As the junior Senator from New York said, when it comes to outsourcing: I really don't know what reality the Bush administration is living in . . . [outsourcing] isn't good for America. I suggest those who say outsourcing is something that we actually have the capacity to stop or they think is bad to job creation in global competitiveness sit down and have a conversation with Robert Reich, President Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, who claimed in a Washington Post op-ed on November 2, 2003, that ``High-Tech Jobs Are Going Abroad, But That's Okay.'' Getting a meeting with Professor Reich should be convenient, as Mr. Reich is candidate Kerry's top labor adviser and a member of his steering committee. I think Mr. Snow, the Treasury Secretary, knows an awful lot about economics, but I also agree that so does Mr. Reich. They both agree outsourcing is an inevitable result of free trade that ultimately benefits America and America's competitiveness in the world economy. As Mr. Reich wrote: It makes no sense for us to try to block efforts by American companies to outsource. Just this month, Mr. Reich was interviewed in the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette and asked: What do you think about the move in Congress to bar Federal contracts from being outsourced to other lower cost countries? Mr. Reich's response: A silly political ploy. Yet even as outsourcing continues to be a subject of discussion and even as some of my colleagues in this body throw it out as something that is bad and hurtful to America and America's competitiveness, we all seem to have forgotten it also goes the other way. Indeed, my State of Texas is one of the leading beneficiaries of what I will call insourcing; that is, foreign investments in America. According to the Texas Department of Economic Development, Texas has more than $110 billion in foreign investment, direct investment in our State, and that is approximately $5,000 in foreign investment for every Texan--$5,000 for each of 22 million Texans in direct foreign investment because of free trade. There are 430,000 jobs in Texas thanks to outsourcing by these foreign corporations. People who would otherwise be out of work if we did as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggested. Members who are appealing to the anxieties and fears of the American people rather than giving them the information they need to understand and that we all need to embrace in terms of maintaining our global competitiveness. I ask my colleagues to tell me why creating jobs for the hard-working citizens of my State by encouraging this foreign investment in our country is a bad idea. If we are to cave in to fear mongering by those who want to erect a protectionist wall around our country, do my colleagues think other countries might choose to retaliate against the United States? You bet. This is a two-way street, and there is a natural flux. New jobs are created and old jobs fade away. That is what being part of a market economy is all about. In the end, the net increase is a good one. This week in my State, a study found we will lose 3,000 technology jobs over the next 5 years due to outsourcing. That is the bad news. The good news is we are going to gain 24,000 jobs over the same period. I reassure my colleague from New York, according to this report, her State will have a net gain of more than 18,000 jobs over the same period thanks to outsourcing, which she has said is a bad idea and out of touch with reality. When companies that provide employment save money and maintain their competitiveness in a global economy because of outsourcing, they can afford to hire more U.S. employees. As a matter of fact, if we were somehow trying to find a way to prohibit this phenomenon, the only choice some of these employers would have would be to pack up their American company and simply move it overseas. What good would that do? That would obviously cause more harm than good. We are dealing with a simple economic truth, and one that far too many ignore or choose to distort for partisan political purposes in this election year. We have to recognize that in the 21st century, we are competing in a true global economy, and our job in Government ought to be to try to find ways to enhance America's competitiveness in the economy, not the other way around. That is why I believe education, job training, and the President's community college initiative he talked about during his State of the Union address are so important, steps also endorsed by Chairman Alan Greenspan. These programs, which I have seen in operation in communities across my State, from Amarillo to Houston to Austin, have created opportunities for young men and women to train and retrain, to hold better paying jobs in an ever-changing economy. I have seen the positive results of these partnerships between businesses and community colleges when it comes to training and retraining the workforce for these good, high-paying jobs. High taxes, overregulation, and rising health care costs, in an environment that encourages people to sue first and ask questions later, are damaging our global competitiveness. Those on the other side who seem to persistently favor higher taxes and more regulation are at the same time complaining about America's inability to compete and to keep these jobs in America. Those who still honestly believe we can sue, tax, and regulate our way to economic growth and prosperity are just flat wrong. In this body, we have had many opportunities to address some of these competitiveness issues. We had the opportunity earlier this year to pass class action reform and medical liability reform which would lower health care costs so more employers could provide health care coverage at a more reasonable cost to more employees. We have had a chance to reform our broken asbestos liability system. Yet, there are those who consistently vote against these reforms that would make America more competitive in this global economy and would increase the opportunity to create jobs. Members who now are prescribing the wrong medicine for what ails the American economy. This is even at a time when our economy is roaring back, thanks to the leadership of our President and the actions of this Congress in reducing the tax burden on hard-working Americans. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they talk about their desire to increase competitiveness of American job creators in this global economy, will join us in reconsidering the position they have taken so far in opposing the JOBS bill, medical liability reform, a rational national energy policy, class action reform, asbestos litigation reform, and many other measures that would enhance America's competitiveness in this global economy. They need to allow us to vote. I believe a bipartisan majority stands ready to pass many of these reforms which would create more jobs and improve the economy. Time and time again, when we have had the chance to fix these problems, when we have had a chance to address these issues, there are those on the other side whose only answer is, no, no vote, no closing off of debate, no improving of the competitiveness of America in the global economy. In closing, I want to reinforce what I have tried to say throughout. There is a lot of good news I do not think is breaking through the clutter on the 24-hour cable news cycle in this highly politicized election year. There are those who want to bad-mouth the economy, increase the anxiety of people who are working, and compound the misery of those who are out of work by saying there is no hope; America cannot compete; the only way we can protect American workers is to build a wall around our country and to stop free markets. I think that is absolutely the wrong medicine for what ails this country. What we need is to be true to our principles. Americans have always and will always be able to compete given a level playing field. This is not a time for us to lose confidence in America's ability to compete and to create jobs in a way that has made us the envy of the world. This is not the time to tell the American people that America cannot compete and our only hope is to retreat into our shell and to build the walls of protectionism around our country. Indeed, we have been preaching to the entire free world, including the new democracies that have just joined NATO and will soon join the European Union, that free markets and free trade are the answer. America must stick by that answer because it is the last best hope for improved quality of life and freedom for people all across this planet. