John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of the following Energy bills: Calendar No. 124, S. 246; Calendar No. 125, S. 500; Calendar No. 127, S. 625; Calendar No. 128, S. 635; Calendar No. 129, H.R. 519; Calendar No. 130, H.R. 733; and Calendar No. 131, H.R. 788.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, where applicable, the committee amendments be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my desk mate and member of the freshman class of 2002 in the Senate, Lamar Alexander, for his comments and his friendship and his great service, not only on behalf of Tennessee but on behalf of the Nation. He did make a very appropriate observation about the connection between the people of the State of Tennessee and Texas. Some have said many of the people who populated Texas were evading their creditors in Tennessee, which is one reason for their going to Texas in the first place, where they believed there would be great opportunity. With a land the size of Texas, with the opportunity to till the soil and take risks and perhaps reap the rewards of that risk, many people came from all over the United States--indeed, the world--to Texas. One great Tennessean--and I want to just make this comment while Senator Alexander is here--with whom I am proud to connect myself is Sam Houston, who was a distinguished figure in Tennessee before he came to Texas, then served as Governor, President of the Republic, and whose seat in the U.S. Senate I now hold. When Texas was annexed to the United States of America in 1845, Thomas Jefferson Rusk, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court at that time, and Sam Houston, came to Washington to represent the State of Texas. So I am proud to have that connection, another connection with the good people of Tennessee and with my friend Lamar Alexander, and to be connected through that lineage to that seat originally held by a great Tennessean, and we claim him as a great Texan, a great American still, Sam Houston. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to say some words in tribute to the senior Senator from Texas, one who this week marks her tenth anniversary as a Member of this august body, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Senator Hutchison is a wonderful spouse to her husband, Ray; a wonderful mother to her children, Bailey and Houston; an excellent Senator; and a great Texan. I am enormously grateful to be able to work alongside of a woman of her vision, a woman of her energy, and someone who represents the very best of the State of Texas. After 10 years in the Senate, Senator Hutchison has shown herself to be a great leader in so many different ways. She has devoted herself to our national security. She has dedicated herself to preserving our homeland security. She has energetically sought legislation that will create jobs and greater opportunities for all Americans. She has worked hard to improve health care, not just for people in our State, the State of Texas, but for all Americans. All of us came here from our various States to serve those States, but we also came here to serve this great Nation. Senator Hutchison came here, in addition, to make a difference, to work to find solutions to the complex problems of modern society, to attain real and lasting change for the good. She has succeeded in brilliant fashion. President Ronald Reagan once said: We have been blessed with the opportunity to stand for something, for liberty and freedom and fairness, and these are things worth fighting for, worth devoting our lives to. Senator Hutchison has devoted her life to these very values. Her life serves as an example to us all, a life of patriotism, responsibility, dedication, and abundant friendship. She has been a leader in Texas and here in the Senate. It is lives like Senator Hutchison's that make me proud to say I am from the great State of Texas, and prouder still to call her my friend. Senator Hutchison, over these last 10 years in the Senate, has made Texas proud as she works hard for all Americans as a woman of great valor. I thank Senator Hutchison for her leadership, for her counsel, and for her steadfast service to the great State of Texas and to the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words in opposition to the Graham-Feinstein amendment. I am opposed to this amendment for several significant reasons. This amendment would restrict our ability to conduct an inventory and analysis of our own energy resources. Section 105 of this bill will commission a comprehensive scientific study by the Department of the Interior concerning the energy resources of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. It will provide the groundwork for an informed debate on the offshore drilling issue. This amendment will only decrease our knowledge of these issues. That is why I call it a know-nothing amendment. The American public has a right and a need to know the status of its national resources. We survey, catalog, and inventory our forests, our fisheries, our coal reserves, and other valuable living and non-living natural resources. We should also allow for the study of our domestic offshore energy resources. The information that we currently have concerning our oil and natural gas resources is limited, dated, and lacks the specificity required for this important debate. This legislation will allow the Department of the Interior to use the latest technology, except drilling, to update its resource estimates using all the available scientific data. As we reexamine our growing energy needs for the future, the geopolitical reality of our Nation's dependence on foreign oil becomes all the more disturbing. The demand for natural gas in this country continues to increase, while domestic production continues to decrease. Decreased production will result in American increased prices for natural gas, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals and electricity. The OCS survey is vital to our energy future, and to our ability in the Senate to make energy decisions based on the best available information. The energy industry in my home State of Texas and all throughout the Nation has established a strong record on safety and environmental issues, and they are the most critical part of our continuing work to find alternative sources for energy. While we are debating this matter on the floor, Cuba has already launched well projects north of the island in the Gulf of Mexico. Just last month, the Castro regime invited oil companies from other nations to drill, just miles away from our own international borders. We should not restrict our Nation's knowledge and ability to make responsible decisions regarding energy policy, while other nations plow ahead, with no U.S. oversight, no U.S. safety regulations, and no U.S. environmental standards. With the prospect of energy challenges looming on the horizon, now is not the time to ransom our sovereignty over our energy resources for the sake of short term political gain. These natural resources belong to the American people, and they deserve an accounting of them. The debate over offshore drilling is a critical one, and it deserves our full attention. I oppose this amendment as imprudent and inappropriate. That is why it was defeated by a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate Energy Committee. That is why it deserves to be defeated again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee on which I serve, for his courtesy as well as that of Senator Levin, the ranking member. And I especially state my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and those others who have cosponsored this amendment. I am proud to be one of them. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about this amendment, the Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003. In every war our Nation has fought, from the Revolutionary War to Operation Iraqi Freedom, brave immigrants have fought alongside American-born citizens. They have fought with distinction and courage. Twenty percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, our Nation's highest honor for war heroes, have been immigrants. One in 10 active duty military personnel call my home State of Texas their home. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am dedicated to doing everything I can to look out not only for their interests but for the interests of all military personnel, including immigrants. That is why earlier this year I introduced the Military Citizenship Act that will expedite the naturalization process for 37,000 men and women serving in our Armed Forces who are not U.S. citizens. I believe there is no better way to honor the heroism and sacrifice of those who serve than to offer them the opportunity for American citizenship they deserve. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment because I believe it fulfills a crucial responsibility to welcome those who fight for our Nation and to help immigrants become naturalized citizens, providing their families easy access to naturalization and family immigration protections. All you need to do is look at this chart which sets out the scheme for an alien military service member to seek naturalization under current law. As you can tell, it is a sea of redtape and needless bureaucracy and is overly burdensome on those who want nothing more than to earn the opportunity of American citizenship and who have demonstrated their commitment to this Nation's ideals and values by their very service. I believe it is time to do away with this sort of thing once and for all. This amendment and the provisions of this bill streamline the process and make it one that welcomes immigrant service members for their bravery and sacrifice and not one that sets up unnecessary obstacles to their becoming citizens. I thank my distinguished colleagues for supporting the bill. I again express my appreciation to Chairman Warner for including language in the Defense authorization bill that directs the Department of Defense to determine if any additional measures can be taken to assist in the naturalization of qualified service members and their families. I also strongly support the action of the President, retroactive to September 11, 2001, to exempt military members from the requirement to serve 3 years on active duty before applying for citizenship. We must always remember that our own freedom was not won without cost but fought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations who have gone on before us. We must honor the heroic dead for their courage and commitment to the dream that is freedom, and we must honor the worthy heroes who fight today and embrace them as our fellow citizens. In 1944, Winston Churchill spoke at Royal Albert Hall to the combined British and American troops and reminded them of a greater cause they served, regardless of the bounds of nations or cultures. He said: We are joined together in this union of action which has been forced upon us by our common hatred of tyranny, shedding our blood side by side, struggling for the same ideals, until the triumph of the great causes which we serve shall be made manifest. . . . Then, indeed, there will be a day of Thanksgiving, one in which all the world will share. In Iraq, the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and the coalition forces fought against those who hate our Nation's values. They hate us because we believe that all men are created equal regardless of their nation of birth, regardless of their religious faith. They hate us because we believe in the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights that extend to all mankind. They hate us because we still say: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These brave immigrant soldiers are taking on the uniform of our Nation, serving under the flag of our Nation, and fighting the enemies of our Nation and our values. It is only right that they should be welcomed as citizens of this great Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I talked to the Senator from Iowa who also wishes to be recognized immediately after my very brief remarks. I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized immediately following my remarks and that I be allotted 5-minute increments; that should I go over another minute or 2, I be allotted such time as I consume, not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, are we currently in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to also, in the brief time I have allotted, say a few words about a very important subject to our Government and to our Nation. I wish to say a few words about the importance of continuity of our Nation's Government. Today, the Continuity of Government Commission, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, is releasing a report to the Congress on this matter. I express my appreciation to the commission for their responsible and forthright assessment of needed constitutional reforms in this area. Their report will be an invaluable addition to this ongoing discussion, and it will provide a sound basis for hearings I plan to hold in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution later this year. I was not here serving in Washington in this body when the attacks came on September 11. Like so many other Americans, I was at home, preparing for work, when I heard the terrible news and saw it displayed on the television set. But I know that many of my friends and colleagues who were here on that horrific day feel a very personal debt to the heroes of flight 93. The brave passengers on that flight did more than just save the lives of their fellow citizens. Absent their courageous sacrifice, it is likely that flight 93 would have reached its final destination in this very building, in an attack that would have virtually eliminated an entire branch of our Government. Even as we have dedicated ourselves to fighting terror at home and abroad, even as we hope and pray that the tragedies of September 11 will never be repeated, we must always remain conscious of our promise as Senators to serve the people of our States and our Nation and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. In the aftermath of those attacks, it is now increasingly clear that our current system providing for the continuity of government in the event of a disaster is inadequate in the reality of the post-9/11 world. If an attack of this nature occurred again, and was even partially successful, our Government and our Constitution would be ill prepared for the sudden ramifications. As unthinkable as another attack of that magnitude may be, we in the legislative branch must be ready for the worst. We must provide for the stable continuance of government, despite all possible calamities. We owe it to the American people to ensure that our Government remains strong and stable even in the face of disaster. What the evildoers who committed this terrible act on 9/11 will never understand is that America cannot be destroyed by weapons, by armies, or by terrorist attacks. No matter how many weapons they try to make, no matter what secret schemes they concoct, no matter what buildings they destroy, as long as the dream of freedom lives within our hearts, America endures, a beacon of light shining for all the world to see. The passengers on flight 93 were everyday Americans, men and women with jobs, with families, and dreams. Like all of us, they made promises to their loved ones before they boarded that plane: promises of vacations and baseball games, of presents and anniversaries. Some promises are not cheap, others cost nothing, others require that we risk all, even our very lives. The crash site left behind by the heroes of flight 93, nestled in the hills of Pennsylvania, is filled with memories of the promises they made and will never keep. That hallowed ground marks their last promise: a promise carried on to the Nation, their children, their loved ones left behind--a promise that says freedom will not end here in the violent acts of evil men. It persists, it endures, and it will not be destroyed. Our Government must not fail the children of flight 93. This body must not fail them. We must prepare for all contingencies, fulfilling our oaths of office, to ensure that the promise of our free Government--a government of laws, not men--shall not perish from this Earth. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there are two things I want to address very briefly this morning. I rise to pay tribute to Estella Reyes Naranjo, a great citizen of my State of Texas. I think it is important to recognize contributions such as those of Estella, which are primarily in the area of the education of the children of San Antonio, my hometown, and her 50 years of unselfish service to the city of San Antonio, the State of Texas, and to the United States of America. Estella has taught for 40 years in Texas public schools and for another 10 years in Catholic schools. Through her dedicated service in the classroom and the community, she has been a positive influence for countless lives, and for thousands of young Texans. Estella earned a bachelor's degree from Texas A&I University in Kingsville and has served as the president of the Pan American League. During her tenure, the league donated more than $1 million toward a center to assist San Antonio's inner city, and contributed over $250,000 in scholarships administered through The University of Texas at San Antonio. Estella has been honored with an outstanding service award for her dedication and hard work in the public school system, and has received a leadership award for her many contributions to the Catholic school system. She has also been honored by the International Good Neighbor Council for her work to promote the ``Principles of Good- neighborliness'' between Mexico and the United States. As a teacher, a volunteer, and a diligent leader, Estella is an inspiration to her family, her friends, and her community. She is truly an important part of what President Bush calls ``the armies of compassion.'' I have always believed that patriotism is not just expressed by flying the flag. It is about more than that. Patriotism means we all share a part in something 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 our fellow man. The fact that dedicated individuals, working faithfully in their communities, can accomplish more than any government program is well established, and it is established again in the life that we celebrate today. Alexis de Tocqueville described it this way: Countless little people, humble people, throughout American society, expend their efforts in the betterment of the community, blowing on their hands, pitting their small strength against the inhuman elements of life. Unheralded and always inconspicuous, they sense that they are cooperating with a purpose and a spirit that is at the center of creation. Today I am proud to herald the work of Estella Reyes Naranjo. I know I speak for all the citizens of the great State of Texas when I say that I am grateful for her dedication, her compassion, and her tireless work to build a stronger community and a better world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words regarding the Defense Authorization Act. On Saturday of last week, May 17, people all across our Nation commemorated Armed Forces Day. As President Eisenhower wrote in 1953: ``It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this Nation and the peace of the free world.'' I agree with that sentiment but I would also say that it is fitting and proper to pay tribute to the heroism and sacrifice of our brave men and women in the Armed Forces on each and every day. We must always remember that our own freedom was not won without cost, but bought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations that have gone before. We must take every opportunity to honor these heroes for their courage and their commitment to the dream that is freedom. I know I speak for the people of my State of Texas, and for all Americans, when I give thanks that the operation in Iraq has recently reached such a swift conclusion, with so few coalition lives lost. One in 10 active-duty military personnel call Texas their home, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am dedicated to looking after their interests and the interests of all of our military personnel. We must ensure that the United States military has the training, the equipment, and the facilities they require to remain the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, in times of war and peace. I support this legislation because it is focused on that goal. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished Senators from Virginia and Michigan for their hard work and leadership as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As members of the committee, we have recommended a $17.9 billion increase above the amount appropriated by the Congress last year. This funding will enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities, and sustain the ability of our Armed Forces to conduct military operations with the fewest lives lost. We also addressed a number of other defense priorities in this bill, including a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed service personnel, an increase in the family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month, and an increase in the special pay rate for duty in imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month. The only area where I do want to draw some distinctions between my own position and the position of this bill concerns the F/A-22 aircraft. The committee's decision to decrease funding for the F/A-22 Raptor by $217 million, representing two fighters, simply does not make sense to me. The F/A-22 is our next generation fighter aircraft, and it will serve to replace the aging fighters currently in our inventory. President Bush requested funding for 22 Raptors, and I believe we should fulfill that request. Reducing our funding in response to the President's budget request will only raise questions about our commitment to this program, unsettle the confidence of the subcontractors and suppliers, and ultimately make the entire program more expensive. Overall, the committee has produced a good bill. These pay raises are needed and deserved. The funding provides for much-needed support for our military infrastructure and equipment. And I am proud to support these measures. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Warner for including language in the legislation which directs the Department of Defense to determine if any additional measures can be taken to assist the naturalization of qualified service members and their families. This language is consistent with the Military Citizenship Act, a bill that I recently introduced, that will expedite the naturalization process for the nearly 37,000 men and women serving in our Armed Forces who are not U.S. citizens. I believe there is no better way to honor the heroism and sacrifice of those who serve than to offer them the American citizenship they deserve. As we labor on this bill, we should take care to remember the sacrifices--not just the sacrifices of the brave men and women who fight on the battlefield, but also the sacrifices of the families they leave behind. I remember watching as the deployment was occurring from Camp Lejeune, where a young mother with her child was saying goodbye to her husband. I will never forget her words. She said: ``I used to think that if he loved us, he would never leave us. But now I know that he is leaving us because he loves us.'' We as a grateful Nation thank the brave men and women who serve in uniform for the cause of freedom. We wish them all godspeed, and we hope and pray for their swift return to the loving arms of their families.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. About 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the rebuilding of Iraq and, more importantly, the creation of a democratic Iraq. Iraq is situated in the very cradle of civilization. It has an ancient and colorful history. And although it is easy to overlook now, Baghdad itself was once viewed as a center of learning and cultural activity until it was hijacked by the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein. Today, Iraq is a hive of clan warfare, looting, and violent chaos. There are competing political groups, armed criminal gangs, and street thugs. The Iraqi people are free of Saddam, but they are not yet free of fear. The situation is complex, delicate, and decidedly unpleasant. But unless America and our coalition partners act quickly and decisively, self-government will be recalled years from now as only a fleeting dream for the people of Iraq. I believe there is still hope and opportunity--hope that the free people of Iraq can conquer the anarchy that controls their streets, and opportunity to fulfill the promise of a thriving democratic Iraq. That dream may seem far off in Baghdad today, but as John Adams once said: ``People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity.'' In order for Iraq to grow and blossom from the rubble, it requires security. It requires order. It requires the rule of law. First, we must begin by ensuring the basic security of the Iraqi people. People must be able to buy food at the market without fearing armed robbery or kidnapping. They must be able to worship without fearing snipers or skirmishes. Their children must be able to go to school without hearing the sound of gunfire nearby. The Middle East looks like the Old West right now, and we need lawmen to help restore the peace. We must eliminate the threats posed by what remains of the Baathist Party and the common criminals who control the streets and highways. We must end the looting and restore the property rights of the Iraqi people. We simply cannot construct the foundation of a peaceful and just society when there is still no security in Iraq. Dr. Karim Hassan, director general of Iraq's electricity commission put it this way: ``Give me security, and I will give you electricity.'' The brave men and women of our Armed Forces have done heroic work in Iraq. I know I speak for the people of my State of Texas, for all Americans, and indeed for all freedom-loving people when I give thanks that the operation in Iraq was concluded swiftly with a minimum loss of coalition lives. But it would be a grave mistake to burden our military alone with the job of ensuring security for the Iraqi people. Indeed, that is not their principal mission. After security is restored, a functioning legal system must be established. There is the immediate problem of establishing a police force. Under Saddam's regime, the police were nothing more than shock troops bent on fulfilling the dictator's tyrannical bidding. Now they must act to protect and defend the people they formerly dominated and abused. The police in Iraq are no longer the law, violently expressed; they must now enforce and be held accountable to the law. No system of justice can survive long in the absence of law and order, and there can be no democratic Iraqi state as long as lawlessness reigns. Secondly, we must help the Iraqi people forge a nation governed by laws, not men. There are multiple proposals being considered for the Iraqi Constitution. While Iraq is clearly in a state of transition, it has a rich and ancient legal history. These traditions should be the foundation for the laws of this reborn nation, the constitution for a reborn Iraq. We should not kid ourselves that we will see a mirror image of Jeffersonian America circa 1787. The Iraqis will build on their own historical traditions, a history that stretches all the way back to the Code of Hammurabi. Despite our relatively short history, America has one of the longest uninterrupted political traditions of any nation in the world. The late Allan Bloom once pointed out that what sets America apart is the unambiguous nature of that tradition: ``[I]t's meaning is articulated in simple, rational speech, that is immediately comprehensible and powerfully persuasive to all normal human beings. America tells one story: the unbroken, ineluctable progress of freedom and equality.'' There are clear differences between America, where government from its inception existed to preserve and protect freedom, and Iraq, where government, until recently, existed to limit freedom and serve as the instrument of oppression. Iraq's government must undergo a fundamental change, and a constitution that guarantees basic human rights will go a long way towards changing it. The constitution of Iraq must, like the constitution of America, tell one story. The Japanese constitution of 1947 is one example that can show the way. Following World War II, Japan's new constitution placed sovereign authority with the people and their representatives, in place of the longstanding authoritarian system under rule of the emperor. It renounced war as a sovereign right, and required that the country maintain armed forces for purposes of defense and police functions alone, not for purposes of aggression. If there is to be a reasonable chance of success for this national democratic experiment, similar measures must be included in the new Iraqi constitution. At the inception of this country, George Washington, instead