[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5372-5374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, allow me to respond to some of the 
comments we have heard this morning, both from the minority leader and 
the minority whip. While it has been a rather broad attack on the 
administration on a number of different fronts, there are a couple of 
things I would like to direct my comments to by way of response.
  I only wish that when we had differences of policy, we would confine 
our disagreements to policy and not make egregious errors of fact. 
While everybody has a right to their opinion, no one has a right to be 
wrong about the facts, or to misstate them in such a patently 
inaccurate way. My intention is to try to correct some of these 
misstatements that have been made by the minority leader, as well as 
the minority whip.
  Really, they relate to two different areas. As I said, the attack has 
been rather broad and varied, but I have chosen to talk about the issue 
of nominations and the minority whip's comments with regard to Mr. 
Richard Clarke.
  Let me first talk about Mr. Richard Clarke. I had the pleasure of 
meeting Mr. Clarke several years ago when I was attorney general of the 
State of Texas. We had him come down to the State and consult with us 
on the issue of cyber-terrorism, an area that most people in this 
country probably haven't thought a lot about but which is very 
important to our national security. Indeed, Mr. Clarke brought with him 
tremendous credentials in terms of his experience in counterterrorism 
working, as he did, during the Clinton administration, and then for a 
while under the administration of President George W. Bush.
  Mr. President, I think it is blatantly unfair of Mr. Clarke, 
notwithstanding his credentials in counterterrorism, which I admire, to 
suggest that this President who was in office roughly 8 months before 
the attacks of September 11 was responsible for the 9/11 incident, when 
in fact the administration of President Bill Clinton, in which Mr. 
Clark worked, stood by and did not respond adequately to ever-
escalating attacks against this country by Osama bin Laden and by al-
Qaida.
  It was in 1993 that Osama bin Laden directed al-Qaida's first 
successful attack on American soil, blowing up a

[[Page 5373]]

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

[[Page 5374]]

  President Clinton used recess appointments. Frequently, former 
Presidents used recess appointments of one kind or another when they 
were not able to get their nominees confirmed on the timetable they 
wanted for whatever reason, but that is a power clearly conferred upon 
the President under the U.S. Constitution.
  Can I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 15 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his 
courtesy.
  Finally, I will say that serving on the Judiciary Committee has been 
a startling experience for this Senator, a new member of the Senate 
coming, as I did, to this body expecting that all Senators would want 
to try to work through our differences in a way that reaches consensus 
and in a way that allows us to do our job.
  Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee has spiraled down into 
partisan dysfunction in a way that is, frankly, not very pleasant, and 
it is not doing the best job we can and should be doing for the 
American people.
  The truth is, what we see happening is a handful of special interest 
groups that seem to be calling the tune, and Senators, unfortunately, 
responding to that and blocking President Bush's nominees. We saw 
during the revelation of a number of memos that came to light that, 
indeed, some of these interest groups were trying to manipulate the 
outcome in lawsuits that were pending on the court of appeals.
  One very sensitive case affecting our entire Nation was an 
affirmative action case. That case involved the University of 
Michigan's affirmative action policies. The memos reveal that nominees 
were being blocked and slow-peddled in an effort to have an impact on 
that litigation. It is not right.
  Now I know my colleagues, all of us on the Judiciary Committee, have 
decried the way in which some of these memos came to light. The truth 
is, an overzealous, misguided staffer accessed computer files of both 
Republican and Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 
released those publicly. We have had the Sergeant at Arms conduct an 
investigation. Indeed, a number of us have asked the appropriate 
prosecutor to investigate it to see if criminal charges should be 
brought concerning the way in which these memos came to light. But just 
as the Pentagon Papers, years ago, were accessed unlawfully, they 
demonstrate a very real public policy concern that I do not think we 
can ignore.
  There are two things that have happened. One is the taking of the 
memos, and the other is the inappropriateness the conduct revealed.
  As I close my remarks, I again thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
his courtesy by allowing me to speak first.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
20 minutes to make my remarks. I do not believe I will need all that 
time, but I would ask to have that available.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________