John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand there are roughly 10 amendments pending. There is understandable concern about calling up additional amendments at this time. If I am mistaken, I am more than happy to call up my amendment. Failing that, for the time being, I would like to talk a little bit about it. I believe it is important we pass a true stimulus package quickly. Across the Nation, we know millions of families and small businesses are suffering from the economic crisis in which we find ourselves. Many of these small businesses feel like families, and they are faced, of course, with tough choices. Yesterday the New York Times featured a story about a small direct mail firm in Bellaire, TX, just outside Houston. Fewer orders combined with rising health care costs will force this firm to cut staff or cut benefits unless the economy turns around soon. So we must act quickly, but we must act wisely. I don't believe the pending bill on the floor today meets that latter part of my criteria, a wise bill. The most recent Gallup poll I have seen said only 37 percent of the people in the polling sample believe the current bill would actually help stimulate the economy in a positive way. In the meantime, we would see in excess of $1 trillion of additional new deficit spending passed on to our children and grandchildren. We have to not only act quickly, but we have to act wisely. We have to deliver a stimulus plan that will immediately benefit America's families and small businesses. We have to avoid, as well, repeating mistakes of the past that failed to stimulate the economy--and I will talk about that more in just a moment--and we have to resist the temptation, which is all too common in Washington, DC, of trying to fund everybody's wish list. We know that wish list goes on and on without end, and we need to set the right priorities, the same thing families have to do every day. I believe one of the best ways we can stimulate our economy is to provide true tax relief to everybody who pays taxes. Rather than reprocessing those tax dollars by having Washington redistribute them to the winners and losers in the political process, why not let the people who earn the money keep more of it. We know that is a lot more efficient. As we have seen, the new chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, along with her husband, did a study--she is a real, live economist. We hear economist for this, economist for that. Many are nameless and faceless. I thought how interesting it would be, instead of citing unnamed economists, if you just plugged in the word ``lawyer'' or let's say ``veterinarians.'' Veterinarians believe this, lawyers believe that. We wouldn't accept that at face value. We would want to know what it was and whether it was credible and what they are talking about. Because we know there are economists who disagree with each other, and it is plain silly to suggest that among economists there is any consensus on these unprecedented times we find ourselves in. But there are two economists--Christina Romer and her husband, she being the most recent chairwoman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers--who found in a study they published in 2007 that a tax cut of 1 percent of GDP generates real output by about 3 percent over the following 3 years, a 1-to-3 ratio. Now, that strikes me as a lot better than some of what I have seen in terms of the stimulative effect in spending, which is roughly for every $1 spent, you may get a 1.5-percent increase in growth. Amendment No. 277 to Amendment No. 98 Mr. President, I just received a note from staff that indicates it is all right to go ahead and call up my amendment. Let me pause, Mr. President, and call up my amendment No. 277 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with at this time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. It is my understanding we have reserved sufficient time for the ranking member to close.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand under the previous order I have been recognized for the next 20 minutes on this side, but I have been asked on this side to ask unanimous consent that the following Republican Senators be recognized in this order during the remaining time, going back and forth, as the distinguished chairman knows: Following my remarks, Senator Hatch for 10 minutes, Senator Bunning for 5 minutes, Senator Sessions for 5 minutes, Senator Bond for 10 minutes, and Senator Hutchison for 5 minutes. I ask Republican speakers be recognized in that order on this side.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor more with regret than anything else to say I oppose the nomination and confirmation of Eric Holder to be the next United States Attorney General. I say this to my colleagues because I have approached this nomination with an open mind and actually a predisposition to vote for his confirmation. But, of course, we Senators have a constitutional duty--in providing advice and consent to the executive branch's executive nominations like this one--to ask hard questions and to get the answers to those questions so our advice and consent may be an informed consent. While I approached this nomination with an open mind and a predisposition to vote for Mr. Holder's confirmation, I ultimately concluded that, as a result of the reasons I will detail momentarily, I could not vote for his confirmation in good conscience. Mr. Holder's experience in many ways uniquely qualifies him for this promotion as Attorney General, but it is that very same experience when he served as Deputy Attorney General that calls into question his independence and judgment, particularly when the President of the United States at the time, President Bill Clinton, basically wanted something out of the Department of Justice. This had to do specifically with two clemency petitions, one for the FALN terrorists and the other for the notorious Marc Rich. These two actions--where President Clinton commuted the sentence of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists and the recommendation to pardon the billionaire fugitive, Marc Rich--raised serious questions about Mr. Holder's independence and judgment. When Mr. Holder came to my office, I asked him: Is there any reason you would resign rather than carry out the orders of a President if you were Attorney General? He quickly said: Of course. If the President asked me to do something illegal or unethical, then I would resign rather than carry out those instructions. Well, no one is suggesting that what Mr. Holder did was illegal, given the fact that the President of the United States solely had the prerogative whether to grant these commutations, but I think any fairminded consideration of Mr. Holder's conduct under these commutations raises some serious questions whether he could hold himself to the very same standard that he articulated in my office. Two other aspects of Mr. Holder's record concern me. One is his demonstrated lack of seriousness regarding the profound threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism; secondly, as some Senators on my side of the aisle have already pointed out, his apparent hostility to the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, under our Constitution. In the Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, Mr. Holder failed to answer my questions and the questions of my colleagues in a way that alleviated these concerns. In fact, I found many of his responses to be simply evasive. As I said earlier, I have four reasons for opposing this nomination: one, Mr. Holder's role in the FALN and Los Macheteros commutations, his role in the Marc Rich pardon, his misjudgments and shifting opinions on the war on terrorism, and his record of hostility to the individual right to keep and bear arms. I think it is important to point out the facts of the commutations because they really are alarming, and many of our memories may have been dimmed because many of these events occurred long in the past. In August 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of two Puerto Rican separatist terrorist organizations, the FALN and Los Macheteros. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder made the recommendation that he should do so. The FALN, in case people do not recall, was a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about the independence of Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged open war on America, with more than 150 bombings, arsons, kidnappings, prison escapes, and threats and intimidation, all of which resulted in the deaths of at least 6 people and injuries to many more between 1974 and 1983. The most gruesome of these attacks occurred in 1975 at a bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to explode during lunchtime, the bomb decapitated 1 of the 4 people killed and injured another 60. It is hard for us to imagine what it would be like today if this were to occur, but that, in fact, is what the FALN was found guilty of. In another attack in Puerto Rico, Los Macheteros terrorists opened fire on a bus full of U.S. sailors, killing two, wounding nine. Fortunately, much of the leadership of these terrorist groups was captured and brought to justice in the 1970s and 1980s. But by the mid- 1980s, thankfully, the worst of their reign of terror was over. In the early 1990s, sympathetic activists petitioned for clemency on behalf of members of these groups. It was an easy call for the Pardon Attorney. That is the title of the individual whose responsibility it is to screen requests for clemency. These unrepentant terrorists had not even bothered to petition for clemency themselves. So Pardon Attorney Margaret Love, who worked for then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, recommended against clemency for any of these prisoners, and her recommendation was transmitted to the President. But after Eric Holder became Deputy Attorney General, he rescinded that recommendation opposing clemency and he recommended that President Clinton grant clemency to these unrepentant terrorists. Strangely, and really inexplicably, from my perspective, Mr. Holder now continues to stand by these recommendations as ``reasonable.'' But I do not think the reasons he gives are persuasive. Mr. Holder, first of all, claims these individuals are not ``linked to violence.'' That is clearly false. These men were active members of terrorist groups that committed dozens of violent crimes, as I described a moment ago. It is true that they individually were not prosecuted for the worst of those crimes, but by that standard, anyone who conspires to commit violence and murder is not linked to violence, only those who actually execute the orders of the higher ups. These commutations were, at the time, widely believed to be politically linked. Indeed, the Clinton White House discussed how the clemencies would affect then-Vice President Gore's aspirations for higher office, particularly among the Puerto Rican community. For this reason, I believe a full accounting of the individuals Mr. Holder met with, what they discussed, and what went into his decisions in recommending these commutations is in order. But there is another reason these questions should be answered; that is, it is only fair and just that the victims of the violence of these two terrorist groups be provided answers. I would encourage all of my colleagues before voting to review the testimony of Joseph Connor, whose father was killed in the bombing in Lower Manhattan. Mr. Connor testified that Mr. Holder did not consult with him, did not contact him or his family or other victims before recommending that the FALN terrorists go free. I cannot vote for Mr. Holder's nomination until I can explain my vote to Joseph Connor. Less than 2 years after the controversial recommendation for commuting the sentences of these FALN terrorists and