of seeking to rule as an emperor, a king, a president for life, returned to his Virginia farm, handing over the reins of the fledgling American nation at the end of two terms in office. The act was astounding at the time, a political humility unknown since the era of Cincinnatus. It prompted his old foe, King George the Third, to call Washington ``the greatest character of the age.'' But Washington's actions were no accident. Washington recognized that for America to truly be a nation where the people were sovereign, it must first be a nation of laws. We do not yet know which leader Iraqis will choose. But the identity of the democratic leader is far less important in the long term than the establishment of the rule of law, and not men. While leaders come and go, it is the law that makes a nation. Third, the Iraqis need a strong and independent judicial system. This process will be difficult and slow going, but we ignore its importance at our peril. Chief Justice Rehnquist has called an independent judiciary ``one of the crown jewels of our system of government.'' With tireless effort by freedom-loving Iraqis and their friends dedicated to the cause, I believe that the same can be true for the new Iraq. The central authority in Baghdad currently exists in a vague and indeterminate form, and it is likely that the political climate there will fluctuate frequently over the next few years. The judiciary must exist as an independent actor in this process, to enforce basic human rights, protect private property, and ensure stable conditions that will lay the foundation for the prosperity and happiness of the Iraqi people. To understand the full measure of Iraq's cruel and inhumane regime, you need look no further than Iraq's mass graves and the packed prisons of Baghdad, where the children of Saddam's political opponents were imprisoned and viciously abused. Under Saddam Hussein, prisoners were routinely starved, tortured, and murdered. The new government of Iraq must be just and humane, carrying out the duly rendered penalties of a civilized society based on the rule of law. The rule of law will foster and facilitate prosperity that will improve the quality of life for all Iraqis. There is great promise in a nation where 60% of the population is under the age of 25, and more than 40 per cent under the age of 14. All that most have known is brutal dictatorship, fear and poverty. Soon, they will know freedom, security, and a better life. With the foundation of legally enforced rights in place, Iraq will no longer be a place of fear for travelers or economic investors. As a nation, they will once again fulfill the true calling of the Qur'an, where it is written: ``Be kind . . . unto the neighbor who is of kin, and to the neighbor who is a stranger, and to the companion at your side, and to the traveler.'' The Iraqi people will be free to start businesses and open shops, to speak and to assemble, to experiment and study--all in pursuit of better lives, rather than the interest of Saddam Hussein or any other despot. Iraq will flourish as a nation of law and order, where the invisible hand of the free market will benefit both the society of Iraq and the entire region of the Middle East. The world is watching Iraq closely. And in order for Iraq to grow and blossom, in order to ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people, the new Iraq must be founded on security and the rule of law. I am thankful--as I know my colleagues are--that the armed conflict in Iraq reached such a swift end, with so few coalition lives lost. The tasks that lie before us in Iraq are in many ways are more complex and intricate, and their end is not yet in sight. For the sake of those who risked and lost their lives so that the Iraqi people might know the blessings of liberty--for the sake of the promise of peace in the Middle East--and for the sake of the children of Iraq--we must not fail. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Iowa providing me an opportunity to speak on a matter I know the Senator from Arizona has already addressed--something called the Intermediate Sanctions Compensatory Review Adjustment Act of 2003. This amendment, I believe, is important for a number of reasons. First of all, nobody in this body is going to get quite everything they may want in this jobs and economic growth package of 2003. But, for better or for worse, a deal has been struck in order to obtain sufficient votes to get the matter out of committee and hopefully enacted into law to provide $20 billion of State aid as part of this package. If it had been up to me, I would have said that notwithstanding the difficult times States find themselves in--and in my State of Texas they find themselves with a $10 billion budget shortfall--but notwithstanding that fact, I would be reluctant to send $20 billion to the States with no strings attached so they could spend however they might like when we have no means of establishing accountability for how that money might be spent. But the collective wisdom of the Finance Committee and perhaps this body is that $20 billion in State aid will be sent to the States as part of this overall package. That being the case and recognizing that no single Senator gets everything he or she wants, the question then has arisen--and the Senator from Arizona has raised it--the issue of attorneys' fees ostensibly earned by lawyers who represented the various States in the tobacco litigation and other contingency fee arrangements whereby certain private lawyers have earned, or at least claim to have earned, literally billions of dollars in attorneys' fees. I don't speak on this issue without a little bit of history, and perhaps that would provide some context for why I support this amendment. On January 1, 1999, I was sworn in as Attorney General of Texas, shortly after my predecessor had entered into a settlement with the tobacco industry, and really I think what we all recognize is an unprecedented lawsuit ultimately resulting in the largest civil judgment in the history of the world. I know the State of Texas and other States filed this lawsuit to recover Medicaid expenditures they had incurred on smoking-related illnesses. Certainly, I count myself second to no one in expressing concern about the number of people in this country and around the world--some 400,000 in this country alone--who lose there lives annually as a result of smoking-related illnesses. But that is only part of the story. The rest of the story is that a small group of entrepreneurial lawyers saw an opportunity once they joined league with State attorneys general to file litigation against the tobacco industry. If that were more or less the end of the story, then I wouldn't have concerns. But ultimately, those settlements ended up with the States in a joint venture with the tobacco industry to keep the tobacco industry alive, and with the settlements, these huge amounts of money, multiple billions of dollars being paid out of the profits of the tobacco industry for continuing to sell more of their tobacco products in the future, not just in this country but across the world. So rather than discouraging or limiting tobacco use in this country and around the world, the States became joint venturers, so to speak, with the tobacco industry because if the tobacco industry was unable to sell more of its product, then the States would not get paid under the settlements, a truly shrewd and ingenuous arrangement on the part of these entrepreneurial lawyers. But the real concern I have about this arrangement, particularly in my home State of Texas, is while the State receives a historic settlement of $17.3 billion--and actually that purports to be the present value of the money that is going to be paid in perpetuity--it is really probably only a part of what ultimately that judgment is worth. Once these lawyers settled the case for the client, so to speak, then they talked to the tobacco industry, and they said: OK, what about us? We have my client's settlement, $17.3 billion, roughly speaking. Now what about us? And they engaged in an arrangement which I believe violated one of the most basic obligations that a lawyer owes to the client and breached their fiduciary duties to the client. It simply boils down to this: that the duty of a lawyer who has been hired by a client is to maximize the recovery on the part of the plaintiff. Here, rather than do that, they struck a deal with the tobacco industry for a certain amount of money and then said: Well, on top of that, now you have to deal with us--which turns on its head the duty of loyalty that a lawyer has to a client to not let his or her personal interest conflict with the interests of the client and to maximize the recovery by the client. So, simply stated, I believe what we saw in the tobacco litigation, all across this country, represented an unprecedented breach of fiduciary duty that the lawyer owed to the client to maximize the client's recovery and enrich the lawyers in the process. So the question is, What do we do about it? Well, here again, I believe that the needs of the States, and particularly the State of Texas--which is currently in session trying to deal with a $10 billion shortfall, looking at cutting health care for those who are unable to pay for health care on their own, for children under the CHIPS program, for public education--that this provides an opportunity for this body to correct an injustice, to enforce a fiduciary duty that the lawyer owes to the client, and to provide aid to the States in the process in a way that will help ameliorate that loss and vindicate a wrong. Part of this story, too, involves a tragedy. My predecessor as attorney general currently stands indicted by a U.S. grand jury in the Western District of Texas for