John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, in commending to the Members of the body the nominations of Judge Lee Yeakel and Judge Kathleen Cardone. Both of these nominees are outstanding examples of the highly qualified nominees that President Bush has sent to this body for consideration and confirmation. They deserve these appointments. I have every confidence they will serve with distinction. I am proud of what they represent and the potential they have as well. In the couple seconds I have remaining, I would like to respond to the ranking member's statements about how many judicial nominees this body has confirmed of those who have been sent by President Bush. I commend him and this entire body for confirming the number of judicial nominees that we have. But, frankly, two unconstitutional filibusters is two too many. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, under the previous order, I ask that the Senate stand in recess. Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:23 p.m., recessed until Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 9 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar Nos. 148, 149, and 151 be indefinitely postponed en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will be in a period of morning business until approximately 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2555, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Again, it is the majority leader's intention to complete action on this bill during tomorrow's session. There are a number of Senators who have expressed an interest in offering amendments. The majority leader would encourage those Members to contact the bill managers as soon as possible. Rollcall votes are expected throughout the day tomorrow as the Senate will continue work through the remaining amendments to the bill. Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the war in Iraq. My recent visit to the Middle East confirmed that the largest obstacle to a free and prosperous Iraq is the significant number of people who still live in fear of Saddam Hussein and his sons. That is an understandable fear, considering the years of torture so many endured under the iron fist of the Hussein regime. With today's news from Central Command of the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, we are two steps closer to removing that fear, two steps closer to rebuilding a once-great nation, and two steps closer to ensuring lasting security and freedom for the Iraqi people. I thank all the dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces who helped make these two steps possible. Throughout the past few weeks, we have heard some on this floor raise questions about the justification for the war in Iraq. Last week on this floor, the senior Senator from North Dakota had this to say, and I quote: This administration told the world Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that they are trying to develop nuclear capability, there is a connection to al-Qaida, and each and every one of those claims is now in question, every one of them. It is not just 16 words in the State of the Union. It is far more serious than that. I find this charge to be simply indefensible. It is an accusation that flies in the face of everything that we have seen about Saddam Hussein's regime. It offends the reasoning mind. It maligns all good Members of this body who weighed the intelligence about Iraq in the balance and decided that this war was just and right--and voted for it. I might add, months before the President's State of the Union speech. We have heard similar statements echoed from others on this floor and in the press in recent weeks. I have the utmost respect for my fellow Senators. Yet I must confess I am dumbfounded at how soon they forget the truth about the vile regime of Saddam Hussein. I believe their line of reasoning goes something like this: They charge that the President was looking for excuses to go to war with Iraq, and that his claims concerning weapons-of-mass-destruction were just a pretense for this war. I find this line of reasoning nonsensical at best--and downright offensive at worst. First, if one buys the idea that Saddam Hussein did not possess the weapons or the capabilities the administration assigned to him, the dictator did not fool us alone as to his guilt. Every significant intelligence service in the world, including the vast majority of those in nations who opposed this war, were convinced that Iraq possessed these weapons. That is why the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which declared Iraq in material breach of its obligations under numerous previous resolutions, including failing to account for weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had previously admitted to building and stockpiling. As Richard Butler, the former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, wrote in 2001: It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam] is developing long-range missile capabilities; at work again on building nuclear weapons; and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period. Yet it is that same logical position that some in this body are arguing against today. Those who make accusations based on their political desires, not the facts, lump the international political community, the media, the intelligence community, and the President of the United States into some fantastic form of shadowy conspiracy. This is hardly responsible, and I believe it does a great disservice to the American people. Second, if one honestly argues that because of one offending sentence every other claim made by the administration concerning Iraq is now under question, you run into a very hard brick wall of solid fact. Perhaps my colleagues will explain what form of gas Saddam used to kill more than 100,000 Kurds, including 5,000 in just one day. Perhaps they will explain why, prior to kicking out the U.N. inspection team in 1998, Iraqi officials admitted that they had produced biological weapons agents--including 4 tons of VX, 8,500 liters of anthrax and 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin--and biological weapons delivery munitions, including aerial bombs, aerial dispensers, and Scud missile warheads. Perhaps they will explain why, for more than a decade, Saddam Hussein stymied