Los Macheteros terrorists, on the very last night of the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder made a very similar error in judgment when he recommended that President Clinton pardon the notorious fugitive Marc Rich. At the time, Mr. Rich was No. 6 on the FBI's Most Wanted list. In 1983, then-U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani got an indictment of international commodities trader Marc Rich and his business partner Pincus Green. The indictment charged 65 counts of tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Specific charges include illegally trading with the Ayatollah Khamenei's Iranian terrorist regime, in violation of U.S. energy laws and the trade embargo against Iran. Indeed, Mr. Rich made a fortune trading with the Ayatollah's regime at the same time that 52 American diplomats were being held hostage in Tehran. Mr. Rich profited by trading with Cuba, Libya, and South Africa during apartheid, all despite U.S. embargoes. Rather than face the charges, Mr. Rich fled to Switzerland, where he remained a fugitive for 17 years. Law enforcement, including CIA, the NSA, and other Federal agencies, expended substantial resources in trying to apprehend Mr. Rich. These efforts included extradition requests and attempts by U.S. marshals to seize him abroad. Mr. Rich refused to return to the United States despite an offer by prosecutors that they would actually drop the racketeering charges in exchange for his return. In a final effort to avoid extradition, Mr. Rich went so far as to renounce his U.S. citizenship. He tried to become a citizen of Bolivia. It is hard for me to imagine anyone less deserving of clemency by the President of the United States than a fugitive from justice accused of trading with the enemy. Mr. Rich's own lawyer told him that he ``spit on the American flag'' by avoiding the jurisdiction of our courts. On the last evening of the Clinton administration, White House Counsel called Mr. Holder to solicit his views on the Rich pardon. As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was effectively speaking for the entire Department during this crucial call. Strongly disregarding the views of the hundreds of DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents who had worked nearly two decades to bring Mr. Rich to justice, Holder told White House Counsel Beth Nolan that he was ``neutral, leaning favorable.'' With this recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General in hand, President Clinton granted the Rich pardon, in one of his last and most inexplicable actions. Senator Specter, the distinguished ranking member from Pennsylvania, correctly recounted what former FBI Director Louis Freeh said about that pardon. He called it a ``corrupt act.'' Now, Mr. Holder has, during hearings, accepted fault and admitted that he made a mistake. I do not know how he can do any differently. But never in a full day of hearings and written questions did Mr. Holder offer a good reason for supporting the pardon in the first place. He defends himself by saying he was naive. He admits it was a mistake and promises he will not make the same mistake again. But this is difficult to square with the fact that 2 years earlier, Mr. Holder agreed that the FALN commutations were a reasonable act. It appears to be something of a trend here. The other area I am very concerned about, as I mentioned earlier, is the questions I asked Mr. Holder about the war on terrorism. Of course, it is hard for us now to recount the horrors of 9/11 when al-Qaida commandeered airplanes and hit here in Washington, DC, and New York, killing 3,000 Americans. It was in the wake of that that, of course, the Congress authorized the use of military force against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and against the Taliban. It is in the wake of that that Congress passed the PATRIOT Act to provide enhanced tools to our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies to try to make sure 9/11 never, ever happened again. The Department of Justice, particularly in the Office of Legal Counsel, was struggling with new efforts to try to figure out how to protect Americans from future attacks. I believe they struggled in good faith to try to come up with legal guidance for our President, his administration, and the intelligence authorities to make sure they were operating within the limits of the law, which, of course, prohibits torture. But I want to recount what Mr. Holder said in January 2002, which is at stark odds with what he has said now in 2008. He said in January 2002 that captured al-Qaida terrorists ``are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions. They are not prisoners of war.'' He went on to endorse indefinite detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and argued that such prisoners should not be afforded Geneva Convention protections so that they could be interrogated and provide actionable intelligence that could prevent future attacks. But more recently, taking perhaps a more political or ideological bent, he chastised the Bush administration for policies he now seems to believe defy the law. I want to quote at length from an Associated Press article entitled ``Obama AG pick defended Guantanamo policy,'' dated November 22, 2008. According to this article, when asked whether terrorism suspects could be held forever, Holder responded: It seems to me you can think of these people as combatants and we are in the middle of a war. Holder said in a CNN interview in January 2002: And it seems to me that you could probably say, looking at precedent, that you are going to detain these people until the war is over, if that is ultimately what we wanted to do. Just weeks later, this article goes on to say, Holder told CNN he did not believe al-Qaida suspects qualified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. He said: One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells may be located. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people. Holder said it was important to treat detainees humanely, but he said they ``are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.'' In this article, he also downplayed criticism that these detainees were being mistreated. Now, these were essentially the same arguments being made by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. Since then, those arguments, as we all know, have been criticized by human rights groups, leading Democrats, and, surprisingly enough, Mr. Holder himself. He gave a speech to the American Constitution Society in June of 2008 where he said, ``We must close our detention center at Guantanamo Bay.'' He said: A great nation should not detain people, military or civilian, in dark places beyond the reach of law. Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment. He added that he never thought he would see the day where ``The Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.'' Those sharply contrasting positions from 2002 to 2008 make me wonder if this is the same person, the same Eric Holder. Moreover, it makes me wonder what it is he truly believes. In 2008, Mr. Holder, in a speech before the American Constitution Society, attacked many of the positions he once held as ``making a mockery of the rule of law.'' In that speech he called for ``a reckoning'' over the Bush administration's ``unlawful practices in the war on terror.'' He also accused the Bush administration of ``act[ing] in direct defiance of Federal law'' and railed against counterterrorism policies that he claimed ``violate international law and the United States Constitution.'' It is one thing to change your mind; it is another thing to change your mind and attack the very position you once held as one that could only be held in bad faith. It is cynical to characterize a position you once held later as ``making a mockery of the rule of law.'' The recent attacks in Mumbai have reminded Americans of the possibility of another attack, literally anywhere in the world by committed terrorists. On November 26, 2008, Mumbai was ravaged by a gang of terrorists. More than 170 people died as a result of bombings and gunfire, including 6 Americans. If an American city were targeted in the same manner as Mumbai, or worse--let's say these terrorists had a biological, chemical, or nuclear device--it is critical that our laws give law enforcement personnel, intelligence personnel, the President of the United States the very intelligence they need in order to detect and defeat those attacks. Our intelligence officials and those who act consistent with interpretations of the law from the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice need to know the law is not going to change after they act consistent with what they understand the law to be in order to protect American citizens from future attacks. I worry about Mr. Holder's shifting opinions on what the law provides for and what it does not. I worry about the chilling effect it will have on future intelligence officials who may decide rather than risk prosecution by shifting opinions on what the law provides or does not, rather than risking everything I have worked a lifetime for, including what I have provided for my family, I am going to play it safe. From what we learned on 9/11, according to the 9/11 Commission, when we treat it safe, when we treat terrorism as a criminal act alone, we invite future attacks against our country. For all these reasons, I oppose the nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from a number of hunting groups, anglers, landowners, and conservation groups in my State be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to that effect.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Asked whether terrorism suspects could be held forever, Holder responded: It seems to me that you can think of these people as combatants and we are in the middle of a war. Holder said in a CNN interview in January 2002: And it seems to me that you could probably say, looking at precedent, that you are going to detain these people until the war is over, if that is ultimately what we wanted to do. Just weeks later, Holder told CNN he did not believe al-Qaida suspects qualified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. One of the things that we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located. Under the Geneva Convention, you are really limited to the amount of information that you can elicit from people. Holder said it was important to treat detainees humanely, but he said they: . . . are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. He also downplayed criticism that prisoners were being mistreated. Those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al-Qaida members should come to Camp X-ray and see how people are, in fact, being treated. Those were essentially the same arguments the Bush administration made with regard to Guantanamo Bay with regard to holding enemy combatants who wear no uniform, who do not obey the laws of war, and are not citizens of a state, a nation state, but, in fact, are a terrorist organization bent on killing innocent civilians here and abroad in an effort to pursue their ideology. Since then, however, these arguments have been heavily criticized, as we know, by human rights activists and leading Democrats and, inexplicably to me, Mr. Holder himself. He said in June of 2008: We must close our detention center at Guantanamo Bay. He said that in a speech to the American Constitution Society. He said: A great nation should not detain people, military or civilian, in dark places beyond the reach of law. Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment. Holder added he never thought he would see the day when the ``Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.'' These sharply contrasting legal conclusions were made, again inexplicably by one and the same person, Eric Holder, the nominee for the highest law enforcement officer in the United States. One can only wonder what he truly believes. In a 2008 speech to the liberal American Constitution Society, he attacked many of the same legal positions he once held as ``making a mockery of the rule of law.'' In that same speech, Holder called for a ``reckoning'' over the Bush administration's ``unlawful practices in the war on terror.'' He also accused the Bush administration of ``act[ing] in direct defiance of Federal law'' and railed against counterterrorism policies that he claimed ``violate international law and the United States Constitution.'' In this way, Mr. Holder appears to have already publicly prejudged a potential prosecutorial question that may come before him as Attorney General, without knowing all the facts. Now, it is one thing to change your mind, but it is quite different to change your mind and then attack the very same position you once held as one that could only be held in bad faith, describing it as ``making a mockery of the rule of law.'' I can only conclude that as an act of pure cynicism, somebody who tells you, particularly a lawyer who takes a legal position he once embraced, as now only being able to be held in bad faith, is a person who has made a bad-faith legal argument at least once. The recent terrorist attacks in India, in Mumbai, have reminded Americans of the possibility of further attacks on U.S. soil or literally anywhere around the world. On November 26, last year, Mumbai, as we know, was ravaged by a gang of terrorists. One of the attackers was captured while the rest were killed. More than 170 individuals died as a result of bombings and gunfire, including 6 Americans. If a U.S. city was targeted in the same way Mumbai was, or worse, biological, chemical, other even nuclear weapons being used, it is critical that we be able to obtain the intelligence from captured terrorists in order to assess whether any other imminent attacks are in the works. If we captured the terrorist in an ongoing attack on an American city, it is critically important that we not treat him as an ordinary criminal, with all the rights conferred by the Constitution on an American citizen. That, I believe, is one of the most important lessons we must recall and never forget from the tragedy of 9/11. To do so would effectively shut down the intelligence-gathering process and risk American lives. When this sort of unpredictable legal challenge arises in the war on terrorism, I wish to know whether the Eric Holder of 2002 or the Eric Holder of 2008 will be calling the shots. I was not encouraged by Mr. Holder's refusal to say he would authorize aggressive interrogation against terrorists, even if he knew that to do so would prevent a major attack on an American city. I also fear his recommendation for and continued endorsement of the FALN terrorist commutations is evidence of a failure to appreciate the continuing dangers of terrorism. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Holder attempted to defend his poor judgment on the terrorist clemency issue by noting these commutations occurred long before 9/11. But as I reminded him, the FALN clemencies came after the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993, and the al-Qaida attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. As Senator Coburn rightly pointed out, his clemency recommendation came in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing right here on our own soil, the most horrific domestic terror attack that has ever occurred in our country. So I worry that Mr. Holder is not prepared to lead the Department of Justice at a moment when this Nation is waging an asymmetric war whose battlefield extends across the globe and even onto U.S. soil. If confirmed as the next Attorney General, Mr. Holder will inherit a complex legal architecture constructed to prevent terrorist attacks here in America and against our allies. That has admittedly been controversial. But I do not think anyone can question its effectiveness given the fact that we have not had another terrorist attack on our own soil since 9/11. If Mr. Holder is confirmed, I hope he will study these issues and treat them more carefully and with greater deliberation and greater soundness of judgment than he has demonstrated by his conflicting positions in 2002 and 2008. I hope that rather than shifting his opinions with the political winds, he will do his very best to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States while protecting the American people by making sure we are protected within the limits of our law from future attacks. The final issue I wish to mention is my concern about Mr. Holder's adherence to the Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, which interpreted an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That case reversed the District of Columbia's position that said individuals could not own firearms in their homes to protect their family and their possessions. I believe this is an important victory for the second amendment that must be protected and preserved. As the Nation's chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General steers Federal gun law policy. The next Attorney General's views will shape not only law enforcement and prosecution priorities with regard to these issues but also the positions the Department of Justice takes in court. The views of the Justice Department will always be given considerable weight during the early stages of the law's development post-Heller. It is crucial the next Attorney General fully appreciate that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom protected by our Constitution. I was not comforted by Mr. Holder's vague assurance that Heller now is the law of the land because it cannot be reconciled with his long record of hostility to second amendment rights. Through his service as Deputy Attorney General and continuing to private practice, Mr. Holder has opposed the individual right to keep and bear arms. As Deputy Attorney General, he advocated for a wide variety of Federal gun restrictions. Mr. Holder's fierce hostility to gun rights continued after, as I say, his tenure as Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Holder feels so strongly about his opposition to gun rights that he, along with his former boss, the former Attorney General Janet Reno, filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Heller case and argued against the individual rights approach to the second amendment and in favor of the view that the second amendment protects only militia activities. The Holder-Reno brief argued: The Second Amendment does not protect firearms possession or use that is unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia. Although the individual rights approach prevailed in the Supreme Court and in the D.C. Circuit, Holder's brief described that approach as ``unwise'' and ``unjustified.'' The Holder-Reno brief goes on to argue that, even if the second amendment protects an individual right, that right should be narrowly construed. I worry it will be impossible for Mr. Holder to vigorously protect the second amendment rights of all Americans when he is so clearly opposed to the decision in the Heller case. I believe his hostility to the second amendment could lead the Department of Justice to take opposing positions to narrow that Supreme Court decision, particularly in court. Holder's Heller brief was directly at odds with the Court's opinion, as we have seen. Can we expect him to vigorously enforce and protect the constitutional right to bear arms, a right with which he personally and strenuously disagrees? Let me say, in conclusion, the Senate's advice and consent function requires us to carefully review a nominee's career, to ask hard questions, and to insist on satisfactory answers. I take this duty seriously, as I know all my colleagues do. With this nominee, I conclude that there are simply too many questions to which I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer. Why would he recommend clemency for unrepentant terrorists? Why would he recommend a pardon for a fugitive who made billions trading with America's enemies? Did Mr. Holder know one of the men whose clemency he recommended was linked to the murder of a U.S. sailor and, if so, did he communicate this to the White House? Why did Mr. Holder consult with Mr. Rich's prosecutors before recommending a pardon? Why is President Obama asserting executive privilege to prevent Mr. Holder from testifying about these commutations? Was Mr. Holder's judgment in the Rich and FLAN clemency decisions influenced by the outcome that he believed President Clinton wanted so badly? How can I explain to Joseph Connor, whose father was killed in the 1975 bombing in lower Manhattan, that the man who never spoke to his family before championing clemency for the men responsible for his father's murder will be the next Attorney General of the United States? Does Mr. Holder appreciate the gravity of the threats and the complexity of the legal issues posed by the war on terror? Can Mr. Holder be counted on to support and defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms? I can't answer these questions with any degree of certainty. I regret to say I will vote against the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General. Exhibit 1 Obama AG Pick Defended Guantanamo Policy) (By Matt Apuzzo) Washington. Nov. 22, 2008--President-elect Barack Obama's choice to become the next attorney general, Eric Holder, once defended the Bush administration's arguments for holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, a position that runs counter to his more recent comments--and to a signature policy of the incoming administration. Holder, a confidant to Obama on legal issues, recently has been a leading voice in the chorus calling to close Guantanamo Bay, which he has described as an international embarrassment. Likewise, Obama has called it a ``sad chapter in American history,'' pledged to close the island prison and criticized the Bush administration for arguing that terrorism suspects aren't covered by standards set by the Geneva Conventions. But in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Holder defended the Bush administration's policies at Guantanamo. Asked whether terrorism suspects could be held forever, Holder responded: ``It seems to me you can think of these people as combatants and we are in the middle of a war,'' Holder said in a CNN interview in January 2002. ``And it seems to me that you could probably say, looking at precedent, that you are going to detain these people until war is over, if that is ultimately what we wanted to do.'' Just weeks later, Holder told CNN he didn't believe al- Qaida suspects qualified as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. ``One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located,'' said Holder, the former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. ``Under the Geneva Convention, you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.'' Holder said it was important to treat detainees humanely. But he said they ``are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.'' He also downplayed criticism that prisoners were being mistreated. ``Those in Europe and other places who are concerned about the treatment of al-Qaida members should come to Camp X-ray and see how the people are, in fact, being treated,'' he said. Those were essentially the arguments of the Bush administration. Since then, those arguments have been criticized by human rights groups, leading Democrats, and Holder himself. ``We must close our detention center in Guantanamo Bay,'' Holder told the American Constitution Society this summer. ``A great nation should not detain people, military or civilian, in dark places beyond the reach of law. Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment.'' Holder added that he never thought he'd see the day where the ``Supreme Court would have to order the President of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention.'' Those comments are in line with Obama's views. Holder did not return e-mail and telephone messages seeking comment about his earlier interviews. Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman in Obama's transition office, restated Obama's commitment to opposing torture. ``Eric Holder shares that view,'' she said. ``The president-elect has complete confidence that Eric Holder will be an attorney general who will restore respect for the rule of law and for our international commitments.'' Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close Guantanamo Bay, release some detainees and bring others to the United States to face trial. One unanswered question, however, is what to do with detainees who could not be prosecuted in criminal courts without jeopardizing national security. The Justice Department under Holder almost certainly would help answer that question. In introducing Holder and other members of his national security team, Obama said he welcomed differences of opinion. ``I assembled this team because I am a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions,'' he said. ``I think that's how the best decisions are made. ``I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out,'' Obama said, ``and I will expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will take up the nomination of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that committee held hearings regarding Mr. Holder's confirmation. Regrettably, last Wednesday, when the Senate Judiciary Committee voted that nomination out of the committee, I was a ``no'' vote. I wish to say that originally I approached this nomination with an open mind and a determination to ask--indeed to demand--answers to legitimate questions. I think that is the responsibility of each Senator under the Constitution in performing our duties of advice and consent. I also think it is important for me to explain why, even though I approached that nomination with an open mind and a predisposition to vote for Mr. Holder's nomination, I ultimately concluded, as a result of some of the evidence, which I will lay out, I could not do so in good conscience. Mr. Holder, of course, served as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, and if there is any public service that is more illustrative of how someone will actually perform as Attorney General, I think it would be in performing as Deputy Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General is the one job on Earth most similar to the job for which Mr. Holder will be confirmed on Monday. It is rare to have such a clear picture of the job a nominee will do if confirmed. Thus, I reviewed Mr. Holder's record with great care, as you might expect, and also with great interest. Unfortunately, two of Mr. Holder's actions as Deputy Attorney General: the recommendation that President Clinton commute the sentences of 16 Puerto Rican separatist terrorists and the recommendation that President Clinton pardon the billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, raised serious questions about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence from the wishes of his political sponsors--two key qualities I would hope the Senate would want for any Attorney General, independence, adherence and fidelity only to the rule of law--and good judgment. Two other aspects of Mr. Holder's record also raised concerns for me. Mr. Holder's record demonstrates a failure to understand the profound threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism; and, second, Mr. Holder has often appeared to be hostile to the second amendment, to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. As I said, in the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holder failed to answer my questions, regrettably, and the questions of my colleagues in a way that alleviated these concerns. As I will explain, I indeed found Mr. Holder's answers to be nothing short of evasive in some key respects. Because I have doubts about Mr. Holder's judgment and independence, I am opposing this nomination, and the four reasons, as I tried earlier to summarize but which I will repeat are Mr. Holder's role in the FALN and Los Macheteros commutations, his role in the Marc Rich pardon, his misjudgments and shifting opinions with regard to the war on terror, and his record of hostility toward the individual's right to keep and bear arms. First, I would ask my colleagues to consider Mr. Holder's role in the FALN and Los Macheteros commutations. In August 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to 16 members of two Puerto Rican separatist terrorist organizations, FALN and Los Macheteros. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder made the recommendation that he should do so. The FALN was a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about the independence of Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged open war on the United States, with more than 150 bombings, arsons, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation, which resulted in the deaths of at least six people and injuries to many more between 1974 and 1983. The most gruesome attack was in 1975 in lower Manhattan. Timed to explode during the lunch hour, the bomb decapitated 1 of the 4 people killed and injured another 60. In another attack in Puerto Rico, Los Macheteros opened fire on a bus of U.S. sailors. Two American sailors were killed and nine were wounded. Fortunately, much of the leadership and membership of these terrorist groups was captured and brought to justice in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s, the worst of the FALN's reign of terror was over. In the early 1990s, sympathetic activists petitioned for clemency on behalf of these terrorists, and it was an easy call for the pardon attorney. The pardon attorney is the attorney at the Department of Justice who reviews clemency requests and makes recommendations. They make sure the record is thoroughly reviewed and, as I said, then make recommendations. The fact is these unrepentant terrorists who were given clemency by the Clinton administration never even petitioned for clemency. They never even asked for it. Pardon attorney Margaret Love, who worked for then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, recommended against clemency for any of these prisoners, and a recommendation was transmitted to the President. Shortly thereafter, when Eric Holder became Deputy Attorney General, he rescinded that recommendation opposing clemency and recommended that President Clinton grant clemency to these unrepentant terrorists. Strangely, Mr. Holder still stands behind this recommendation, saying he considered it reasonable. But the reasons he gives are not persuasive. Mr. Holder claims these men were not linked to violence. That is false. These men were active members of a terrorist organization that had committed dozens of violent crimes, including, as I mentioned earlier, bombings, murder, and arson. It is true the particular crimes for which these individuals were convicted were not, in and of themselves, violent crimes, but by that standard, Saddam Hussein did not commit crimes, unless he pulled the trigger himself. Likewise, Osama bin Laden, responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent American citizens, would not be linked to crime under the standard Mr. Holder posits. There is ample evidence that at least some of the men for whom Eric Holder recommended clemency were, in fact, murderers. These commutations were, at the time, widely believed to have some political motivation. Indeed, the Clinton White House discussed how these clemencies would affect then-Vice President Gore's political standing within the Puerto Rican community. For this reason, I believe a full accounting of whom Mr. Holder met with, what they discussed, and what went into his decision to recommend these commutations is in order. But there is another equally important reason that these questions must be answered. The victims of the FALN and the Los Macheteros deserve answers. I would encourage all my colleagues, before voting, to review the testimony of Joseph Connor, whose father was killed in the bombing in lower Manhattan in 1975. Mr. Connor testified that Mr. Holder did not consult with him, did not inform him or his family or other victims before recommending that the President set FALN terrorists free. I cannot vote for Mr. Holder until I can explain my vote to Joseph Connor. Because Mr. Holder has failed to answer my questions about the FALN commutations, I do not have an explanation I can give to Mr. Connor. One of the reasons Mr. Holder has refused to answer some questions is, it appears he is invoking executive privilege. But it is very odd because this apparent assertion of executive privilege comes despite the fact that President Clinton waived executive privilege for all testimony concerning these commutations. That is in the record of the hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I think it is unfortunate that the current administration's first apparent assertion of executive privilege seems to come for no purpose other than to protect Mr. Holder's record from scrutiny. As I said, in 2001, President Clinton waived executive privilege with regard to the commutations and pardons he granted. In a letter to the House of Representatives, President Clinton's lawyer explicitly stated President Clinton ``will interpose no executive privilege objections to the testimony of his former staff concerning these pardons, or to other pardons and commutations he granted.'' Nonetheless, Mr. Holder continues to assert he is not authorized to testify about the so-called options memorandum, which is part of the record underlying these commutations. Instead of forthright answers about Mr. Holder's decision to recommend these commutations or present the options memo to then-President Clinton, he has repeatedly refused to answer questions submitted by Judiciary Committee members, including me. For example, I asked Mr. Holder whether he was aware at the time he made his commutation recommendation of the leadership positions of three of these terrorists and their alleged involvement of another murder of a U.S. Navy sailor--more than one. Mr. Holder responded that this information ``was included in [their] presentence reports which in the ordinary course would be requested and reviewed by the Office of Pardon Attorney as one of the first investigative steps.'' This answer, I have to say, is a very lawyerly answer, but it is nonresponsive to my question. It avoids the question of whether he was aware of these matters when he recommended commutation. In fact, Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter sent a letter to the Department of Justice citing President Clinton's waiver of executive privilege and requesting the relevant documents regarding the clemency decision. This request, inexplicably, has been denied. Because President Clinton has waived this privilege, this assertion of privilege is apparently now being made by the present administration of President Obama. Of course, executive privilege only belongs to the principal, to the client--in this case the Executive--so it has to be either President Clinton or President Obama, and clearly President Clinton has waived it. The Justice Department has apparently advanced the argument that the Clinton waiver applied only to testimony and not to documents, but Mr. Holder's testimony about the options paper is clearly testimony and not a document. Thus, his assertion of privilege is indeed broader than the most restrictive reading of the Clinton waiver. So who is denying the Holder authorization to testify about the options paper? Apparently, I conclude, it could only be President Obama. Assertions of executive privilege, as we know, raise questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The Executive's interest in secrecy and confidential communications, and Congress's right to information, particularly in the context of a confirmation hearing when performing our constitutional duty of advice and consent, are in tension and, in this case, conflict. It is up to the branches to negotiate and work together to take both interests into account and to make public relevant information that bears on the qualifications and experience of members of the President's Cabinet--in this instance, Mr. Holder. I believe President Obama owes the American people--consistent with his ideals on open government, which I enthusiastically support--to make his assertion of privilege plainly and in the light of day. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any significant executive branch interest in keeping this information secret. These documents are a decade old and concern crimes committed about 30 years ago. President Clinton, of course, is no longer in office, and he has waived the privilege. The context of these documents has been alluded to in U.S. major newspapers and even by Mr. Holder himself. So it seems to me there is no further executive branch interest in continuing to hide these documents, only a desire to shield Mr. Holder from hard questions. In short, Mr. Holder's responses to questions regarding these commutations has been evasive. The Senate and the American people deserve forthright answers to questions that pertain to Mr. Holder's judgment, his independence, his seriousness of mind when it comes to the threat of Islamic extremism, and his qualifications to be Attorney General. I also believe the families of the victims of the terrorist acts by the FALN and Los Macheteros terrorists deserve a full accounting for the release of terrorists who were partly to blame for their loved one's deaths. Instead of providing a forthright accounting, Mr. Holder has simply dodged the question, hidden behind an apparent claim of executive privilege, and refused to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in getting to the bottom of some of these matters. The next concern I have has to do with the Rich pardon I alluded to at the very beginning. Less than 2 years after the controversy surrounding the FALN commutations, on the very last night of the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder made a very similar error of judgment when he recommended that President Clinton pardon the notorious fugitive by the name of Marc Rich. At the time, Mr. Rich was No. 6 on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. In 1983, then-U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani in the Southern District of New York, obtained an indictment of international commodities trader Marc Rich and his business partner, Pincus Green. The indictment charged 65 counts of tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Specific charges include illegally trading with the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian terrorist regime in violation of U.S. energy laws and a trade embargo against Iran. Indeed, Mr. Rich made a fortune trading with the Ayatollah's regime at the same time that 52 American diplomats were still being held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Iran. Mr. Rich profited by trading with Cuba, Libya, and South Africa during apartheid--all despite U.S. embargoes. Rather than face these charges head on, Mr. Rich simply fled to Switzerland where he remained a fugitive for 17 years. Federal law enforcement, with help from the CIA, the NSA, and other agencies, expended substantial resources in an effort to apprehend Mr. Rich. These efforts included extradition requests and attempts by U.S. marshals to arrest him abroad. Rich refused to return to the United States, despite an offer by prosecutors to drop the racketeering charges in exchange for his return. In an effort to avoid his extradition, though, Mr. Rich went so far as to renounce his U.S. citizenship, and he tried to become a citizen of Bolivia. It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate candidate for a pardon than a fugitive from justice accused of trading with the enemy. Mr. Rich's own lawyer told him he ``spit on the American flag'' by avoiding the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. According to those involved in the pardon process, including President Clinton and Marc Rich's lawyer, Eric Holder was more responsible for this controversial decision than any other member of the Clinton administration with the exception of the President himself. In fact, on the last evening of the Clinton administration, White House counsel called Mr. Holder to solicit his views on the Rich pardon application. As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was effectively speaking for the entire Department of Justice during this crucial phone call. Disregarding the strongly held views of hundreds of Department of Justice prosecutors and FBI agents who worked nearly two decades to bring Marc Rich to justice, Mr. Holder told Nolan he was ``neutral, leaning to favorable.'' What is crucial to understand is that Mr. Holder was not just speaking for himself but the entire Department of Justice. But with this recommendation from the Deputy Attorney General, President Clinton granted the Rich pardon, one of his last and most despicable actions. Even after having ample opportunity to explain himself, it is unclear what Mr. Holder's rationale was for recommending this despicable pardon, as I said, which former FBI Director Louis Freeh called a ``corrupt act'' on the part of President Clinton. Mr. Holder has admitted he made a mistake, which is commendable. But never in a full day of hearings and in answers to several written questions did Mr. Holder offer a persuasive reason for supporting this pardon--other than, apparently, caving in to pressure from the Clinton White House. Mr. Holder defends himself by claiming he was naive; and, again, we have all made mistakes. I grant that. He now admits the Rich pardon was a mistake and promises he will never make a similar mistake again. In fact, he takes the position he will be a better Attorney General because of learning from this mistake. But this pledge is difficult to square with the fact that Mr. Holder had essentially made the same error in judgment less than 2 years before with the FALN commutation. I am also concerned that Mr. Holder's testimony regarding key conversations and meetings on the Rich pardon seem to contradict the recollections of members of the Marc Rich legal and lobbying team. In the fall of 2000, there was an e-mail from former White House Counsel Jack Quinn--who was representing Rich in his quest for a pardon--to the rest of the Rich legal team indicating Mr. Rich told Mr. Quinn to ``go straight to the White House.'' This suggests that Holder was telling Quinn to bypass the typical pardon process through the Department of Justice, where opponents of the Rich pardon were legion. Mr. Holder disputes this interpretation, arguing that an application sent to the White House would be forwarded to the Department of Justice in any case. Whether this is true, it is indisputable that the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who indicted Marc Rich for the crimes I mentioned earlier--they were never asked about their views on the Rich pardon, as they would have been if the normal pardon process had been followed at the Department of Justice. If Mr. Holder advised the Rich pardon team on strategic matters, it would be a serious violation of his duties as the second highest law enforcement officer in the land. Such aid would be particularly disappointing because a House committee had specifically reprimanded Mr. Holder for improperly aiding and facilitating the clemency application of the FALN terrorists 2 years earlier. It is not disputed, though, that the Rich pardon application was fast-tracked and sheltered from its many opponents. It is clear to me that Mr. Holder played a role in clearing the way for this pardon and, at a minimum, he knew it had not been appropriately handled through the Department of Justice pardon process. Nevertheless, he declared himself as ``neutral, leaning favorable'' when the White House asked him about his opinion. In summary, Mr. Holder appears once again to simply have given President Clinton the answer he wanted. The Rich pardon recommendation is the most recent major action by Mr. Holder as a public official. I believe the evidence casts doubt on his independence and his judgment once again. My greatest concerns, however, are that Mr. Holder fails to fully understand the unique challenges and threats posed to our country by radical Islamic terrorism. I want to explain why I say that. I agree with Mr. Holder when he says the most important duty of the Attorney General is to protect America from another terrorist attack. But his public statements regarding the war on terror too often betray a willingness to advance ideological rhetoric without fully appreciating the sensitivity and the complexity of this issue. I find it especially troubling that Mr. Holder's legal views on national security have seemed to shift, depending upon the political mood of the day and the audience to whom he is speaking. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Holder voiced support for the Bush administration's interpretation of the status of terrorist detainees. Mr. Holder said, in January 2002, that al-Qaida terrorists: . . . are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. He went on to endorse indefinite detention of terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and argued that such prisoners should not be afforded Geneva Conventions protections so that they could, in fact, be interrogated to provide actionable intelligence. He did insist, as did the Bush administration at the time, that these detainees should be treated humanely, though. But more recently, as the political winds have shifted, Mr. Holder has chastised the Bush administration for policies he now seems to believe defy the law. There is a disturbing Jekyll-and-Hyde quality to Mr. Holder's legal pronouncements concerning our counterterrorism policies. I wish to quote from an Associated Press article entitled ``Obama AG pick defended Guantanamo policy,'' dated November 22, 2008. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may use in morning business.