trying to enrich a friend, a colleague, to the tune of some $520 million for doing no work. For those who have not followed the story, I will just say that about the time the tobacco settlement was struck, there arrived on the scene another lawyer, whom nobody had ever heard of before, by the name of Mark Murr. The lawyers who had been involved in the litigation--at least they had done some work on it--wondered what this arrangement was. And when push came to shove, ultimately the five main lawyers in the Texas tobacco lawsuit got their $3.3 billion. But then there was an arrangement made to create a separate mechanism, a collusive arbitration arrangement, whereby Mark Murr would receive up to $520 million out of the recovery of the State of Texas. As it turned out, during my investigation as attorney general, we determined that the contract upon which Mr. Murr claimed a right to be paid had been falsified, backdated, and literally been cut and pasted to make it look as if he had done some work on the case and had been involved in the case much earlier than he really had. In truth, and in fact, I believe he did not do any work to justify that fee. During the 4 years that I was attorney general of the State of Texas, we conducted an investigation into that matter, were successful in preventing Mr. Murr from making the claim for that money against the treasury of the State of Texas, and ultimately, I believe, provided the factual basis under which the U.S. attorney was able to present that case to the grand jury, and ultimately resulting in the indictment of the former attorney general of the State of Texas. I say that with no pleasure at all. It is a tragedy, a terrible tragedy. But it is a story of how a steward of the public trust has violated that trust and now must be held accountable for violating that trust. But in the process, and what this amendment addresses specifically, is the manner in which five private lawyers enrich themselves at the expense of the State of Texas and how other lawyers across the country, during the course of this tobacco litigation, enrich themselves at the expense of their State clients in breach of their fiduciary duties. The Internal Revenue Code provides a mechanism where those who breach fiduciary duties--whether they be a trustee or, in this case, a lawyer representing a client--can be taxed. It provides another mechanism, a nonlitigation mechanism, to enforce that fiduciary duty that is owed by the fiduciary to the client. In this case, I believe it is an opportunity for this body to find funds--if, in fact, it is the will of the majority of this body--and to see Federal dollars, or money that otherwise is paid by Federal taxpayers, go to State taxpayers. It provides another opportunity to provide up to $9 billion of additional funds by simply enforcing the fiduciary duty owed by these lawyers to their clients, the various States. So I am pleased to join Senator Kyl and Senator Alexander in cosponsoring this amendment that would, if adopted by this body, provide an additional $9 billion in State aid, in a way that I believe ultimately does justice, by enforcing this fiduciary duty owed by the lawyers to the client. Let me just say, Mr. President, in closing, that I support the Jobs and Economic Growth Act of 2003. Even though I think it will undergo a number of amendments and will ultimately not be exactly what any of us would like, I believe it provides a necessary prescription for what ails the economy and will provide a necessary jump-start to allow taxpayers, the ones who earn the money, to keep more of that money and spend it as they see fit, and to allow small businesses that earn the money to reinvest in their businesses and create new jobs in a way that will ultimately help us grow our way out of our current economic doldrums. So I am happy to support this important legislation and happy to add my voice to hopefully putting America back to work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few more words about our broken judicial confirmation process. This week the Senate marks a dismal political anniversary: 2 years of partisan obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees, culminating in two unprecedented filibusters, and more are threatened. The current list includes Justice Priscilla Owen, with whom I served on the Texas Supreme Court, whose nomination is now subject to a filibuster before the Senate. This 2-year anniversary indicates the true breadth of the failure of the judicial confirmation process, an increasingly bitter and destructive process, a process that does a disservice to the President, to the Senate, to the nominees, and ultimately to the American people. Today a partisan minority of Senators are forcing a supermajority requirement of 60 votes on the judicial confirmation process. They are using the filibuster not simply to provide for adequate debate--a reasonable and laudable goal--but to prevent many of our Nation's most talented legal minds, in this case at least two of them, from filling our Nation's judicial vacancies. These obstructionist activities continue to undermine the constitutional principles of judicial independence and majority rule. My colleagues should not think the American people do not know what is going on here. They see when a nominee's well-recognized abilities are ignored in favor of scare tactics and revisionist history, and they see when some Senators eschew the interests of the States from which they were elected, and, indeed, our Nation, and instead kowtow to special interest groups. I am confident that Members of the Senate are wise enough to reject, I guess, what can only be called an inhuman caricature that has been drawn of Justice Priscilla Owen by special interest groups intent on vilifying, demonizing, and marginalizing an admirable nominee. If we were allowed to hold a vote today, a bipartisan majority of this body stands ready to confirm Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would like to take a few moments to talk about my own observations while serving with Justice Owen on the Texas Supreme Court for a period of 3 years during which our terms overlapped, from the time she joined the court in January 1995 until the time I left the court after serving 7 years in October of 1997. During those 3 years, I had the privilege of working closely with Justice Owen. I had the opportunity to observe on a daily basis exactly how she approached the task of judging, how she thinks about the law and, indeed, her responsibilities, and how she thinks judges should perform once given the awesome responsibility that confers. I spoke with and debated with Justice Owen in conference on countless occasions about how to faithfully read and follow statutes passed by the legislature and how to interpret precedents; that is, cases that had been previously decided that are binding on courts in terms of their guidance on deciding the same issues in the future. I saw how hard she worked to faithfully interpret and apply what the legislature had written. I saw her take notes. I saw her tireless attention to detail, her zeal for studying the law, her dedication and her diligence. Not once did I see her attempting to pursue a political or personal agenda at the expense of what the law said or what the law required. Indeed, some of my colleagues have taken her to task for disagreeing, and the fact that appellate judges, particularly at the highest court in my State, would actually disagree with one another, and suggesting that somehow there is something wrong with that. Well, to the contrary. That is exactly what the job of a judge is. If we did not have judges occasionally disagree with each other, that would mean somebody was not doing their job, because by the time cases get to the top echelons of our judicial system, they are the hardest cases. They are the cases that cannot be solved by lower levels of the judiciary or indeed by settlement between the parties. These are important issues and must be decided. Indeed, a judge, unlike a member of this body, cannot choose to simply walk away. They must decide the case in the posture as presented by the litigants. From experience and from observation, Justice Owen believes strongly that judges are called upon not to act as another legislative branch, not to act as a politician trying to read the polls or trying to assess what public opinion may say about this question or another. A judge's job is to faithfully read the statutes on the books and then apply them to the case before him or her or to interpret the precedents by earlier courts and to faithfully apply those, not in a lawmaking fashion but in a law interpretation and law enforcement fashion. Indeed, that is the difference between what judges do and what members of the executive or legislative branches do. Judges are not supposed to make law. They are supposed to interpret and enforce the law written by the legislature. I can testify from my personal experience as her former colleague that Priscilla Owen is an exceptional judge and one who understands and internalizes her duty to follow the law and enforce the will of the legislature. That is why the American Bar Association gave her a unanimous rating of well qualified. That is why she has strong bipartisan backing, including Democrats in the State of Texas and Democrat practitioners who have seen her in action. That is why she had enthusiastic support from her fellow Texans in her last election to the court. Some 84 percent of the voters voted to return her to office when she ran for that election. Simply put, she is a brilliant legal scholar and a warm and engaging person. Knowing the individual, the human being, as I do, it causes me great pain to see her treated the way I believe she has been treated, unfairly, during