inspectors, buried research facilities, built mobile biological weapons labs, intimidated scientists, and even removed the tongues of those who questioned his regime. I would ask my colleagues who have made these arguments to answer a question for me, then. Under their line of reasoning, why did our President seek the authority to pursue this war? If, as they claim, there was no overarching consensus that Saddam Hussein represented a danger to American security and peace in the Middle East and around the world, why did the President undertake this war? Why did so many vote to support the President, here in the Senate and in the United Nations? War is a serious enterprise, one that is not undertaken without risk. The fact that Baghdad fell in 3 weeks, with so few casualties among coalition forces, fulfilled our greatest hopes for this conflict. I know I am thankful for that fact, and I know the President is as well. I also know that the case for this war remains solid. This was a case built not on one piece of evidence provided by British intelligence, but on a much deeper long-term purpose. It was built on the noble goal of ending the decades of brutal and violent works by Saddam Hussein, and on our clear duty to ensure America's security in the post-9/11 world by removing state-sponsors of terrorism and opposing regimes that threaten other nations with weapons of mass destruction. Three-hundred thousand people, maybe more, are buried in mass graves spread throughout Iraq, in nearly a hundred reported sites. They stretch from Basrah to Baghdad, from Najaf to Kirkuk. They are silent monuments to Saddam's legacy of ruthlessness and evil. The suggestion in the face of these silent witnesses that Iraq, the Middle East, and America are not better off today than we were before this war is simply ludicrous. We have finished the fighting. Now we must finish the job. We seek to make Iraq secure, to make it a place where the rule of law can be established, so that civilian leaders and the Iraqi Governing Council can establish a new government for a new nation. This is not an easy task--and it is not without cost. But it must be done, so that Iraq can flourish as a free nation, and so that the victories won, the lives risked and lost, will not be in vain. Those we spend their time playing political games with our mission in Iraq, even while our brave men and women labor to secure and stabilize this fledging nation, dishonor our soldiers in the field and the memories of all of those who sacrificed their lives opposing the bloodthirsty regime of Saddam Hussein. President Clinton argued in 1998 that if America did not act, Saddam Hussein would: . . . go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he's use the arsenal. President Bush agreed with that argument, and he dediced to do something about it. Many of us agreed with that argument, and we voted to support the President. And I am confident history will record it as the right decision--a decision based strongly on the principles of human freedom that inspired America's foundation. Last week, Prime Minister Blair reminded us that we have a duty as a powerful nation to take great care regarding what kind of world we leave for our children. I believe that the task that falls to us at this moment in history is spreading the blessings of liberty, bringin the light of freedom to a nation imprisoned in the darkness. Let those who are more comfortable playing political games--play on. Those of us who wish to accomplish something greater will labor on, undeterred, always confident in our ultimate goal: We seek a just, free, and peaceful world--for ourselves, for the Iraqi people, and for future generations.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m., Wednesday, July 23. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate begin a period of morning business with the first 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee, the next 15 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison or her designee, and the final 30 minutes under the control of the minority leader or his designee; provided that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 192, H.R. 2555, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the issue of medical liability reform, a matter that cries out for a remedy from the Congress because of its sheer scope and size. When it comes to health care, I believe the proper role of the Government is to protect the freedom of all people to act in their own interests and in the interests of their health. I think it is appropriate that we make sure their decisions are not made by the Government but by themselves and their families. Patients and doctors, rather than lawyers and bureaucrats, should be trusted to decide what treatment is best for themselves and their patients. I strongly believe that when people have good choices in a health care system built upon free market principles, it ultimately translates into high-quality care. One of the obstacles, though, to achieving access to that high-quality care is the current crisis involving medical liability litigation. Today, America is experiencing a medical liability litigation crisis that is increasing the cost of health care, it is decreasing access to physicians and hospitals for many patients, and it is generally lowering the quality of care. As a matter of fact, we could hardly call our medical liability system a ``system'' because it is such a mess. In recent years, average jury awards have more than doubled, from more than $460,000 in 1996 to more than $1 million in the year 2000. In the past year, medical liability insurance premiums in many States have increased by more than 20 percent, on average, and more than 75 percent for certain specialties. That is just in 1 year. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of medical malpractice payments of $1 million or more that were reported to the National Practitioners' Database increased from 298 to 806. The overall result is sky-high costs for liability insurance, increased costs for those who provide health treatment, and costs that have really created a crisis of enormous proportions, one that is threatening the quality of care, diminishing access to care, and exploding the cost of care. According to studies at the Department of Health and Human Services, doctors across the country are closing their practices, they are limiting the types of patients they see, or they are leaving communities where they have long practiced because they cannot afford the rapidly increasing costs of medical liability insurance or, worse yet, insurance coverage is unavailable altogether. Fear of liability suits--even frivolous litigation--also results in the practice of defensive medicine. A recent survey, for example, conducted by an organization known as Common Good, revealed some disturbing trends: 79 percent of physicians admit that the fear of litigation has caused them to order more tests than they thought medically necessary, and 74 percent refer more patients to specialists than their best medical judgment would otherwise dictate. Half have recommended invasive procedures they do not consider on a medical basis to be necessary, but they have done it in an effort to protect themselves against the second-guessing that goes along with the medical liability regime. Defensive medicine increases risks for patients and it raises health care costs by as much as $126 billion per year. This is a crisis not just for the Nation's physicians, it is a danger to America's patients--in other words, every single one of us. For example, pregnant women in Nevada, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Florida must drive hours just to find an obstetrician who can care for them, and many still cannot get the essential prenatal care they desperately need. The only level 1 trauma center in Las Vegas had to close temporarily last year because its surgeons could not afford medical liability insurance. Some physicians' annual premiums had increased from $40,000 to $200,000 in just a year. In many States, physicians are retiring or moving their practices because they either cannot afford the liability insurance or simply cannot buy the liability insurance they need in order to protect what they have worked a lifetime to achieve. In Mississippi, physicians are actually moving across the river to Louisiana to serve the same patients they would serve in Mississippi because they can no longer afford to practice in that State, and most cities in the State of Mississippi with populations under 20,000 no longer have any physician who will even deliver a baby. There are many more examples from my State, the State of Texas. The city of Austin, for example, is suffering from a shortage of neurosurgeons caused by retirements and relocation to avoid liability coverage costs, a shortage so heavy that some patients have to travel more than 65 miles away to find treatment. In 100 of the 254 counties in the State of Texas, there is no obstetrician; in other words, there is no medically trained specialist who will deliver a baby in 152 Texas counties. After 44 years, Spring Branch Medical Center near Houston has stopped delivering babies altogether due to the soaring malpractice insurance costs and the shrinking pool of physicians that will actually deliver babies. According to the Texas Medical Association's physician survey last year, more than half of all Texas physicians, including those in the prime of their professional career, are considering early retirement because of the State's medical liability insurance crisis, and earlier this year the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported about one story that illustrates the way this problem affects patients who need care the most. The story said: Last summer, a pregnant woman showed up at Dr. Lloyd Van Winkle's Castroville office in south Texas, less than 10 minutes from delivery. Her family doctor in Uvalde had recently stopped delivering babies, citing malpractice concerns, and the woman was trying to drive 80 miles to her San Antonio doctor and hospital. ``She made it as far as Castroville and decided she wasn't going to make it any further,'' Van Winkle said. We all want to prevent disease and injury. When patients get sick, we all want to prevent medical errors, and when errors do happen, we can all agree that a patient should be compensated fairly. But if you can find some goal hidden somewhere within the current dysfunctional medical liability system, that goal would not be either the prevention of errors or the fair compensation for injury. Very clearly, the current medical liability crisis operates for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many. Personal injury trial lawyers should not be able to drive good doctors out of medicine or to reduce patients' access to health care. This system undermines the ability of physicians to treat their patients without fear, and it destroys the trust and the important relationship between patients and their physicians, and it truly abandons the American patient--that is, every one of us--when we need the help the most. I am proud to say that in my home State of Texas, the State government has stepped up in the legislative session just ended and passed some needed reforms in this and other areas. This year, despite overwhelming pressures from special interest groups, the State passed historic liability reform which makes it possible for doctors to practice in Texas without fear of unwarranted and frivolous lawsuits. The law puts caps on punitive damages while allowing for patients who are truly hurt to be fairly compensated. Judgments will be based on the amount of involvement in the act caused in the suit without consideration of who has the deepest pocket. I must add, though, that even in my State of Texas, there will be a vote of the people on whether the Texas Constitution will be amended to provide a means to achieve this historic reform and much needed reform, and that vote remains to be given and taken. Yet there is still little recourse for patients in States without meaningful reform, and this is truly a nationwide crisis and not one that should be addressed by individual States, given the sheer magnitude of the crisis, its geographic expanse and, frankly, the amount of Federal taxpayers' dollars to go in to paying for the current dysfunctional system. Our health care system is still burdened with frivolous lawsuits and outrageous jury awards. According to a Health and Human Services study, premiums in States without meaningful liability reform went up 39 percent in the year 2001 and an additional 51 percent in 2002. An