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am here today to lend my full support to the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP was created with the noblest of intentions: to cover low-income children whose families did not qualify for Medicaid but who could not afford private health insurance. Unfortunately, there are too many children today who are eligible for CHIP who are not enrolled. I strongly believe that before we consider expanding the scope of this program, as the present bill does, we need to focus on the currently eligible population of low-income children. That is why I have joined with a number of my colleagues in supporting an alternative known as Kids First that focuses on the original intent of SCHIP, and that is to cover low-income children. Kids First provides funding to Texas--my State--over the next 5 years at levels beyond projected spending by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Across the country, thousands of children are eligible but not enrolled in health insurance programs such as Medicaid or SCHIP, and I believe we need to focus on those children first. Frankly, in my State--not something I am proud of--850,000 children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but they are not enrolled. I think it is important we focus our efforts on getting these children covered. That is why Kids First provides $400 million for 5 years for outreach and enrollment. We can all agree that during these tough times it is important that we assist as many low-income children as we possibly can, but it is also necessary that we accomplish this goal without placing excessive burdens on taxpayers. Kids First protects taxpayer dollars and pays for the funding by reducing administrative costs, duplicative spending, and eliminating earmarks. Unfortunately, the bill that is now on the floor is structured in such a way that it provides billions of taxpayer dollars to cover children whose parents earn up to $100,000 and more and eliminates the requirement that States first cover low-income children before expanding their programs. One might ask how that could possibly be so. Well, through a mysterious thing known as ``income disregard'' that would, under this bill, allow coverage at 300 percent, 350 percent, and higher of poverty, but then allow States to disregard certain income which, if fully employed, would mean that a family earning about $120,000--a family of four--would be eligible for CHIP coverage, even though children in my State with families of four who make only $42,000 would not be covered. It is important we take care of the low-income children who are the original focus of the SCHIP program before we see that money being drained off, using it in other States to cover adults or to cover families making as much as 400 percent of poverty and more. I think the bill on the floor takes an unfortunate step backward in terms of fiscal responsibility as well. The bill imposes a regressive tax on middle and low-income families and relies on the creation of 22 million new smokers to afford the future imposition of an additional tax--a staggering fact. To improve the bill and to focus on low-income children, I have offered this amendment that prohibits redistributing funds to States that have expanded their SCHIP program to higher income families or adults, at least until we take care of the low-income kids first. The current bill rewards States for exceeding their budget, even if they spent outside of the original intent of the program. In fiscal year 2007, for example, of 14 shortfall States that received redistributed funds, out of those 14, 7 of them had expanded the SCHIP program for children beyond the 200 percent of poverty level. Of those 7, 4 had expanded their programs above 300 percent. Redistributed funds should be reserved for covering low-income children to assist States with specific outreach and enrollment activities that will help enroll a large number of low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled. We have a choice. We can either focus on low-income children or we can choose to expand the program and leave many low-income children behind. I hope my colleagues will join me in refocusing our efforts to cover low-income children first, which is what my amendment will do. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Carolina be recognized for 1 minute and that then I be recognized for 1 minute following that.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 67 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the question I think the American people want to know every time we come to the floor with some legislation is, Will it work? Will it work? Well, SCHIP, as laudable as it is, is not working the way Congress intended when we passed it. I came to the floor and mentioned the fact that with 850,000 Medicaid and SCHIP-eligible children in Texas, that now the money that will be spent on this program will be spent to insure much higher level income families as well as adults without focusing on those low-income kids first. My amendment would redirect those funds to make sure they are reserved for covering low-income children or for outreach and enrollment activities. I think it is important we put some money into that, to let people know, to educate them that this is available for their children and then sign them up, rather than the use of those funds to cover children from higher income families. This amendment sends a message that Congress will meet its responsibility of putting first things first by taking care of low- income children. I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Senator Lugar, who is admired by all of us for his knowledge and experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, explained the likelihood of a conflict of interest. He said that the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation to any foreign entity or government that believes it can curry favor through a donation, and obviously that creates a potential perception problem with any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers of their country. I share Senator Lugar's concerns, as I have explained here. I concur with his commonsense solution that during Senator Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the foundation should actually refuse all contributions from foreign sources. That would take care of that particular problem outright. Senator Kerry, as he said in those hearings and reiterated today, pointed out that Senator Lugar wasn't speaking from a partisan perspective, he was speaking for the committee. In other words, this is not a partisan matter. This is a matter of serious concern regarding public policy. It is a matter of record that, as I said, the transition team, Senator Clinton, and the foundation agreed to a memorandum of understanding. Of course, this does not require disclosure of past contributions with any sort of real detail, which would be helpful to the observer. It does require annual disclosure, and I think that was a very positive step in the right direction. But simply stated, the fundraising restrictions of disclosure statements I don't think go far enough. It is in the Nation's interest for the Clinton Foundation to refuse foreign-sourced donations while Senator Clinton serves as Secretary of State. If the foundation refuses to do so--and I realize Senator Clinton has limited control, if any, over what the foundation does--I think there should be other options available that would reduce the likelihood of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Senator Lugar himself has recommended several disclosure requirements. For example, he suggested that gifts of $50,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation from any foreign source, including individuals, should be submitted to the agreed-upon State Department ethics review process. I would alert my colleagues to the fact that the agreement between the Obama team and the foundation only commits the foundation to submit for State Department review those gifts from foreign governments and government-controlled entities. As Senator Lugar aptly pointed out, in many foreign countries the tie between the government and private citizens is blurred. Individuals with close connections to the government or governing families often act as surrogates for those governments. Consequently, contributions from foreign governments or foreign-controlled companies are not the only foreign contributions that could raise serious conflicts of interest. I would go further and require that every pledge or donation be made publicly available online within a short time--perhaps a week. If we did it on a monthly basis, that would be far better than what the MOU currently provides. The foundation's agreement to make disclosures once a year is simply not enough in order to achieve that kind of transparency President Obama talked about yesterday that will help give the American people more confidence in their Government. That is not doing business in the light of day in a way that restores that vital trust, to do it only annually, after the fact. This is only one example of some of the improvements that could be made. In short, I remain concerned that Senator--soon to be Secretary of State--Clinton's diplomatic work will be encumbered by the global activities of the Clinton Foundation under these circumstances--not their good and charitable work, which I certainly support, but the contributions they raise from these various sources that are not transparent, not subject to prompt disclosure. Obviously, I think it is important that the Senate discuss and debate this in the context of her nomination, not wait until the inevitable conflict or crisis arises. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a New York Times editorial, a Washington Post editorial, and a Los Angeles Times editorial, which identify some of these same concerns, at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. In short, I was encouraged by my conversation with Senator Clinton yesterday in the Rotunda following the inaugural ceremonies where she said she would be open to a requirement that really was an across-the-board disclosure requirement that was not just targeted at her and the Clinton Foundation. I think there is a meaningful basis upon which to further discuss this, negotiate it, and it would be my intention, working with other colleagues here, to produce legislation, as we flesh that out, which might accomplish that in the days ahead. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, Dec. 19, 2008] In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation (By Peter Baker and Charlie Savage) Washington.--Former President Bill Clinton has collected tens of millions of dollars for his foundation over the last 10 years from governments in the Middle Fast, tycoons from Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international figures with interests in American foreign policy. Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration. The donor list offers a glimpse into the high-powered, big- dollar world in which Mr. Clinton has traveled since leaving the White House as he jetted around the globe making money for himself and raising vast sums for his ambitious philanthropic programs fighting disease, poverty and climate change. Some of the world's richest people and most famous celebrities handed over large checks to finance his presidential library and charitable activities. With his wife now poised to take over as America's top diplomat, Mr. Clinton's fund-raising is coming under new scrutiny for relationships that could pose potential conflict-of-interest issues for Mrs. Clinton in her job. Some of her husband's biggest backers have much at stake in the policies that President-elect Barack Obama's incoming administration adopts toward their regions or business ventures. Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to $25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia, founded by a Saudi prince. Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic's authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative uranium contracts. In addition, the foundation accepted sizable contributions from several prominent figures from India, like a billionaire steel magnate and a politician who lobbied Mrs. Clinton this year on behalf of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United States, a deal that has rankled Pakistan, a key foreign policy focus of the incoming administration. Such contributions could provoke suspicion at home and abroad among those wondering about any effect on administration policy. Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said donations from ``countries where we have particularly sensitive issues and relations'' would invariably raise concerns about whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest. ``The real question,'' Mr. Levitt said, ``is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.'' Mr. Clinton's office said in a statement that the disclosure itself should ensure that there would be ``not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.'' Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said the president-elect had chosen Mrs. Clinton for his cabinet because ``no one could better represent the United States.'' ``Past donations to the Clinton foundation,'' Ms. Cutter said, ``have no connection to Senator Clinton's prospective tenure as secretary of state.'' Repuclians have addressed the issue cautiously, suggesting that they would examine it but not necessarily hold up Mrs. Clinton's confirmation as a result. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will consider her nomination, was in Russia on Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to Mr. Lugar's office. But in an interview on Nov. 30 on ``This Week'' on ABC, Mr. Lugar said Mr. Clinton's activities would raise legitimate questions, adding, ``I don't know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties.'' Still, he indicated that he would vote for Mrs. Clinton and praised Mr. Obama's team for doing ``a good job in trying to pin down the most important elements'' in its agreement with Mr. Clinton. To avoid potential conflicts, the Obama team, represented by its transition co-chairwoman, Valerie Jarrett, signed a memorandum of understanding on Dec. 12 with the William J. Clinton Foundation, represented by its chief executive, Bruce R. Lindsey. The five-page memorandum, provided to reporters on Thursday, required Mr. Clinton to disclose his past donors by the end of the year and any future contributors once a year. The memorandum also requires that if Mrs. Clinton is confirmed, the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the foundation, will be incorporated separately, will no longer hold events outside the United States and will refuse any further contributions from foreign governments. Other initiatives operating under the auspices of the foundation would follow new rules and consult with State Department ethics officials in certain circumstances. Federal law does not require former presidents to reveal foundation donors, and Mr. Clinton had until now declined to do so, arguing that many who gave expected confidentiality. Other former presidents have taken money from overseas sources, including President George Bush, whose son has sat in the Oval Office for the last years. The elder Mr. Bush has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi, Kuwaiti and other foreign sources for his own library. Mr. Clinton's foundation has raised $500 million since 1997, growing into a global operation with 1,100 paid staff members and volunteers in 40 countries. It said it had provided medicine to 1.4 million people living with H.I.V./ AIDS, helped dozens of cities reduce heat-trapping gases and worked to spread economic opportunity. Mr. Clinton's advocates said that the disclosure on Thursday showed he had nothing to hide and that most of his largest contributors were already known. Yet while unprecedented, the disclosure was also limited. The list posted on the foundation's Web site-- www.clintonfoundation.org_did not provide the nationality or occupation of the donors, the dates they contributed or the precise amounts of their gifts, instead breaking down contributors by dollar ranges. Nor did the list include pledges for future donations. As a result, it is impossible to know from the list which donations were made while Mr. Clinton was still president or while Mrs. Clinton was running for president. Many benefactors are well-known Americans, like Stephen L. Bing; Alfonso Fanjul; Bill Gates; Tom Golisano, a billionaire who ran for New York governor; Rupert Murdoch; and Barbra Streisand. Bloomberg L.P., the financial media empire founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, contributed, as did Freddie Mac, the mortgage company now partly blamed for the housing market collapse. Another potentially sensitive donation came from Blackwater Training Center, part of the private security firm hired to protect American diplomats in Iraq. Five of its guards have been indicted for their roles in a 2007 shooting that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead. The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited the United States in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it weeks later. Other donors have connections with India, a potential flashpoint because of tensions with Pakistan. Among them was Lakshmi Mittal, a steel magnate and, according to Forbes magazine, the fourth-richest person in the world. Mr. Mittal, who donated $1 million to $5 million, was involved in a scandal in 2002 in London, where he lives. After Mr. Mittal made a large donation to the Labor Party, Prime Minister Tony Blair helped him persuade Romania to sell him its state steel company. Another donor was Gilbert Chagoury, a businessman close to Gen. Sani Abacha of Nigeria, widely criticized for a brutal and corrupt rule. Mr. Chagoury tried during the 1990s to win favor for Mr. Abacha from the Clinton administration, contributing $460,000 to a voter registration group to which Democratic officials steered him, according to news accounts. He won meetings with National Security Council officials, including Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama's choice to be ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I find I agree with virtually all of them, so I wish to make clear at the outset that this is an opportunity for us, over the next few hours, to talk about what ought to be our goal and that is to confirm a new Secretary of State who will be able to do the Nation's work and be able to avoid any perceived conflict of interest as a result of the fundraising by her husband's foundation. I appreciate particularly the good-faith acknowledgement of the concerns of the Senator from Massachusetts. They were also expressed by Senator Lugar. I think the concerns were acknowledged by both the Clinton Foundation and by Senator Clinton herself in entering into a memorandum of understanding with the transition team of the now President Obama administration. I know we all realize this, but it is important to say again that yesterday was a historic day, with the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Among the many things President Obama said, and that I agree with, I was particularly glad to hear him say we should do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between the people and their Government. I am someone who has long believed that our Government is too opaque to most of the people we work for, and as an advocate of open government, I agree with him 1,000 percent. I pledge to him and to my colleagues across the aisle that if there are things we can do, such as working together, as Senator Leahy and I have on Freedom of Information Act reform, to improve the openness and transparency of our Government, we ought to be all about that. As we know, the foundation of our legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed--the people of this country. If they do not know what their Government is doing or if certain things are hidden from their view, they cannot consent, and they operate in a less-than-legitimate way. I wish President Obama and his administration well. His success will mean America's success. But if we are going to restore trust between the American people and their Government, we need to be careful that the reality matches the rhetoric. My concern is not whether our colleague, Senator Clinton, is qualified to be Secretary of State--she is, and I intend to vote for her confirmation--but I believe it is very important to flesh out some of the concerns that have been raised, legitimately, by Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and others that I think bear some public discussion and some debate in the Senate. I argued to Senator Clinton yesterday--or I didn't argue to her, but I explained my position to her; that I thought greater transparency would make it better for her as she enters this new job as Secretary of State because any cloud or question that remains because of the lack of transparency or lack of disclosure I think hurts her and hurts the Obama administration at a time when we want to see it succeed. Of course, the concern is that, as she explained to me, any rule we have should not just apply to her and the former President, and I told her that is fine with me; that we would be glad to work together to try to come up with something that would make this kind of disclosure across the board. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, having a former President of the United States running a foundation such as this and to have his spouse as Secretary of State is an unusual and perhaps unprecedented event, giving rise to these unusual and unprecedented concerns. But many taxpayers make frequent disclosures to the Government on a monthly or quarterly basis. I don't see why the Clinton Foundation could not do so on a more frequent basis, as suggested by Senator Lugar, the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. I don't see any particular hardship for her--or, excuse me, for the foundation--to do something that taxpayers are required to do regularly--file monthly or quarterly reports. And, of course, all of us who run for office are familiar with the fact we have to file campaign finance reports so the public can know who is contributing to our campaigns and be attuned to any concerns that may arise. I wish to be clear that my concerns are not with the charitable activities of the Clinton Foundation, which I and others admire. But we should not let our respect for Senator Clinton or our admiration for the many good works of the Clinton Foundation blind us to the danger of perceived conflicts of interest caused by the solicitation of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign and some domestic sources. The perception and reality must be that the office of the Secretary of State, as viewed around the world, is beyond reproach. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the New York Times, dated December 19, 2008, immediately following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. The title of that article is: ``In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation.'' As many of our colleagues know, when this memorandum of understanding was entered into, for the first time the Clinton Foundation revealed the source of its some $500 million worth of contributions over the last 10 years. Many of them were unremarkable, but some of them were troubling, raising the very issue we are discussing today-- contributions from foreign nations, for example, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia directly to the foundation. Clearly, Senator Clinton, as Secretary of State, as our chief diplomat, is going to be dealing with the country and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the Clinton Foundation's select foreign sources of contributions following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that list includes the State of Kuwait, the State of Qatar, and various foreign individuals. In the article I mentioned a moment ago from the New York Times, there is just one example of the perception of conflict of interest that I think ought to give all of us concern. Last year, in the last Congress, we voted to support a civilian nuclear technology arrangement with the country of India, and I voted for it. But one of the problems, for example, is that one of the individuals who was lobbying for that was a politician in India who gave between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation. That individual was actually lobbying Congress to pass that very same bill at the same time he is making a significant contribution to the foundation. Now, I am not suggesting anything untoward or improper about that, but I am pointing out the very real example of a perception of conflict of interest, which is something that I think we all would hope to avoid. There is also a list of other contributors, domestic contributors, including some of the financial services industry on Wall Street, which has been the beneficiary of various Government bailouts during the course of the last few months during the economic crisis. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that list at the end of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. I see there are other colleagues here who wish to speak. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to congratulate Senator Clinton on her nomination to be Secretary of State; and, alas, there is other work left to do in the Senate, as the Senator from Maryland alluded to, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, for which we will be voting on cloture in a minute. So I have a few words I would like to add specifically on that topic. We will be voting for the so-called Lilly Ledbetter Act, and I think it is important to reflect a little bit on what that bill would actually do because, honestly, I think it has been characterized as a bill that will protect women's rights, which as a father of two daughters I am all in favor of not just cracking the glass ceiling but breaking it altogether. But, actually, this bill, has a much broader impact and perhaps unintended by those who believe it is only about protecting women's rights. Indeed, what the Lilly Ledbetter Act would do is eliminate the statute of limitations. That sounds like an arcane topic for lawyers that only lawyers could love, but basically what it would do in the case of Ms. Ledbetter--who had waited almost two decades before she raised her discrimination claim, long after the principal witness who could have testified in opposition to that claim had died--indeed, the purpose of the statute of limitations, as the lawyers in this body well know, is to be fair both to the plaintiff who brings the claim and to the defendant who has to defend against that claim, to make sure the documents and the memories and, indeed, the very existence of those who might be able to give testimony can be preserved so the jury can make a good decision. But, indeed, if you wait 20 years before you assert your rights, and after the principal witness who could testify in opposition to your claim has died, that is not exactly fair either. So, Senator Hutchison, my distinguished senior Senator from Texas, will have an alternative which I hope will be offered. I expect it will be offered as an alternative and substitute, which I believe is fair to both those who bring a claim of discrimination and those who have to defend against it. Indeed, I mentioned a moment ago I am the father of two daughters, now 27 and 26. Many small businesses that are created in America today are headed up by women. Indeed, we need to make sure those small businesses have some certainty, have some rules they can rely on in terms of knowing when they are likely going to be sued. I think the Ledbetter Act could more appropriately be called a trial lawyer bailout because, of course, it is premised on the idea that one can slumber on their rights and never have to assert them and, indeed, fight an uneven fight because those who have to defend against them can no longer defend against them because the witnesses are no longer available. Indeed, at a time when this country is in a recession, I think it is appropriate to point out that no country has ever sued its way out of a recession. Yet the bill that comes to the floor on which we are called upon to vote--the very second bill that is presented to this Senate in the midst of this economic crisis--is one that would effectively, as I said, eliminate the statute of limitations in employment litigation so trial lawyers can bring multimillion-dollar lawsuits over decades-old workplace disputes. There are many good policy reasons, as I mentioned, why it is important to have those statutes of limitations, but it is particularly true in employment cases where a person's subjective intent can be the decisive issue that the factfinder has to decide, where memories of the past can be colored by decades of subsequent workplace experience. Another important policy behind the statute of limitations is called repose. That is a fancy word that represents the idea that people should be allowed to move on with their lives without the constant fear of being sued for something that happened 20 years previously. Again, during times of economic uncertainty, the Ledbetter bill would create not more certainty but more uncertainty. As I suggested earlier, small businesses would suddenly be exposed to new liability for acts that may have occurred years or decades ago, even if those acts occurred under a previous ownership before the current management was even in place. There will be no way for small businesses and large businesses alike to quantify this risk because there is no way to know which of the employees may have had a secret grievance they have been harboring for many years just waiting for the opportunity to present the claim at a time when it cannot be adequately defended. Worst yet, this bill would actually encourage plaintiffs and their lawyers to strategically lie in wait, delaying their employment lawsuits for years while damages accumulate. Now, this does not help anybody except for perhaps the lawyers and the clients who can take advantage of this one-sided equation. Why sue promptly and limit your damages to a few months of back wages when you can wait 5 years and sue for 5 years of back wages? This can be especially rewarding to a plaintiff who strategically sues when you consider that during that 5 years, the plaintiff can diligently be preparing a lawsuit while the defendant is ignorant about the very grievance itself, perhaps, and memories and records fade. So I think it is important, as we go into this bill, that it be characterized as the Trojan horse that it is. This is just the beginning. If you eliminate the statute of limitations in employment discrimination claims, why not eliminate the statute of limitations in other claims: medical malpractice, any other business disputes, and the like? It is just not fair, and it is not right. We should not allow this bill to be represented as a blow for women's equality and women's rights because it simply is much broader and has much more of a broader implication than that. I am convinced this bill is actually a solution in search of a problem because it is worth noting that in fiscal year 2007, a total of 82,000-plus people timely filed complaints of employment discrimination with the EEOC. It is important to ask what prevented Ms. Ledbetter from doing exactly the same thing, from filing her complaint at the time she knew that perhaps she had a grievance that could be presented to the employer. So I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to speak briefly on the bill. Assuming cloture is adopted, I hope we will be taking up Senator Hutchison's alternative, which I think strikes the fair balance for which I would hope we would all strive, protecting the rights of both those who are victims of discrimination and the companies that have to defend against those claims. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Ms. Stabenow, in introducing the Dental Health Promotion Act of 2008. This bill would make expenditures on dental products used to prevent or treat diseases of the mouth to be considered ``qualified'' medical expenses eligible for reimbursement from a flexible spending arrangement, FSA. It is identical to H.R. 3109, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in July 2007. FSAs are vehicles that allow individuals to use pretax dollars to pay for ``qualified'' medical and dental expenses that are not reimbursed by other sources, such as a health insurance plan. Qualified medical and dental expenses are defined in Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and its accompanying regulations and include prescription and over-the-counter products. For example, an individual can use FSA dollars to pay for items such as cold medicine, Band-Aids, or pain relievers. In addition, some dental expenses are currently reimbursable, such as a crown or a regular dental checkup. But the money spent on dental products such as fluoride toothpaste, a spin toothbrush, or dental floss is not currently reimbursable, even though they help prevent tooth decay. In fact, toothpaste is specifically excluded from the definition of a qualified expense. I believe this is an inequity in our tax law that needs to be corrected. More and more medical research is demonstrating the link between good oral health and overall health. For example, research shows that pregnant women with poor oral health tend to deliver lower birth rate babies. Unfortunately, the definition of dental expenses has not kept up with medical research. The legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would update the rules governing FSAs to ensure that funds spent on dental products used to treat or prevent oral disease are treated the same as other over-the-counter medical expenses. For those concerned about abuse, this bill makes it clear that money spent on cosmetic products would not be considered a qualified expense that can be reimbursed by an FSA. Mr. President, it makes sense to invest in disease prevention on the front end. Allowing individuals to set aside money in their FSA to pay for dental products that can help prevent cavity or periodontal disease will help to reduce future expenditures on more costly treatments.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Ms. Stabenow, in introducing the Dental Health Promotion Act of 2008. This bill would make expenditures on dental products used to prevent or treat diseases of the mouth to be considered ``qualified'' medical expenses eligible for reimbursement from a flexible spending arrangement, FSA. It is identical to H.R. 3109, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in July 2007. FSAs are vehicles that allow individuals to use pretax dollars to pay for ``qualified'' medical and dental expenses that are not reimbursed by other sources, such as a health insurance plan. Qualified medical and dental expenses are defined in Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and its accompanying regulations and include prescription and over-the-counter products. For example, an individual can use FSA dollars to pay for items such as cold medicine, Band-Aids, or pain relievers. In addition, some dental expenses are currently reimbursable, such as a crown or a regular dental checkup. But the money spent on dental products such as fluoride toothpaste, a spin toothbrush, or dental floss is not currently reimbursable, even though they help prevent tooth decay. In fact, toothpaste is specifically excluded from the definition of a qualified expense. I believe this is an inequity in our tax law that needs to be corrected. More and more medical research is demonstrating the link between good oral health and overall health. For example, research shows that pregnant women with poor oral health tend to deliver lower birth rate babies. Unfortunately, the definition of dental expenses has not kept up with medical research. The legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would update the rules governing FSAs to ensure that funds spent on dental products used to treat or prevent oral disease are treated the same as other over-the-counter medical expenses. For those concerned about abuse, this bill makes it clear that money spent on cosmetic products would not be considered a qualified expense that can be reimbursed by an FSA. Mr. President, it makes sense to invest in disease prevention on the front end. Allowing individuals to set aside money in their FSA to pay for dental products that can help prevent cavity or periodontal disease will help to reduce future expenditures on more costly treatments.