the judicial confirmation process, and to hear Senators describe her in a way that nobody who knows her would recognize. Not many in this body have had the privilege of knowing her personally and so that is why I think it is important for me to say the picture that has been painted of this highly qualified and highly talented human being and great judge in our State of Texas is more than just a little disappointing. It is beneath the dignity of this institution and disserves not only this institution but the constitutional requirement of judicial confirmation and, indeed, ultimately the American people. The beltway special interest groups are not interested in trying to understand or evaluate Justice Owen by her real record, because if they were, they would see it as a sterling record of intelligence, accomplishment, and bipartisan support. The special interest groups are not interested in the confirmation of nominees who merely interpret the law and render judgment responsibly. They are only interested in confirming people who they believe are advocates of their interests, something that is totally at odds and conflicts with the role a judge is supposed to perform. Sadly, it is clear that these same special interest groups are interested in obstructing as many of President Bush's judicial nominees as they possibly can. Those who oppose Justice Owen's confirmation appear to have really no stomach for debate and talking about the facts. They choose instead to filibuster and engage in the worst kind of mean-spirited and destructive political attacks. Let there be no doubt left in the matter. Allow me to quote one of the leaders of the special interest groups opposed to Justice Owen's nomination quoted in the Los Angeles Times last week, when they said: It is sad that not all of these nominees can be filibustered. So it is clear who is playing the tune and who is giving the instructions. Unfortunately, too many are heeding those instructions to filibuster the President's nominees, to prevent a bipartisan majority of this body from voting to confirm those nominees as they would today in the case of Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada. I can only hope that at some point my colleagues will understand what is going on and reject this special interest influence on the judicial confirmation process. I can only hope that ultimately what we will all strive for is a process that is fair and consistent with our constitutional duty. Yet by blocking a vote on Priscilla Owen, they make themselves allies to these groups, groups that rejoice at the prospect of a Senate in constant gridlock when it comes to the judicial confirmation process. These shrill attacks are inaccurate, dishonest and unfair. It is not the first time. These are the same people and the same groups that claimed during the nomination of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that he ``expressly opposed women's interests.'' They found Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ``a deeply disturbing candidate.'' They testified that Justice Lewis Powell's confirmation would mean that ``justice for women will be ignored.'' And they described Supreme Court Justice David Souter as ``almost neanderthal.'' Those attacks and the current attacks of these same special interest groups are neither accurate nor, after they have long been exposed as untrue, should they be deemed credible. Lending credence to these tactics should be beneath this body. They have no standing for their arguments to be considered legitimate by this body. Like the little boy who cried wolf one too many times, they should be ignored by this body. It is hard to recognize the caricatures that opponents of these nominees have drawn. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has voted on a number of President Bush's nominees for the Federal bench, I have seen the politics of personal destruction are fast becoming a commonplace activity for our judicial nominees. Indeed, I began to wonder whether there are enough good and honorable people with distinguished records left in the legal profession or in the judiciary who will volunteer to submit their names to this destructive process who, knowing the facts, regardless of the truth, they will be painted as some horrible caricature of their principal beliefs. Nominees who are so well recognized for their ability should not be required to serve an indefinite period of time in the stocks as targets for these special interest groups that attack them on a regular basis. It pains me to see what can only be called the politics of personal destruction played out in the course of the judicial confirmation process. This Friday the clock will run on into a third year of gridlock and obstruction. The special interest groups must be very proud. These obstructionist tactics abuse the power of the filibuster. It not only violates the bedrock principle of democracy and majority rule itself but arguably offends the Constitution, as well. Indeed, prominent Democrats such as former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler and, indeed, colleagues in the Senate currently serving, such as Tom Daschle, Joe Lieberman, and Tom Harkin, have condemned filibuster misuse as unconstitutional. An abuse of filibusters against judicial nominations uniquely threatens both the Presidential power of appointment and the principle of judicial independence. Whether unconstitutional or merely obstructive of our political system, the current confirmation crisis calls out for reform. As all 10 freshmen Senators, myself included--including the distinguished Senator now presiding--stated last week in a letter to the leadership: We are united in our concern that the judicial confirmation process is broken and needs to be fixed. We believe the Senate must find an end to the downward spiral of accusations, obstruction, and delay. In the face of this consensus that the process is broken, I stand before this body today and say, once again, it is time for a fresh start. In that spirit, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution yesterday held a hearing to consider proposals that have been offered to try to restore both the integrity of the confirmation process and the strength of our most cherished constitutional values. We explored and debated a variety of reform proposals at yesterday's hearing, including one from Senator Zell Miller from Georgia, who suggests what Senator Harkin and Senator Lieberman and 17 other Democrats did in 1995; that the 60-vote rule for any debate be reduced incrementally with each succeeding vote until the rule reaches 51 votes. There would be 2-day intervals between each cloture vote so that the whole process would last less than 2 weeks while ensuring adequate time for delay and debate, if necessary, but in the end allowing the majority to do what they are entitled to do in this body and elsewhere in a democracy, and that is to have their will reflected in the law and, in this case, in the confirmation of highly qualified nominees. Senator Harkin and Senator Lieberman back in 1995 originally argued that this would preserve the traditions of this body while still giving the minority plenty of time to plead its case without blocking the majority forever. Now Senator Miller has proposed this same rule be put into place. This strikes me, personally, as the most intriguing option that has been presented. Senator Schumer advocates an overhaul of the judicial confirmation process entirely by eliminating the President's appointment power and instead giving President Bush and the minority leader ``equal votes in picking the judge pickers.'' I really think this is binding arbitration and foisting off on others what should be our responsibility and what we ought to be big enough and responsible enough to solve for ourselves. But I do give Senator Schumer credit for offering a reform proposal. I believe it reflects his opinion, as he has stated, both in writing and orally, that the process is broken and needs reform. Essentially, Senator Schumer proposes that the President and the Senate minority leader select equal numbers of members of Senate judicial nominating positions in each State and circuit who would then select one nominee for each judicial vacancy. The President would be required to nominate, and the Senate required to confirm the individuals selected by the commission absent any evidence that the candidate is ``unfit'' for judicial service. While I appreciate the spirit of reform and trying to find our way out of this gridlock that I believe Senator Schumer's proposal represents, there are several concerns. I have stated some of them. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has called the plan ``inconsistent with the Constitution, with the history and traditions of the Nation's Federal judicial appointment process and with the soundest approach for appointment of highly qualified Federal judges.'' Let me be clear. While I think there are problems with the proposal, I do appreciate Senator Schumer's acknowledgment of the problem. Finally, Senator Arlen Specter and, indeed, Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, have urged the imposition of strict time deadlines for the Senate to hold hearings and votes on judicial nominees. Indeed, the President has proposed the same sort of procedure. Chief Justice Rehnquist, speaking on behalf of the Federal judiciary, has also asked the Senate to ensure prompt up-or-down votes on nominees. Senator Specter has fleshed out his proposal and did so yesterday, again, which would call for preset time periods for a nominee to be debated in the committee and on the floor and then finally to reach an up-or-down vote. I hope there will be more proposals. We had a panel of constitutional scholars, some of the most preeminent legal thinkers in the Nation, and I am sure there will be others. I hope there are others paying attention to this debate and who will offer proposals because I think it will take the best legal thinking. It will take a spirit of bipartisanship. It will take putting the recriminations and the finger- pointing behind us and looking forward and not backward in trying to relive some of those battles of the past for us to be able to get to closure on some reform. What is important in the short term is that each of these intelligent and responsible Members of the Senate have acknowledged a crisis exists and urge reform of the confirmation process. We insist that judges be fair and impartial in deciding cases and that they shall neither fear nor favor. But clearly the requirement of fairness does not end in the judicial branch of Government. It also applies to Congress and to this Senate in performing our responsibilities. It is self-evident that this standard should apply in confirming judicial nominees. Our current state of affairs is neither fair nor representative of the bipartisan majority of this body. For democracy to work and for the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule to prevail, all this debate must eventually end, and we must bring matters to a vote. As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge once said about filibusters: To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile. I can tell you from personal experience as a former supreme court justice in my home State that when you put your left hand on the Bible and you raise your right hand and you take the oath of office as a judge, you change. If you were formerly an advocate, someone who did battle in our courts of law, representing the position of a client, you no longer are an advocate. If you were formally a legislator, someone who would argue in a body such as this for what public policy demands in terms of representing the best interests of the people you represent, once you become a judge, you are no longer a legislator; you change. You are, instead, entrusted with a solemn duty, and that is to interpret the law to the best of your ability in accordance with the intent of the people who wrote that law. You must interpret the law as written and not as judges or lawyers or legislators or advocates or special interest groups might like that law to be written. You must interpret the law as it has been written, consistent with the legislative intent. My hope is that this body will ultimately abide by the constitutional requirement that majorities govern in the case of these two nominees who are being filibustered. We must not, consistent with that same Constitution, impose a supermajority requirement where the Constitution requires none and where the Supreme Court and Senate traditions and the fundamental principle of majority rule dictate that a majority vote, not a 60-vote supermajority, will prevail. We, of course, must consider the interests of our respective States and the Nation, and I think those interests should be considered above the interests and desires of the special interest groups that seem to have grabbed hold of the confirmation process and will not let it go. We must act, and I believe we must act soon, to reform this broken confirmation process. Of course, this task falls not on others far away, not even on the President, not on the judiciary, but this responsibility falls on us as citizens, as Senators, as Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Certainly. I would like the opportunity to respond to some of the remarks of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada. First, I certainly respect their right to have an opinion and to express an opinion that this system of judicial confirmation is not broken. I disagree with them. Reasonable observers, outside of the bubble in this Chamber and perhaps inside the beltway, looking at this system will say: The system is broken and disagree with them. Indeed, to date, over 134 editorials in 94 newspapers have called for the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen and have called for an end to the filibuster. Indeed, the preponderance of the views is in favor of those who believe that the system is broken and sorely in need of reform. I pointed out the bipartisan letter of the 10 freshmen. I pointed out even Senator Schumer and others who have been here for quite a while believe the system is broken. So I think we need a fresh start. In many ways, the Senator from North Dakota makes my case for me. When he goes back through all of the grievances of the past in the judicial confirmation process, real or perceived, he says the system was broken back then but it is not now. He also says that because Democrats have voted or allowed a vote-- they haven't necessarily voted for them, but they have allowed a vote-- on 123 of the President's judicial nominees and disallowed votes on only 2, that it somehow makes it all right. There is an important point that needs to be made. When 123 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed and 2 have been blocked by unprecedented filibusters--and please understand there has never been a filibuster before, a true filibuster of judicial nominees before in the history of the Senate before Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen--how can some of these same people stand on the floor of the Senate or in the Judiciary Committee or in front of TV cameras and say President Bush is nominating only ideologues. Back in my State, some of the names I have heard these nominees called would be fighting words. If somebody called you some of the names I have heard these nominees called, indeed the President for nominating some of these same people, those would be simply fighting words. We are not fighting here today. I am simply trying to make the point that the sort of harsh, shrill, unreasonable, emotional allegations being made by some of these special interest groups that are being repeated by some Members of this body when it comes to these nominees simply don't stand up to any test of reason. Two years for a judicial nomination is not a sign of a healthy judicial confirmation process. It is a sign that the system is broken and needs to be repaired. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. CORNYN. I am happy to do so.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have some further remarks I want to make with regard to the Owen nomination. I know there are other Senators who will be coming to the floor. I certainly want to give them an opportunity to speak on that subject if they wish. As I was saying, the comment of the Senator from North Dakota that 123 Bush judicial nominees have been confirmed and only 2 obstructed, as these 2 fine ones have been, and that is a sign that the system is not broken really is at odds with the caricature I have heard and the Nation has heard about the type of person President Bush has nominated for judicial office. The truth is that they are uniformly highly qualified, able, and experienced, and should be, and are the same type of people who should be confirmed; and why they have picked out these 2 nominees against whom to engage in an unprecedented filibuster is, frankly, beyond me. I see the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Nevada here. I yield the floor to them.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I notice the Senator from Alabama is here, and I believe he wants to speak on the Owen nomination. I will turn the floor over to him in a few minutes. There are a couple of things I want to finish responding to regarding what the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada have said, and the way they characterize Justice Owen--as an activist, as somebody who is out of the mainstream, and in terms of judicial qualifications. I just point out that the picture they paint is totally at odds and inconsistent with the fact that Justice Owen has broad, bipartisan support in the Senate, and it is only a narrow minority of the Senate that is blocking the bipartisan majority from actually voting. To me, that is not evidence of an extreme position or somebody who is out of the mainstream. I point out and remind my colleagues that former Texas Supreme Court justices, Republicans and Democrats, a long list of former Presidents in the State bar of Texas, Republicans and Democrats, have endorsed her confirmation. That is hardly evidence consistent with the portrait that her detractors are attempting to paint and that was painted by the Senator from North Dakota just a few moments ago. In her last election, 84 percent of the voters in Texas voted for her reelection--hardly consistent with the picture of an extreme, out-of-the-mainstream person and nominee. I will tell you that in 2000 virtually every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her reelection. Here again, that is not consistent with the portrait being painted today by her opponents. Let me finally address the issue on which Justice Owen has been criticized, and that is the Texas parental notification statute. I point out to my colleagues that Justice Owen had no choice but to interpret the Texas parental notification statute as adopted by the Texas Legislature. She had no choice. She did her best. I think it is a record of which she and the Senate can be proud. But I think some of the arguments against this nominee are really wolves in sheep clothing. In other words, I think some of the special interest groups that are opposing Justice Owen's nomination really object to the Texas parental notification statute--a statute which I strongly support because I believe it protects parental rights, in order to at least be involved in one of the most serious