Misstatements About the Bush Administration

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 car bomb in the basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing 6 and wounding 1,000. And then, in 1996, there was another attack against the United States Air Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans and wounding 515 Americans and Saudis. Then, in 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers who killed 234 people and wounded more than 5,000. And then, in 2000, al-Qaida attacked USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39.

Mr. President, I think it is only fair to ask where Mr. Clarke was during these ever-escalating attacks by al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden against Americans. The truth is, he was working in the Clinton White House in counterterrorism. I am confident he was doing everything he thought he could do. But if you have read some of his remarks, apparently he felt he was not getting a good response out of the President and others; indeed, he was prevented from briefing President Clinton on some of these attacks. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency himself was not allowed to give daily briefings to President Clinton, as he currently does and as he has done since the beginning of the Bush administration.

So I would say Mr. Clarke's motives for making these reckless allegations against President Bush and the Bush administration just don't ring true. Indeed, perhaps they are a diversion from his responsibility and the responsibility of the previous administration when it came to never adequately responding to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacks until, of course, the terrible day of September 11.

Indeed, if you listen to some of President Bush's critics and the comments made by the minority whip and others on this very floor and in the press, you would say they are complaining that the President didn't do enough when it comes to fighting the war on terror. Of course, just a few short days ago, before Mr. Clarke's book came out, these same critics were saying the President had done too much, and that his policy and the Nation's policy of preemptive attack against our enemies-that is, not waiting until we are attacked and more Americans are killed, but going after the sleeper cells and the terrorists where they live before they can attack and thus protecting American citizens and American property in that way.

So really I don't see how they can have it both ways. By saying on one hand, if you believe Mr. Clarke, the administration didn't do enough, but then if you listen to other critics, just a few short days ago they were saying this President, this administration, did too much-you cannot have it both ways. I think the American people understand that. They also understand what is happening in the Senate and elsewhere, when this administration is attacked for leading the war on terror.

The truth is-and I think the American people recognize this-that no one has demonstrated greater leadership and greater commitment to protecting Americans and America's national interests on the war on terror than President George W. Bush-no one. The American people know that. It is just not right to try to suggest otherwise. It certainly contradicts those assertions and contradicts all of the facts I have only spoken about. If necessary, we can revisit this at a later time.

I also want to respond to some of the comments made by the minority leader about the nominations process and his claim that Democrats have extended an open hand of bipartisanship in an attempt to confirm nominees to various boards and commissions and to the Federal bench.

The truth is, again, Mr. President, we are all entitled to our opinions and our policy differences. Indeed, I think the American people expect us to fight on this floor, rhetorically speaking, for those positions we believe in and which we believe are in the best interest of the American people. What they should also expect is that we would not come here and make such inaccurate statements of fact about this supposed bipartisanship when it comes to our Democratic colleagues on the nominations issue.

I have the honor of serving on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we have seen unprecedented obstruction of President Bush's judicial nominees. Indeed, never before in the history of the United States of America have a handful of Democrats-handful of any party-been able to successfully block a bipartisan majority from confirming President Bush's highly qualified judicial nominees.

I heard the minority leader talk about a highly qualified Hispanic nominee who he believes should be confirmed to a position. I was reminded of the terrible treatment that Miguel Estrada received at the hands of this same leadership on the Democratic side.

This immigrant from Honduras came to the United States when he was 17 years old. He could barely speak English. He taught himself the English language, went on to graduate from two of America's most prestigious institutions of higher learning, and went on to rise to the top of the legal profession. He represented the U.S. Government in 15 arguments before the United States Supreme Court. Arguing a case before the United States Supreme Court is the Super Bowl when it comes to the legal profession.

Notwithstanding the fact that Miguel Estrada was a highly qualified, very successful appellate lawyer, someone enormously qualified to serve on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, he was denied the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. No one suggests that any Senator who thinks they should vote against a nominee should not do so.

Certainly, we should all vote our own conscience, and we will be held accountable by the voters at the next election, but what has happened is a bipartisan majority was simply obstructed by the gamesmanship and the unprecedented way in which this President's judicial nominees have been treated, such as Miguel Estrada, who represents the manifestation of the American dream.

Miguel Estrada's dream came to a crashing halt when he hit the glass ceiling imposed by the Democratic minority in the Senate. There is no nice way to put it. It is ugly, it is partisan, and it is unworthy of the Members of this body and those of us who are sworn to protect the public interest rather than special interests.

While sitting in my office listening, I was also astonished to hear the minority leader talk about the President's use of recess appointments when it comes to Charles Pickering, whom he appointed to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Bill Pryor, who was appointed during a recess by the President to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. What they did not tell the American people is, the only reason the President had to use the power that is very clearly conferred upon him in the U.S. Constitution is because of this unprecedented obstruction by the Democratic minority in the Senate, which denied these two highly qualified nominees, Charles Pickering, now Judge Pickering of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Bill Pryor, an up-or-down vote.

The only reason they resorted again to this unprecedented obstruction, denying them even the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, is because they knew if allowed to vote, a bipartisan majority of the Senate would confirm those appointments.

Here again, we are entitled to have policy differences and, indeed, we will, but the suggestion that somehow President Bush used these recess appointments in some sort of unauthorized or inappropriate way is false. The fact is, during the course of this country's history, recess appointment power has been used more than 300 times. To suggest that President Bush has somehow gone outside the power conferred upon him under the U.S. Constitution is not true.

Sometimes I am amazed that people can say things with a straight face. I expect them to wink or otherwise indicate they know they are trying to pull a fast one, but the fact is the suggestion, the inference that those speakers would ask the American people to draw from their comments are just not true.

President Clinton used recess appointments. Frequently, former Presidents used recess appointments of one kind or another when they were not able to get their nominees confirmed on the timetable they wanted for whatever reason, but that is a power clearly conferred upon the President under the U.S. Constitution.

Can I ask how much time I have remaining?

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.