out- of-control system in one State can have an effect on malpractice premiums in other States, even those States that have made some incremental step toward reform. This is a national problem, and it demands a national solution. This legislation is comprehensive reform that will enact several critically needed components. For example, it caps noneconomic damages awarded in medical malpractice cases at $250,000. It will eliminate joint and several liability; in other words, the person at fault will pay for their percentage or their share of fault and no more. It will create a uniform statute of limitations; in other words, a period of time in which a lawsuit can be filed and pursued in court in a way that will preserve both the rights of the patient, as well as make sure that so much time does not pass that memories dim, records are destroyed, and the facts are difficult to discern. It will reform the collateral source rule, another arcane rule of our legal system that says that even if someone has already been paid from one source they can still keep that information from the jury and seek to be paid yet again for the same loss. Finally, it will create reasonable limits and court approval of attorney contingency fee awards. In many places, the amount of money that a lawyer will receive, and others will receive, in terms of costs of expert witnesses and the like routinely exceeds the amount of money that an injured patient will receive, somewhere on the order of out of every dollar that is awarded by a jury the injured patient only gets 40 cents. It is the lawyer and the bureaucracy in our litigation system that absorb the rest. If this were truly about what is best for the patients, we would see reform. We would see it in the Senate. Unfortunately, this is about the 60 cents on the dollar that goes to people, other than the patient, who are obstructing true reform. This legislation is a comprehensive reform and is modeled after the highly successful MICRA law in California, one that has been very successful both in making sure injured patients are fairly compensated while at the same time holding down the escalating costs of medical liability insurance in a way that allows most physicians to practice their chosen profession and which provides better access to good quality health care. This act will help protect our critical care hospitals and provide needed relief for nursing homes and medical specialists. The cost of health care will be reduced as the need for high premiums for liability insurance will become a thing of the past. We must remember that this crisis is not, in the end, about what is best for doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, or personal injury trial lawyers. What this bill is about is what is best for patients--in other words, what is best for the American people. This crisis is threatening the quality of care, jeopardizing access to care, and escalating the costs of care. In my own State, one can travel to the gulf coast and Corpus Christi where emergency room physicians live in fear that they will be called to answer to a patient in a hospital emergency room, someone who they know they have never seen before and will never perhaps see again after treating them in the emergency room, and for a patient visit that they will likely not get paid or will get paid only pennies on a dollar for their usual fee, but yet because of the medical liability crisis they will put at risk everything they have worked a lifetime to build and achieve for themselves and for their family. That is even when they can buy insurance. The truth is, the costs of medical liability insurance have escalated so dramatically because of this crisis that many physicians cannot even buy adequate amounts of coverage. If they can, it is at such a cost that they figure why bother, why bother to practice, and so they simply leave. I reiterate that in the end this is not about doctors, lawyers, hospitals, or insurance companies. This is about who gets access to quality health care, and in many parts of my State, and in many States across the Nation, access to health care is simply not there because of this crisis. I believe we should end the liability lottery, where select patients and some trial lawyers receive astronomical awards, while others pay more--all of us really--for health care and many suffer access problems because of it. We should pass meaningful medical liability reform that includes real and lasting change and bring the lessons of Texas and other States that have done so to the Nation's Capital and the American people. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I express my appreciation to the managers of the bill and Senator Bingaman for his courtesy. This is obviously a critical issue that confronts the Senate, one this body has talked about for a long time. It appears we are on the precipice of actually delivering what many of us have campaigned on, on both sides of the aisle, in previous elections. Medicare has been a successful program for the last 30 years, and it has served our seniors well. But it faces major challenges. Obviously, we are all interested in strengthening Medicare so it will continue to be a program that will serve our children and grandchildren as it has our parents and grandparents. Medicare was created in 1965 and reflects the state of health care in that year. While the world has changed and medicine has changed, Medicare has not changed. It is time to improve and strengthen Medicare so it can serve the needs of Americans of this generation and the next, and can also be within our fiscal constraints. Medicare is stuck in 1965, and so are its beneficiaries. Medicare's promise falls far short when its recipients suffer from outdated and inadequate benefits, limited protection against rising medical costs, or a stodgy Government plan that cannot deliver responsive medical services or ensure high-quality health care. While health insurance has followed the demands of the free market, Medicare still lacks catastrophic protection or full coverage of many preventive benefits in a comprehensive outpatient prescription drug benefit. One of the critical improvements included in this bill is immediate assistance, in the form of prescription drug coverage, for those seniors who cannot currently obtain it or who do so only