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. This amendment is very simple. It would correct a technical problem caused during the passage of the Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996. Section 411 of the welfare law reads that State and local governments may not use their own resources to provide nonemergency health services to nonqualified immigrants unless the State has passed new legislation authorizing such expenditures. This provision has caused quite a bit of confusion. As a matter of fact, when I was Attorney General of Texas I was asked to interpret this provision. It was during the course of that official action that I discovered the Federal law, because our State legislature had not acted, had unintended consequences. It is safe to say this provision has been read by State and local governments with varying interpretations. Essentially, the current law imposes a double standard on State and local governments. Because certain Federal public health programs are exempt from this requirement, identical State and local government health programs are not. The end result is more legal and administrative costs on State and local governments, even though the provision has no enforcement mechanism. Even without the confusion, section 411 makes no practical sense. We should not put up more roadblocks for those who want to provide preventive treatment, especially when it comes to potential community problems such as infectious diseases. By giving localities control over preventive services, here again at their own expense, not at Federal taxpayers' expense, we ensure local funds are spent where the people who know best believe they should be spent. Ultimately, this will have the effect of driving down health care costs by preventing treatable illnesses before they become acute and before they require expensive taxpayer-supported care, usually in an emergency room where anyone, no matter who they are, knows they can be treated and indeed must be treated according to a Federal mandate which I know is an interest of the presiding Senator, particularly because it is an unfunded Federal mandate. Our amendment would simply strike the word ``health'' from section 411 of the welfare law. This step clarifies that State and local governments can use their own funds to provide health services to immigrants, including primary and preventive health care and infectious disease services, without enacting a new law. It is a commonsense step and one I hope my colleagues will support. This amendment is also widely supported by several well-respected national associations, including the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Public Health Systems, the National Association of Counties, and the Catholic Health Association. Amendment No. 2942 I also want to briefly discuss another amendment, No. 2942. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lieberman be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. The Senator from Connecticut has a deep understanding of the importance of child support enforcement, and I like me, learned about how critical that issue is during his service as his State's attorney general, as I did during my service as attorney general of my State. This amendment features two positive reforms for child support enforcement. It encourages States to adopt electronic payment systems by 2008. While States can opt out of that if they choose to, it will help get payments to custodial parents more quickly than is currently done now. It creates an option for States to centralize all child support payments to reduce confusion among employers who withhold child support payments from the wages of their employees, and it will ensure children get the financial support they need on time which, of course, is our universal goal. I hope my colleagues will support this second amendment as well. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from each of these organizations be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment 2943, which is the Cornyn-Bingaman amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 15 minutes, and I may yield some time back.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy. Finally, I will say that serving on the Judiciary Committee has been a startling experience for this Senator, a new member of the Senate coming, as I did, to this body expecting that all Senators would want to try to work through our differences in a way that reaches consensus and in a way that allows us to do our job. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee has spiraled down into partisan dysfunction in a way that is, frankly, not very pleasant, and it is not doing the best job we can and should be doing for the American people. The truth is, what we see happening is a handful of special interest groups that seem to be calling the tune, and Senators, unfortunately, responding to that and blocking President Bush's nominees. We saw during the revelation of a number of memos that came to light that, indeed, some of these interest groups were trying to manipulate the outcome in lawsuits that were pending on the court of appeals. One very sensitive case affecting our entire Nation was an affirmative action case. That case involved the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies. The memos reveal that nominees were being blocked and slow-peddled in an effort to have an impact on that litigation. It is not right. Now I know my colleagues, all of us on the Judiciary Committee, have decried the way in which some of these memos came to light. The truth is, an overzealous, misguided staffer accessed computer files of both Republican and Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and released those publicly. We have had the Sergeant at Arms conduct an investigation. Indeed, a number of us have asked the appropriate prosecutor to investigate it to see if criminal charges should be brought concerning the way in which these memos came to light. But just as the Pentagon Papers, years ago, were accessed unlawfully, they demonstrate a very real public policy concern that I do not think we can ignore. There are two things that have happened. One is the taking of the memos, and the other is the inappropriateness the conduct revealed. As I close my remarks, I again thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy by allowing me to speak first. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, allow me to respond to some of the comments we have heard this morning, both from the minority leader and the minority whip. While it has been a rather broad attack on the administration on a number of different fronts, there are a couple of things I would like to direct my comments to by way of response. I only wish that when we had differences of policy, we would confine our disagreements to policy and not make egregious errors of fact. While everybody has a right to their opinion, no one has a right to be wrong about the facts, or to misstate them in such a patently inaccurate way. My intention is to try to correct some of these misstatements that have been made by the minority leader, as well as the minority whip. Really, they relate to two different areas. As I said, the attack has been rather broad and varied, but I have chosen to talk about the issue of nominations and the minority whip's comments with regard to Mr. Richard Clarke. Let me first talk about Mr. Richard Clarke. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Clarke several years ago when I was attorney general of the State of Texas. We had him come down to the State and consult with us on the issue of cyber-terrorism, an area that most people in this country probably haven't thought a lot about but which is very important to our national security. Indeed, Mr. Clarke brought with him tremendous credentials in terms of his experience in counterterrorism working, as he did, during the Clinton administration, and then for a while under the administration of President George W. Bush. Mr. President, I think it is blatantly unfair of Mr. Clarke, notwithstanding his credentials in counterterrorism, which I admire, to suggest that this President who was in office roughly 8 months before the attacks of September 11 was responsible for the 9/11 incident, when in fact the administration of President Bill Clinton, in which Mr. Clark worked, stood by and did not respond adequately to ever- escalating attacks against this country by Osama bin Laden and by al- Qaida. It was in 1993 that Osama bin Laden directed al-Qaida's first successful attack on American soil, blowing up a car bomb in the basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and wounding 1,000. And then, in 1996, there was another attack against the United States Air Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. Then, in 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 people and wounded more than 5,000. And then, in 2000, al-Qaida attacked USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39. Mr. President, I think it is only fair to ask where Mr. Clarke was during these ever-escalating attacks by al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden against Americans. The truth is, he was working in the Clinton White House in counterterrorism. I am confident he was doing everything he thought he could do. But if you have read some of his remarks, apparently he felt he was not getting a good response out of the President and others; indeed, he was prevented from briefing President Clinton on some of these attacks. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency himself was not allowed to give daily briefings to President Clinton, as he currently does and as he has done since the beginning of the Bush administration. So I would say Mr. Clarke's motives for making these reckless allegations against President Bush and the Bush administration just don't ring true. Indeed, perhaps they are a diversion from his responsibility and the responsibility of the previous administration when it came to never adequately responding to Osama bin Laden and al- Qaida attacks until, of course, the terrible day of September 11. Indeed, if you listen to some of President Bush's critics and the comments made by the minority whip and others on this very floor and in the press, you would say they are complaining that the President didn't do enough when it comes to fighting the war on terror. Of course, just a few short days ago, before Mr. Clarke's book came out, these same critics were saying the President had done too much, and that his policy and the Nation's policy of preemptive attack against our enemies--that is, not waiting until we are attacked and more Americans are killed, but going after the sleeper cells and the terrorists where they live before they can attack and thus protecting American citizens and American property in that way. So really I don't see how they can have it both ways. By saying on one hand, if you believe Mr. Clarke, the administration didn't do enough, but then if you listen to other critics, just a few short days ago they were saying this President, this administration, did too much--you cannot have it both ways. I think the American people understand that. They also understand what is happening in the Senate and elsewhere, when this administration is attacked for leading the war on terror. The truth is--and I think the American people recognize this--that no one has demonstrated greater leadership and greater commitment to protecting Americans and America's national interests on the war on terror than President George W. Bush--no one. The American people know that. It is just not right to try to suggest otherwise. It certainly contradicts those assertions and contradicts all of the facts I have only spoken about. If necessary, we can revisit this at a later time. I also want to respond to some of the comments made by the minority leader about the nominations process and his claim that Democrats have extended an open hand of bipartisanship in an attempt to confirm nominees to various boards and commissions and to the Federal bench. The truth is, again, Mr. President, we are all entitled to our opinions and our policy differences. Indeed, I think the American people expect us to fight on this floor, rhetorically speaking, for those positions we believe in and which we believe are in the best interest of the American people. What they should also expect is that we would not come here and make such inaccurate statements of fact about this supposed bipartisanship when it comes to our Democratic colleagues on the nominations issue. I have the honor of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we have seen unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Indeed, never before in the history of the United States of America have a handful of Democrats--handful of any party--been able to successfully block a bipartisan majority from confirming President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees. I heard the minority leader talk about a highly qualified Hispanic nominee who he believes should be confirmed to a position. I was reminded of the terrible treatment that Miguel Estrada received at the hands of this same leadership on the Democratic side. This immigrant from Honduras came to the United States when he was 17 years old. He could barely speak English. He taught himself the English language, went on to graduate from two of America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, and went on to rise to the top of the legal profession. He represented the U.S. Government in 15 arguments before the United States Supreme Court. Arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court is the Super Bowl when it comes to the legal profession. Notwithstanding the fact that Miguel Estrada was a highly qualified, very successful appellate lawyer, someone enormously qualified to serve on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, he was denied the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. No one suggests that any Senator who thinks they should vote against a nominee should not do so. Certainly, we should all vote our own conscience, and we will be held accountable by the voters at the next election, but what has happened is a bipartisan majority was simply obstructed by the gamesmanship and the unprecedented way in which this President's judicial nominees have been treated, such as Miguel Estrada, who represents the manifestation of the American dream. Miguel Estrada's dream came to a crashing halt when he hit the glass ceiling imposed by the Democratic minority in the Senate. There is no nice way to put it. It is ugly, it is partisan, and it is unworthy of the Members of this body and those of us who are sworn to protect the public interest rather than special interests. While sitting in my office listening, I was also astonished to hear the minority leader talk about the President's use of recess appointments when it comes to Charles Pickering, whom he appointed to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bill Pryor, who was appointed during a recess by the President to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. What they did not tell the American people is, the only reason the President had to use the power that is very clearly conferred upon him in the U.S. Constitution is because of this unprecedented obstruction by the Democratic minority in the Senate, which denied these two highly qualified nominees, Charles Pickering, now Judge Pickering of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Bill Pryor, an up-or-down vote. The only reason they resorted again to this unprecedented obstruction, denying them even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, is because they knew if allowed to vote, a bipartisan majority of the Senate would confirm those appointments. Here again, we are entitled to have policy differences and, indeed, we will, but the suggestion that somehow President Bush used these recess appointments in some sort of unauthorized or inappropriate way is false. The fact is, during the course of this country's history, recess appointment power has been used more than 300 times. To suggest that President Bush has somehow gone outside the power conferred upon him under the U.S. Constitution is not true. Sometimes I am amazed that people can say things with a straight face. I expect them to wink or otherwise indicate they know they are trying to pull a fast one, but the fact is the suggestion, the inference that those speakers would ask the American people to draw from their comments are just not true. President Clinton used recess appointments. Frequently, former Presidents used recess appointments of one kind or another when they were not able to get their nominees confirmed on the timetable they wanted for whatever reason, but that is a power clearly conferred upon the President under the U.S. Constitution. Can I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceeding.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about a hearing we are going to have tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of marriage. I know the last thing I thought I would be doing, coming from Texas to Washington, DC, would be talking about traditional marriage, but such are the times we live in. Earlier this month I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, as well as the Goodridge decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Court that resulted from it, and the subsequent explosion of the marriage controversy across America. I thought we had a very thought-provoking discussion, a bipartisan discussion, and one that will continue at our hearing tomorrow where proposed constitutional language is the subject. At the hearing earlier this month I was moved by the sentiments of Pastor Daniel de Leon of the Templo Calvario Church in California and Rev. Richard Richardson of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Boston, who we were honored to have in attendance. Both testified they would rather be at home than having to defend traditional marriage here in Washington. But it is because of the work they do in their own communities, because they see the results of the decline of marriage in their communities every day, that they believe traditional marriage is so important and worth defending. This is a discussion we will continue to have in the coming months. I believe it is vital that we have a national discussion on the importance of this institution, and a discussion based upon the facts. In recent months, a lot of people have spent time talking about the benefits of marriage for adults. They have talked about hospital visiting rights and inheritance problems, even though many of these issues can be solved simply and quickly by statute or arrangements that can be achieved by simply signing a few simple documents. This discussion, in terms of the benefits to adults, has included discussion of Government benefits, even though with these benefits come burdens, and the actual financial ramifications of these benefits are a matter for future debate. Today it is time to turn the debate to what I believe is an even more important issue--that is, the benefits of marriage to children. It is easy for some people to step back and say: The same-sex marriage controversy doesn't affect me. But the facts, demonstrated by experiments