and profound decisions that a young girl may have to make in her young life, when under Texas law, if she wanted to get her ears pierced at a doctor's office, she could not do so without parental consent. This law does not require consent; it requires notice to at least one parent before a minor child decides to get an abortion. As I say, I think a lot of the arguments being made against Justice Owen and this nomination are really masked by an underlying objection by some of these special interest groups to the fact that Texas has--like the vast majority of States--a parental notification law. Eighty-four percent of the American public supports parental rights and laws requiring that a minor child give notice at least to a parent before getting an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the validity of those laws as not impeding access to an abortion, but merely involving a parent and letting a parent know. Of course, if for some reason, within the letter of that law, a parent cannot be notified, or should not be in the eyes of a judge, there is a judicial bypass provision, and that was exactly the law that Justice Owen was duty-bound to interpret as a member of the Texas Supreme Court in dealing with that Texas parental notification statute. Justice Owen, in a vast majority of those cases, voted with a majority of the court and dissented from the majority less often than two other justices on that same court. I would point out that the author of the Texas parental notification law, Senator Florence Shapiro, supports Justice Owen's confirmation. One other point. I hope we can finally put this issue to bed because it seems as if it gets trotted out every couple of days when it comes to the Owen nomination, and that is the allegation that Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, formerly a member of the Texas Supreme Court who served with Priscilla Owen, accused her of judicial activism. That is just not true. That is not the fact, and anyone who cared enough about the issue would certainly read the opinions that are referred to by those who are making that fallacious claim. What happened in that case is some members of the court accused Judge Gonzales of misreading the statute. He stated it would be judicial activism for someone to change the law to suit their own personal beliefs. He did not say Judge Owen had done that. To me, that settles the issue completely. Here again, you find the facts more divorced from what is happening, what is being said as you see a person, a fine, decent person, a highly qualified candidate for this judicial office, being attacked unfairly. As you see the facts twisted and this caricature again being painted, it bears no relationship to the facts. I remember Senator Arlen Specter the other day, I think it was in the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying it is clear the Rules of Evidence that apply in court that somebody speak from personal knowledge, that it be trustworthy, it be credible, do not apply to statements made on the floor of the Senate or in the Senate Judiciary Committee. People repeat facts other people say that may be completely wrong or by people who have a motive to bend the truth. Justice Owen, has been a victim of people who have bent the truth or who care nothing for the truth and who care only for defeating this very fine nominee by our President for this judicial office. Mr. President, we are not going to give up the fight to have a bipartisan majority of the Senate vote on either Judge Owen's confirmation or on the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. As we heard yesterday before the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, constitutional scholars said there are serious constitutional problems with the argument that somehow the cloture rule, which requires 60 votes to cut off debate, can trump the Constitution, which requires only a majority vote. Senator Specter yesterday alluded to something called the nuclear option. He said he was not going to talk about it. All I wish to say is we are not going to give up, and I will not give up when I see a good person, an honest, a decent person who has worked hard, who has risen to the top of the legal profession, who has become a judge and excelled in her job as a judge, who has been faithful to the oath she has taken to interpret the law and not to be a superlegislator or be a legislator wearing a black robe, I am not going to stop as long as it is possible to do anything within my power to see her confirmed and to see that justice and fairness be provided to this good and decent person. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the period for morning business, I be allotted 20 minutes to speak.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to offer a tribute to our men and women in uniform. As we all know, President Bush will speak this evening to the Nation and mark the end of a major conflict in Iraq and acknowledge the heroism and sacrifice of our brave men and women in the Armed Forces. I know I speak for the people of my State of Texas and for all Americans when I give thanks that this operation has reached such a swift end, with so few coalition lives lost. Over the April recess, I took the opportunity to visit most of the military bases in my home State, along with my distinguished colleague Senator Hutchison. One in 10 active duty military personnel call Texas their home. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am dedicated to looking after their interests and the interests of all of our military personnel. We must ensure that the United States military continues to have the training, the equipment, and the facilities they need to remain the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, both in war and in peace. The military bases we have in Texas are some of the strongest components of our military readiness in the current war against terror, from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the world. We must use these valuable assets to maintain our status as the world's lone superpower, as we transform our military to face the challenges of the future. Seeing our soldiers face to face reminds us that they are not just numbers or statistics. They are real Americans, true patriots, with real families. When someone leaves their home to fight for American interests abroad, it affects their entire community; it affects their friends and, most profoundly, it affects their families. We must remember not just the sacrifices of the brave men and women who fight on the battlefield but the sacrifices of the families they leave behind. I remember, most poignantly, as the deployment was occurring from Camp Lejeune, on CNN a young mother with her child was saying goodbye to her husband, the father of that child. I will never forget the comments she made. She said: I used to think that if he loved us, he would never leave us. But now I know that he is leaving us because he loves us. We must remember the sons who have never seen the faces of their fathers, and mothers who are separated from their children. We must remember the families whose loved ones will not be coming back, who paid the ultimate price so that others can live free. Our own freedom was not won without cost but bought and paid for by the sacrifices of generations that have gone before. We must honor these heroic dead for their courage and their commitment to the dream that is freedom. On this same trip with Senator Hutchison, visiting our Texas military bases, I had the chance to meet with several of the former prisoners of war who had just returned to their homes. It was especially meaningful to me, because my dad was a POW in World War II. On a bombing mission over Mannheim, Germany, he was shot down and captured and spent 4 months in a prison camp before General Patton and his Army came along and liberated him and others. Knowing the impact of my dad's experience, I have sensed a glimmer of the pain, the anxiety, and ultimately the joy of the families of these former POWs. I know, in time, as both the former captives and their loved ones learn the names of the rescuers, they will want to express their gratitude in person and continue to be thankful to a nation that recognizes the value of each and every human life. It strikes me that the Iraqi people's experience was much the same. No doubt the captivity of their nation was longer, more brutal, and more terrible than what our soldiers experienced. The pain of the Iraqi people was immeasurable. But now, at long last, their country has returned to them. In 1944, Winston Churchill spoke in the Royal Albert Hall to the British troops and reminded them that they served a cause greater than themselves. He said: We are joined together in this union of action which has been forced upon us by our common hatred of tyranny. Shedding our blood side by side, struggling for the same ideals, until the triumph of the great causes which we serve shall be made manifest. . . . Then, indeed, there will be a day of thanksgiving, one in which all the world will share. There is a lot of work to be done in Iraq. But the difference our forces have made in such a short time is undeniable. Just a few short months ago, the idea that the Iraqi people could live free was a concept that some found hard to treat seriously. Now the dream of a free Iraq is in sight. The day of thanksgiving is not here yet, but it is coming. And thanks to the sacrifices of American families and America's warriors, it is coming soon. We as a grateful nation continue to wish our men and women in uniform godspeed, and we hope and pray for their swift return to the loving arms of their families. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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