at great economic hardship and great personal hardship. I have supported the principle of a prescription drug benefit from day 1 for the seniors who need it. I am proud to reiterate my support here today. Having said that, I have significant concerns about the legislation that is before this body--some aspects of it, significant aspects of it. While a prescription drug benefit and expanded treatment choices will help America's seniors, this bill falls substantially short of President Bush's framework for reform. If we endorse this legislation without real and meaningful reform, we rush to satisfy political interests rather than take the time to form sound policy, and we do a great disservice to the Medicare beneficiaries who depend on this coverage, to our constituencies, and to the future generations who will have the financial burden to pay for it. Ultimately, if we do not take care, we could do more harm than good. According to estimates of the Congressional Budget Office, this plan will have unintended ramifications for Americans. It will force nearly 40 percent of retired Americans who currently have prescription drug benefits under private plans onto taxpayer-paid plans that would be provided under this bill. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts that only 2 percent of seniors will actually choose the only vehicle for reform provided for under this bill, that of the preferred provider organizations, the PPOs, while the rest will remain in Medicare basically as it currently exists with a prescription drug benefit added, hardly what we could call true reform. We should not fool ourselves. What we are actually providing seniors under Medicare, and through this bill, is actually very different from what Members of Congress receive. Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, all of us in this body, along with 10 million Federal employees, can enroll in a number of flexible preferred provider organizations. The plans we can choose as Federal employees do not have restrictive price caps, and they provide for more choice. As a result, those of us who work for the Federal Government can obtain better coverage and treatment than the vast majority of our constituents. This disparity, I believe, should not be tolerated under this plan, especially one that charges under the banner of reform. Price controls are a recipe for long-term disaster. The best determiner of price in a product is the free market, not government bureaucrats sitting in darkened cubicles wearing green eyeshades. My other concern is that this purports to be a universal entitlement, based on nothing like what we have talked about in many of our campaigns, which is actually need. It will provide a prescription drug benefit to millionaires, including Members of this body who just do not need it. I question the morality of any proposal that would take the hard-earned money out of the pockets of truck drivers, schoolteachers, police officers, small business men and women and single moms, to subsidize a prescription drug benefit for people who are well to do. When it comes to health care, I believe the proper role of government is to protect the freedom of all people to act as they see fit to maintain and improve their health care. Today, millions of Americans suffer from chronic diseases that are for the most part preventable. Our Nation spends about $1.4 trillion a year on health care--more than any other country in the world--and chronic diseases account for roughly 75 percent of those health care costs. Preventing disease before it happens is better, more humane, and less expensive than curing disease after it manifests itself, and prevention can lead to a far better quality of life. If Medicare is to adapt to the demands of a new populace, it must become a system refocused on the importance of preventive care. I strongly believe that real positive change in our Medicare system must begin with the foundation of individual responsibility and the choices that can only be provided by the free market--not by a government mandate. We must not offer up a short-term legislative answer that plays politics with people's health and the needs of future beneficiaries. We should not tinker only around the edges and call it reform. As we work over this week and next to produce a solution to this challenge that lies before us, we cannot allow ourselves to believe our striving will fail, and we must not convince ourselves we have already succeeded. In conclusion, let me say it is my most ardent hope that this bill, which I know was produced by great effort of the staff and on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Finance Committee, can be improved and that the improvement will allow us to make sure the benefit is targeted to those seniors who actually need the help and not millionaires, thereby having the wealth transferred out of the pockets of hard- working Americans to pay for a prescription drug benefit for millionaires and others who are well to do. Second, let us make sure we don't crowd out private dollars that are currently paying for prescription drug benefits for many retired persons which they have negotiated under the terms of their retirement or pension plan. Right now up to 40 percent of those dollars will be chased off and the Federal Government--in other words, the taxpayer-- will step forward and fill that gap. That is something we should not allow. Third, if this is truly going to be reform, it has to be something more than business as usual. What concerns me quite a bit is on the one hand the OMB estimates that some 40 percent of seniors will opt for the true vehicle for reform--the PPOs, the preferred provider organizations--but, on the other hand, another agency of the Federal Government, the Congressional Budget Office, says No, it won't be 43 percent. It won't be 40 percent. It will be 2 percent. In other words, if the Congressional Budget Office is right, we will not have accomplished what the President has asked us to do and what many in this institution believe is so important; that is, true reform. It is my hope and prayer we will be able to make the necessary adjustments to this very good start. But there are some very grave concerns that I and others have about the bill as it currently exists. In a tight budget, I hope we do not vote for what