in other countries, show us otherwise. The facts show us this issue affects everyone, but especially children. None of us can pretend to ignore this issue, and none of us can afford to be neutral on this subject. Scandinavia has treated same-sex households as marriage for more than a decade. This practice was instituted in Denmark in 1989, in Norway in 1993, and in Sweden in 1994. The direct reaction was relatively small. Very few people were actually interested in being part of this new arrangement, and to this day the number of participating individuals and households remains low. The greatest effect was not on those who had sought the new institution but, in fact, on society at large. Sad to say, there has been an enormous rise in family dissolution and out-of-wedlock childbirths in these countries since they embraced the institution of same-sex marriage. Today, about 15 years after Denmark created this new institution, a majority of children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock, including more than 50 percent of children in Norway and 55 percent of children in Sweden. In Denmark, a full 60 percent of first-born children have unmarried parents. In Scandinavia as a whole, traditional marriage is now an institution entirely socially separated from the idea of childbearing or child-rearing. It is regarded as an incidental union, not an important one. Respected British demographer Kathleen Kiernan drew on the Scandinavian case to form a four-stage model by which to gauge a country's movements towards Swedish levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth. At stage one, the vast majority of the population produces children within marriage, such as in Italy. In the second stage, cohabitation is tolerated as a testing period before marriage and is generally a childless phase such as we currently have in America. In stage three, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable and parenting is no longer automatically associated with marriage. While Norway was once at this stage, recent demographic and legal changes have pushed it further into stage four, along with Sweden and Denmark. In this fourth stage, marriage and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many children--even most children--born and raised outside of traditional marriage. According to Kiernan, once a country has reached this stage, return to an earlier phase is highly unlikely. As you can see, the dilution of marriage is passed on to children, to the next generation, and the devaluation continues. And in America, the results could be even more significant than in Scandinavia; after all, we are already facing the problem of too many single-parent households, particularly in inner-city communities. When the ideal of traditional marriage is removed, when cohabitation and marriage are equally regarded, and when childbearing is no longer something that ought to ideally come within the context of traditional marriage, I fear the problem of single-parent households will only worsen. While many single parents do a very good job day in and day out raising children against long odds, no one considers it the best arrangement for raising children--with good reason. Indeed, we have a wealth of social science research from hundreds of sources over the course of decades which consistently reflects both the positive ramifications for children of a stable traditional marriage, and the negative effects of family breakup. Marriage provides the basis for the family, which remains the strongest and most important social unit. Countless statistics and research attest to this fact. It is not ideal to raise children outside of marriage. While everyone is free to choose his or her own path, no one wishes divorce on children but, rather, a happy and stable home. In America, we have made the decision that we ought to particularly encourage and support those who marry and have children. This is not a partisan issue. As one of the most distinguished Democratic Members of this body, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, observed more than a decade ago, we must stop ``the breakup of family inevitably'' as best we can: [T]he principal social objective of the American national government at every level . . . should be to see that children are born into intact families and that they remain so. We don't raise our neighbor's children as our own, but we do help all the children in our community every time we affirm and reinforce marriage--through our speech, through our action, through our culture, and through our wallets. It is a position reinforced through our laws and our practices, and I believe it is a good one. Government cannot be neutral, should not be neutral, nor should it pretend it is possible to be neutral when it comes to children and families. Most Americans take for granted that traditional marriage as we know it today will always exist. But that is sadly proving to be a mistake. We see in Scandinavia why that assumption is a mistake. Across this country today, renegade judges and some local officials are attempting to radically redefine this traditional institution. Lawsuits seeking to dismantle traditional marriage have already been filed in Federal court and State courts in Massachusetts, New York, Nebraska, Utah, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, California, and Vermont, as well as my home State of Texas. According to the New York Times, we can expect lawsuits in 46 States by residents who have traveled to San Francisco in recent weeks to receive a marriage license, then return and claim the validity of that marriage under the laws of their home State. Louis Brandeis famously described the States as ``laboratories for democracy.'' But he was, of course, referring to representative government in the States and not to the courts. Given how this litigation has spread, it appears that judicial activists bent on experimenting with the institution of marriage will have every possible opportunity to do so. The American people are not persuaded that this radical redefinition of marriage is needed or that it is a good thing. When given the opportunity in the voting booth, they have always supported traditional marriage clearly and forthrightly. While The New York Times recently described the law on this subject in California as ``murky,'' the California family code clearly defines traditional marriage in an initiative enacted by voters themselves 4 years ago by 61-percent majority. Rather than believing this discussion is altogether a bad thing, I believe there is a lot of good to be had out of a national discussion on the issue and importance of traditional marriage, supporting family life as providing the best hope for raising children. Those of us on the side of traditional marriage, though, must not flinch in the face of those who would try to characterize our efforts as some hateful or hurtful position. Indeed, I believe advocates of traditional marriage must not back down. We must not allow those who will try to paint our motivations as discriminatory because, in fact, they are not. What we are seeking to preserve is the fundamental bedrock of our society, the wellspring of families, and an institution that is in the best interest of children. That is what we are for. Those of us who have the honor of serving in this body and in government have a duty to act to protect this positive social good and not ignore this issue until it is too late. Some activists believe traditional marriage itself is about discrimination, that all traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional and must, therefore, be abolished by the courts. Indeed, that is what the court in Massachusetts said. These activists found friends in four justices in Massachusetts who were legislating from the bench and who contended that traditional marriage is ``rooted in persistent prejudices'' and represents ``invidious discrimination.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of the four justices who struck down traditional marriage laws in Massachusetts. Indeed, these justices even claim that traditional marriage is not in the best interest of children. They accuse others of wanting to write discrimination into the Constitution. Yet they are the ones writing the American people out of our constitutional democracy. In the face of similar arguments, Hawaiians and Alaskans a number of years ago took preemptive action when they were faced with State constitutional challenges to their traditional marriage laws. Citizens of Nebraska, Nevada, and other States have also taken preemptive action under their State constitutions before suits were even filed. Interestingly, in the hearing we had just a couple weeks ago, we heard from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who said that while his state has a Constitutional Defense of Marriage Amendment, even that amendment has now been challenged in Federal Court by the American Civil Liberties Union, who claim that this state constitutional provision itself violates the Federal Constitution. The threat to traditional marriage is now a Federal threat, and a Federal constitutional amendment is the only way to preserve traditional marriage laws nationwide before it is too late. America needs stable marriages and stable families. The institution of marriage is just too important to leave to chance. Unless and until the American people are persuaded otherwise, we have a duty, as their representatives, to defend the laws they passed and to not let those who would take the law into their own hands reshape society according to their whim. We can be confident in the fact a constitutional amendment is the most representative process we have in American law--requiring, as it does, two-thirds of the Congress to pass a constitutional resolution and three-quarters of the States to ratify it. It is the most democratic form of lawmaking we have in this country, bar none. The burden of proof is on those who seek to experiment with traditional marriage, an institution that has sustained society for countless generations. The experimenters must present their case to us that the radical new social unit they propose is good for the community, good for families and, most important of all, good for children. Thus far, the lab for this experiment has already been run in Scandinavia, and it has produced nothing but disastrous results. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about the Boxer amendment, which would raise taxes by $24 billion, and to say why I think this amendment is a miscalculation. Unless, of course, the intent of this amendment is to try to convince the American people that the American economy is in the tank and offers no opportunity, no hope--something this economy has always provided to American workers, and I believe still does today. If, in fact, our colleagues across the aisle believe the economy is doing so badly, I wonder why it is that home-ownership is at an all- time high in this country. Interest rates are low. Productivity is booming. The gross domestic product is growing by leaps and bounds. If the economy was really doing badly, which it is not, the last thing you would want to do with a slow economy would be to raise taxes to make it harder for the job creators in this society to create new jobs. I would just ask all of my colleagues to consider what is being proposed here. I believe it is simply the wrong answer to the challenges that confront us when it comes to encouraging further job creation and an economy which continues to be the envy of the free world. The amendment we are discussing would do exactly the wrong thing. It conflicts with every free market principle this country stands for. We know that entrepreneurs, the risk takers, those who invest their money to try to create a profit for themselves and their families, are the ones who create jobs. When they have more money to invest in their businesses, they create those jobs. Once again, this amendment is the best indicator that there are still those who believe government really does know best, who want to raise taxes on the American people by $24 billion and throw it around at government's whim and then expect new jobs to somehow miraculously appear. Let's just step back for a moment and see what the whole picture reveals. Sometimes it seems the world is moving faster every day. New technological advancements have given citizens of the 21st century access to instant information; on-demand services are available everywhere. We have an ability to communicate faster and more comprehensively than ever before in the history of the world. Yet with these technological advancements and enhanced abilities, many companies have come to the conclusion that when it comes to manufacturing and customer assistance and many other areas, location no longer matters. There is not a day that goes by that there isn't another article, another report about a company outsourcing some facet of what they do to another country, to another part of the globe. Sometimes these changes are noticeable to every consumer, and sometimes not in a positive way. Indeed, what we see with this amendment, and the comments made in the Chamber, demonstrates the backlash that sometimes occurs when jobs leave our shores and go to other countries. The fact is, there is a real and discernible benefit to consumers from the lower prices that come from efficiencies in labor costs. The dollars American consumers spend on products and services buy them a lot more than ever before. Yet sometimes these changes are hardly noticeable at all. If a small part of the newest computer is now made in India instead of Abilene, TX, what does it matter to the consumer? It may not matter to them, but it matters to Abilene and it matters to the people who live and work there. Yet even as outsourcing continues to be a subject of discussion, even as some of my colleagues in this body throw it out as a trend that is bad for America, we all seem to have forgotten that it also runs the other way. I am proud to say that Texas is one of the leading beneficiaries of in-sourcing, which is just a fancy way of saying ``out-sourcing by foreign companies on American soil.'' According to the Texas Department of Economic Development, Texas benefits from more than $110 billion in foreign direct investment in the state. There are 430,000 Texans on the payrolls of foreign corporations. There is approximately $5,000 in foreign investment in our state economy per Texan. That is a good thing. That helps create jobs for hard- working citizens of my state. But I believe we are missing something important in terms of the overall context of the debate. The economy is clearly on the right track back to recovery. The latest numbers bear that out no matter how much some would try to disparage the booming economy and what is reflected in those numbers. That recovery of the economy will take care of the joblessness concerns we all share, regardless of partisanship, regardless of any other issue. Yet we are facing another problem in this recovery, and this recovery is an opportunity for us to face the problem head on: The real motivation behind outsourcing, behind the desire of a manufacturer of a product or a service to find efficiencies in the way they operate so they can grow and continue to prosper and hire more people here in America has to do with the labor force. Given our advanced technological capabilities, why would a business pay someone in America to do a job when they can go to another country where there is no minimum wage or labor laws or other restrictions on what they do? The conventional wisdom is that no business will choose America merely out of loyalty, that instead they will study the numbers and realize it makes more economic sense to run their telephone banks in Malaysia, for example, instead. In response, some in this body and elsewhere have concluded that the answer is more job training and funding for education and advanced learning programs. Statistics suggest more and more people are taking advantage of these educational and work-related resources. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently commented: Generic capabilities in mathematics, writing, and verbal skills are the key to the ability to learn and to apply new skills and thus to earn higher real wages over time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is very close to my heart--the Child Support Improvement Act of 2004. I want to express my appreciation for the leadership of the Senator from Connecticut on these issues, and his willingness to co-sponsor this bill. In my career, I have had the opportunity to see the significant problems facing our child support system from several different perspectives. As a district judge in Texas, I ruled in divorce and custody cases. I saw the powerful emotions involved in these cases, where the best interests of children are fought over even as the relationships that brought them into this world fall apart. And I had to make judgments in a large number of child support cases before Texas implemented the system for expediting these cases by establishing the masters program. As a Supreme Court justice, I had the opportunity to write opinions that had a real and positive affect on child support. As Attorney General, I saw the positive effects of enforced guidelines for child support, visitation, and income withholding. I worked to implement Federal mandates. And I saw that we had a deep hole to climb out of, a child support system that was in terrible shape. My first priority was to improve customer service. I saw that more than $16 million in child support payments were collected but undistributed due to computer errors, leaving those most in need of assistance without their child support payments merely because of computer or administrative problems. And the vast majority of the people calling the child support offices for assistance were automatically disconnected or received a busy signal. Only one in every seven phone calls was actually answered--one in seven. We got to work fast. We focused on both the dead beat and the dead broke parents. We fixed the customer service system, establishing eight regional call centers and an interactive web site to provide case- specific information on a secure site for parents to access. We worked with community organizations to establish a dozen fatherhood programs. We got payments out the door more quickly, and we reduced undistributed collections. And I announced a top ten list of ``Texas' Most Wanted Child Support Evaders,'' those dead beat parents who willfully evaded arrest. In the end, we collected more than $3 billion in child support. Some folks called it a miracle. I call it a good start. I believe that this body has the responsibility to do more to help our child support system be more efficient, more responsive, and do more to improve the lives of children and families. The proposal that I am introducing today, along with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--who has a deep understanding of the issue and, like me, served his State as attorney general--features several long-needed reforms of our child support provisions. It includes new distribution options for states to get more child support to families on TANF, and to pay more child support to families who were previously on TANF. This bill also has several provisions based on my experience as Attorney General: 1. It encourages States to do more medical support enforcement, by giving states a funding incentive that will ultimately reduce our Federal Medicaid and S-CHIP costs. 2. It promotes early monitoring of child support orders, cutting red tape so that states have greater freedom to innovate and large arrearages never occur. 3. It focuses on reducing undistributed collections by directing more Federal resources toward finding solutions to this widespread problem. 4. It gets payments to custodial parents quickly, by urging States to use electronic payment methods. 5. And it allows States the option to send all non-IV-D child support payments to the State Disbursement Unit, reducing expenses, paperwork and confusion for employers and accelerating payments to families. I believe that all of these reforms are necessary and important steps. They will lower costs, increase efficiency, and get children more of the help they need. Even as we strive to improve our child support system, we cannot underestimate the social importance of the family as a component of our mission. As author Maggie Gallagher once wrote: ``When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and mental and physical health problems.'' I strongly believe that the family is the fundamental institution of our civilization. If fosters successful communities, happier homes, and healthier lives. The family provides the foundation for raising each new generation of Americans. And when families are weakened, children suffer the most. Even the best child support system in the world cannot give the caring love and nurturing of family--which is why I believe we need to have a child support system that genuinely encourages parents to be an active part of their child's life. We need a child support system that focuses on the dead beat and dead broke parents, that brings the worst evaders in, and that puts the family first. Let us in this body strive to do everything we can, as we hope for a brighter future for this nation and future generations of American children.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that is very close to my heart--the Child Support Improvement Act of 2004. I want to express my appreciation for the leadership of the Senator from Connecticut on these issues, and his willingness to co-sponsor this bill. In my career, I have had the opportunity to see the significant problems facing our child support system from several different perspectives. As a district judge in Texas, I ruled in divorce and custody cases. I saw the powerful emotions involved in these cases, where the best interests of children are fought over even as the relationships that brought them into this world fall apart. And I had to make judgments in a large number of child support cases before Texas implemented the system for expediting these cases by establishing the masters program. As a Supreme Court justice, I had the opportunity to write opinions that had a real and positive affect on child support. As Attorney General, I saw the positive effects of enforced guidelines for child support, visitation, and income withholding. I worked to implement Federal mandates. And I saw that we had a deep hole to climb out of, a child support system that was in terrible shape. My first priority was to improve customer service. I saw that more than $16 million in child support payments were collected but undistributed due to computer errors, leaving those most in need of assistance without their child support payments merely because of computer or administrative problems. And the vast majority of the people calling the child support offices for assistance were automatically disconnected or received a busy signal. Only one in every seven phone calls was actually answered--one in seven. We got to work fast. We focused on both the dead beat and the dead broke parents. We fixed the customer service system, establishing eight regional call centers and an interactive web site to provide case- specific information on a secure site for parents to access. We worked with community organizations to establish a dozen fatherhood programs. We got payments out the door more quickly, and we reduced undistributed collections. And I announced a top ten list of ``Texas' Most Wanted Child Support Evaders,'' those dead beat parents who willfully evaded arrest. In the end, we collected more than $3 billion in child support. Some folks called it a miracle. I call it a good start. I believe that this body has the responsibility to do more to help our child support system be more efficient, more responsive, and do more to improve the lives of children and families. The proposal that I am introducing today, along with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut--who has a deep understanding of the issue and, like me, served his State as attorney general--features several long-needed reforms of our child support provisions. It includes new distribution options for states to get more child support to families on TANF, and to pay more child support to families who were previously on TANF. This bill also has several provisions based on my experience as Attorney General: 1. It encourages States to do more medical support enforcement, by giving states a funding incentive that will ultimately reduce our Federal Medicaid and S-CHIP costs. 2. It promotes early monitoring of child support orders, cutting red tape so that states have greater freedom to innovate and large arrearages never occur. 3. It focuses on reducing undistributed collections by directing more Federal resources toward finding solutions to this widespread problem. 4. It gets payments to custodial parents quickly, by urging States to use electronic payment methods. 5. And it allows States the option to send all non-IV-D child support payments to the State Disbursement Unit, reducing expenses, paperwork and confusion for employers and accelerating payments to families. I believe that all of these reforms are necessary and important steps. They will lower costs, increase efficiency, and get children more of the help they need. Even as we strive to improve our child support system, we cannot underestimate the social importance of the family as a component of our mission. As author Maggie Gallagher once wrote: ``When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and mental and physical health problems.'' I strongly believe that the family is the fundamental institution of our civilization. If fosters successful communities, happier homes, and healthier lives. The family provides the foundation for raising each new generation of Americans. And when families are weakened, children suffer the most. Even the best child support system in the world cannot give the caring love and nurturing of family--which is why I believe we need to have a child support system that genuinely encourages parents to be an active part of their child's life. We need a child support system that focuses on the dead beat and dead broke parents, that brings the worst evaders in, and that puts the family first. Let us in this body strive to do everything we can, as we hope for a brighter future for this nation and future generations of American children.