is by most conservative estimates a $400 billion new entitlement on top of $2.2 trillion the Federal Government commits to nondiscretionary entitlement spending each year, unless we make sure it is absolutely necessary and targeted to those who need it most, and that it does not supplant other private insurance and other measures designed to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Montana giving me a chance to say just a few words. May I inquire, my understanding was Senator Bingaman was going to be coming at 4:20 under a previous agreement to speak, but there also was a possibility I might be allowed to continue a while longer, perhaps 20 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about our Nation's immigration policy. The United States has been built on the labor, industry, and initiative of immigrants. The immigrant character that undergirds our country and enriches our society is expressed through our art, music, and culture--the fulfillment of one of America's greatest gifts to the world: the promise of thriving multi-ethnic democracy. In every war America has fought, from the Revolutionary War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, brave immigrants have fought alongside American-born citizens, with distinction and with courage. And throughout history, those who have longed for the blessings of liberty have looked to America as a beacon of hope, freedom, and the opportunity of a better life. The American Dream itself is rooted in the immigrant spirit. What sets this country apart is our conviction that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not just American rights, but the gift of a benevolent Creator to all humanity. And so America has always welcomed immigrants from every shore, saying: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' Yet for too long, we have failed to address the flaws in our nation's current immigration policy. This issue is even more urgent in a post 9/ 11 world. Special interest groups dominate the discourse, employing the potent but morally repugnant rhetoric of fear. We must acknowledge that we have done far too little to reform a system that cries out for change. The fruit of our current immigration policy is death, danger, and denial. For immigrants willing to risk their lives for the opportunity to live here in America, exploitation at the hands of human smugglers can mean a slow and painful death. According to some estimates, there at as many as ten million individuals who are in this country illegally; our homeland security demands an accounting of the identities of these individuals, their reason for being here, and whether they pose a danger to our citizens. And we can no longer afford to deny both the sheer number of undocumented immigrants in our country and the extent of our economy's dependence on the labor they provide. Our relationship with Mexico, an important ally and trading partner, is a prime example of the ramifications of the tired old status quo. The stated desire of our Mexican friends for general amnesty for the millions of undocumented immigrants here in America is an untenable position in support of an unrealistic policy. Instead, the guest worker program I propose acknowledges the vital role hard-working immigrants play in our economy and creates a comprehensive program, which will serve as an important step toward reestablishing respect for our laws and restoring dignity to immigrants who work here. It will enhance America's homeland security, facilitate enforcement of our immigration and labor laws, and protect millions who labor today outside the law. This program will benefit all participating nations and their citizens who wish to work in the United States and contribute to our Nation's prosperity. Our immigration policy must adapt to modern realities. An effective guest worker program will acknowledge that millions of undocumented men and women go to work every day in America in violation of our immigration law, outside the protection of our labor law, and without any way of our Government knowing who, or where they are. My proposal will encourage undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows, to work within the law, and then to return to their homes and families with the pay and skills they acquire as guest workers in the United States. It will help guest workers receive the health care they need, without overburdening already strained health care providers. It will protect immigrants from exploitation and from violence. And guest workers will no longer fear the authorities, but rather will come to see the law as an ally, not an enemy. I have always believed that, as Americans, our patriotism isn't just expressed by flying the flag. It's about more than that. Patriotism means we all share in an ideal that is larger than ourselves. In all of our differences, there are some things we all have in common. In all our diversity, each of us still has a bond with all humanity. We must bring our broken immigration system into the 21st century. We must move transient workers out of the shadows. We must ensure the security of our borders. We must act for the sake of the rule of law, for the sake our homeland security, for the sake of immigrants who endure exploitation and even death for a chance to share in the blessings of American liberty--in hope, freedom, and the opportunity of a better life. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: All nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for no longer than 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefits bill. It is hoped that Senators will continue to make their opening remarks on this legislation. Rollcall votes are possible on Tuesday, and Members will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 137, S. 1015.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 171, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 17. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10 a.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, provided that at 10 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 1, the prescription drug benefits bill. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party lunches.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Crapo amendment No. 928, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 126, S. 520.