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I will say a few words about this budget resolution because it is an important document. As in any budget, we identified what our Nation's priorities are, and we have done the tough job that all budget writers have to do, whether it is the Senate, a small business, or a family, in trying to figure out how to live within our means, how do we make sure we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money. I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from Oklahoma and the ranking member, the Senator from South Dakota, for conducting a very important debate about our Nation's priorities and how they are reflected in this budget and the civility with which that debate has taken place in the Budget Committee and in the Senate. There is no higher priority in the Federal Government than our national security. Indeed, this budget does fund an increase in national security; it, likewise, funds an increase in homeland security funding--two items which would strike me as no-brainers in a post- September 11 world. Particularly when it comes to military spending with our troops in the field and with the Nation being at war, we have to keep our commitments to those troops in the field that we will give them the resources they need in order to get the job done. As to the rest of the nondefense, nonhomeland security spending, this discretionary part of the budget is essentially flat. That represents the considered judgment of a lot of people who have this Nation's best interests at heart: How do we deal with this budget deficit and how do we meet this Nation's commitments without killing the burgeoning growth of the recovery of the economy while at the same time recognizing we are a nation at war, a nation that needs to harden its homeland security. However, what we all need to realize when we hear amendments being proposed from the Senate to this budget, we are talking about spending more of the taxpayers' money, plain and simple. The American people are wise enough to understand when people talk about tax increases on the wealthy, if they begin to look at the numbers, ultimately what we are talking about are tax increases on the middle class and literally on all Americans. I referred back to some figures and discovered that last year our Democratic colleagues offered budget amendments in the range of $85 billion additional spending to the budget over 1 year and it would have calculated $1.2 trillion over 10 years. I don't know how anyone can stand in front of this group or anyone else and say those geometric leaps in spending could be accomplished without raising taxes across the board. We cannot do both. We cannot have the kind of huge increases in spending that our colleagues across the aisle would want to have without raising taxes across the board. I know it is easier to make the class warfare argument, tax millionaires, but when we look at the people who are paying taxes, it includes small businesses that pay not as corporations but pay as an individual taxpayer would if they were a sole proprietor or a partnership or small subchapter S corporation. They essentially pay income taxes as if they were individuals. What our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing when they talk about raising taxes against the wealthy, they are talking about raising taxes against the very engine that grows jobs in our economy. We have come off of a rough time in our history, the last 2\1/ 2\ years since September 11. Of course, we were starting into a recession when President Bush and Vice President Cheney took office. We suffered a body blow to our Nation's economy and to our consciousness on September 11. That had a devastating impact on our economy. Of course we saw the stock market plummet as investors lost confidence in corporate America because of some scandals which shook that confidence to its very core. So we have had what some have called, many have called, the perfect storm. It is as a result of the tax relief and growth package we passed last year in this body, something our colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued mightily against, but it is as a result of allowing the people who earn the money to keep it, to keep more of it, and spend it as they see fit, to save it, and to invest it in their small businesses that we have seen the job growth. We have seen the roaring back of the economy in a way we have not seen in the last 20 years. It comes to productivity; it comes to growth in the gross domestic production. I fear if we were to accept this formula offered by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to tax more and to spend more, it would simply squelch the nascent recovery we are seeing in this economy. There is a lot of discussion about jobs. Obviously that is a core goal we all share. We do not grow jobs by killing the profits, by taxing the engine of job creation--which our colleagues across the aisle would do by their proposals, including this one. The only way we get more in this economy is by letting people who earn the money keep more of it and invest it, save it, and create more jobs. That is simply the formula that we on this side of the aisle, as well as our President, have said is the philosophy we should approach. Let the people who earn the money keep more of it. We have seen as a result explosive growth in our economy. We know over time we will reduce unemployment rates to the point that literally anybody and everybody who wants to work can find a job. Indeed, that is our goal. While we have to make tough choices in writing a budget, just as anyone else does, what our colleagues by this amendment seek to do is to add to an already substantial increase when it comes to veterans benefits and services. I can think of no more sympathetic or deserving cause than our veterans. My dad was a veteran of World War II. He flew B-17s in the Army Air Corps, was shot down after a bombing mission over Mannheim, Germany, was captured and served for a time in a German prisoner-of-war camp before General Patton and his Army came along and liberated him and his colleagues. As so many in this generation, he came back to this country, married my mom, and helped build this Nation into what is today the envy of the entire world. We owe a debt to all of our veterans to see that we address their needs, whether it is health care or other veterans benefits. But at a time when this budget resolution proposes giving less money than the Commander in Chief has asked for in terms of current military operations, I am sure all of our veterans would understand why we say a 14.5-percent increase over last year is a reasonable increase in veterans benefits and services, and why they would say--at a time when we are looking at trying to balance the budget under tough times and actually giving the Commander in Chief, our Department of Defense, less than what has been requested because of our attempt to try to balance the budget, to meet our priorities to the soldiers and airmen and sailors and marines in the field and on the waters--that is an appropriate increase at this time. Particularly for those veterans coming back from their military duty, they would want to make sure there will be, once they leave active duty military service, jobs for them to hold to provide for their families. I think this is a good budget resolution. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma the best thing we could do to keep faith with both our troops in the field and our veterans is to make sure we are responsible, that we meet our priorities, that we do not overtax, that we do not overspend, and that we continue to grow this economy so anyone and everyone who wants to work can find a good job. With that, I yield the floor back to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has spoken passionately and eloquently about our concern about job loss in this country and certainly it is something we are all concerned and want to do something about. But I am sure none of us would want to endorse a cure which is worse than the disease or cause other problems that perhaps we have not thought through or that are not intended. I do detect a whiff of politics. I notice the chart says manufacturing jobs lost under President Bush. Perhaps since the time when we had primarily an agrarian economy, we have seen tremendous shifts in our economy because of the efficiency of a flow market system that is far more efficient than the command-and-control economy that is used in other parts of the world that is inefficient and stifles competition and innovation and the productivity that we have in this country. I certainly would not want to see us do anything that would harm the good things we had going on in the economy in the effort to address a real problem but perhaps with the wrong solution. I appreciate the Senator from Wyoming mentioning this is something I and no doubt other Members would like to study a little further to see exactly what the details may be before we were asked to vote on it. I am not an economist. I do understand why companies outsource, to find a cheaper way of producing their product. Even though the distinguished Senator from Connecticut says it is a bad idea, I am not sure what you can do or what we could do, short of erecting a wall around this country and saying we are no longer interested in international trade. I don't know what we can do to avoid companies who are seeking to produce a cheaper product in a more competitive environment from outsourcing some of those jobs. I do think there is an answer, but I am not sure the answer is what the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is proposing. In fact, by prohibiting the outsourcing of jobs we are basically saying the American taxpayer has to pay a higher price than they would otherwise have to pay. Certainly, that is something we need to explore, whether the higher price is worth the proposed cure. Also, the Senator from Iowa mentioned we are a country that has a policy of free and fair trade. Of course, there is a question of retaliation. But the truth is, we have seen a loss of manufacturing jobs in this country for a lot of reasons other than outsourcing or competition with China, India--now with the movement of white-collar jobs particularly in the service sector to that country--and that is simply because we have increased productivity. Technology has made it possible to do the same or, indeed, more work using less people. That is just a fact of life. I don't think anyone would want to go back to the last century and say we are not going to seek further improvements in technology or innovation because we do not want to put people out of work. The truth is, the solution is, we need to make sure we continue to educate our workforce and not for minimum-wage jobs but for good high- paying jobs. Members may recall the President addressed this issue in his State of the Union speech and talked about the importance of Americans competing in a global economy by educating and perhaps retraining our workforce for new and better-paying jobs. He mentioned his initiative, working with community colleges. I took the President's words to heart because I am concerned--as no doubt all 100 Members of this body are--about job loss in this country. I went to the community colleges in my State. I said, Tell me what you are doing to train the American worker or perhaps to retrain the American worker for good, high-paying jobs. I went to Amarillo in the Panhandle where I found that Bell Helicopter and the Amarillo College helped create a curriculum to train people to work on the V-22 Osprey which is produced in that plant. I remember a young woman, a single mom, Hispanic woman, with two children, formerly working as a prison guard making about $9 an hour. As a result of this program with Amarillo College and Bell Helicopter-- this is just one example--she is now working on a production line, contributing to the transformation of our military and also improving her standard of living, making about $16 an hour in a good job. I have done the same thing in Austin where I went to the Austin Community College and learned about partnerships they had entered into to train nurses, surgical techs, dental hygienists. At the San Jacinto Community College near Houston they have partnerships with Boeing and NASA and others to train people for good, high-paying jobs. Now, I realize we are in the political season, and I understand that perhaps nothing said in this body or anywhere else in Washington is perhaps totally devoid of politics, but the truth is, Americans can and will always be willing to compete and win in the global competition in this new economy. Now is not the time for us to wring our hands and say: Oh, woe is us. We just can't quite do it. We have to erect protectionist walls. We have to come up with solutions which, perhaps maybe actually increase prices to the American consumer while not actually solving the problem that we are all concerned about; that is, job loss. So I say as part of this debate--and, again, I know the Senator from Connecticut has the best of intentions, and we share the same concern-- now is not the time for the American worker or for the Members of the Congress to lose faith in free markets and the capitalist economy which has made this Nation the envy of the world. We are talking now again, thankfully, about addressing our immigration issues in this country. I will note that there are not people trying to get out of the United States of America because things are so bad. To the contrary, people are risking life itself to come here because we are still a beacon in terms of the opportunities provided, in terms of the freedom, in terms of the ability of people, working hard in this country, to have a good standard of living and a better quality of life. I hope the election year does not consume us so much that we look at the glass always as half empty rather than half full, or look at something as a lemon rather than an opportunity to make lemonade. I think the President is exactly on the right track. I think if we commit resources to train the American worker to be part of the innovation that has always characterized and been the hallmark of the American economy and the business providers in this country, to make sure those workers are trained in this constantly evolving economy, which is very efficient, and sometimes brutal, but to make sure we are there and are working with local and State and Federal governments to do everything we can to assist business partners and the education community to train the American worker for good, high-paying jobs, I think we have nothing to fear. Finally, where I was raised we were taught that we would get our formal education and then we would go to work and maybe even stay in the same job for the rest of our adult life. But the truth is, today that is just not possible. We need to change our frame of mind so that we teach our younger people, look, learning is a lifetime endeavor, and it may be that you will change jobs at different times during your adult life because you want to improve your circumstances, you want to get a better paying job to better provide for your family, and you can do it in a free country where there is an opportunity to retrain, to get an education throughout the course of your life. I firmly believe now is not the time for the American people to lose faith in the good thing we have going in this country, and that, as I said a moment ago, is the envy of the entire world. I believe our focus ought to be on that education, lifetime job training, and not on erecting barriers around this country or perhaps other solutions, although well intended, which will have a detrimental impact. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield, I will have a brief response but not so much a question at this time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank Senator Craig. Mr. President, I want to address this bill generally but then close my comments on the so-called gun show loophole amendment. I believe there are those who benefit from the job-destroying lawsuit lottery in this country, and there are those who seek to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens to use firearms for legitimate purposes. On the job-destroying lawsuit lottery, let me just mention one company in Texas, Maverick Arms, located in Eagle Pass, where 140 dedicated people work to assemble Mossberg and Maverick guns, high- quality firearms for shooting sports, military, and law enforcement communities. Maverick's ability to continue providing good jobs to the citizens of Texas is in jeopardy. It is in jeopardy because of junk lawsuits filed by trial lawyers, and the politicians who support their right to terrorize a legal employer providing a legal product, as opposed to focusing our efforts on the criminals and those who illegally use firearms who should be punished for doing so. I believe it is absolutely imperative that, rather than focusing on and punishing law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to provide for their families by engaging in a lawful enterprise and producing a legal product, we ought to focus our law enforcement efforts on the criminals. Indeed, we have found through programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, VA, and Texas Exile in my own State, we can have a real impact by punishing the convicted felons who illegally possess firearms and those who use firearms illegally to jeopardize our communities and threaten our communities, and that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained by passing additional laws, as the proponents of these amendments would do, that limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. I would like to just mention in closing why I believe we do need to expand the role of instant background checks to all commercial gun sales, no matter where they occur. But as well-intentioned as the amendments proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Reed and Senator Lieberman and others are, the so-called closing the gun show loophole bill--as well-intentioned as they are, I think it misses the mark. I would like to work with them to try to bring the instant background check to all commercial gun sales in this country. The problem is this amendment, as well-intentioned as it is, will have the effect, should there be a State attorney general who doesn't seek a 24-hour instant background check period, that there will be a default through a 3-day check period, which will essentially obliterate gun show sales. It is important to point out that, currently, everybody who is a dealer in firearms is subject to the Federal firearms license. Indeed, there is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. But what this amendment would seek to do would be to affect people who are not dealers in firearms, but are collectors, people who engage in sales to friends and family and others, and these are. As long as they are lawful possessors of these firearms, I don't believe the full apparatus of the Federal Government ought to intrude on that ability to conduct a sale that is no threat to the people of this country. So S. 1706, which Senator Craig and others have cosponsored, which currently sits in the Judiciary Committee, I suggest is an appropriate vehicle. Senator McCain and others are cosponsors of that bill. I think it will ultimately accomplish the goal of this gun show amendment. I cannot support that amendment as it is written now, but I look forward to working with them to write a bill that would address the real problem, and that is a need for instant background checks across the board to make sure guns are not sold to common criminals, and make sure that we do not unnecessarily interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens. With that, I yield back the remaining time to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. To clarify, I send an amendment to the desk to be filed.