John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber to respond to some of the arguments that have been made by some of our colleagues in support of an amendment that would impose a so-called windfall profits tax on crude oil and the use of the tax collected to provide an energy tax credit to consumers. This is an amendment that, while it may make Senators feel good to try to lash out at the oil companies that are making admittedly significant profits, it is the wrong thing to do for reasons I wish to explain. I think we are here representing our various States to do more than make popular arguments. We are here to make arguments that ultimately make sense and benefit the national interests of the United States of America. I believe passing a windfall profits tax would damage America. It would damage our national security by making us even more reliant on imported oil and, conversely, less reliant on domestic oil because there would be less of it. It would essentially confiscate the legally earned profits of a legal business that has actually made less money than other industries that I will talk about in a minute. If we are going to determine in the Congress how much of a profit is too much and how much is not enough, I think we are sending a very bad signal. We are ostensibly believers in the free enterprise system in the United States. Certainly there are examples of gouging and illegal profiteering, but those are at the margins. We should not be in the business in the Senate of saying how much is too much and how much is not enough. I point out the bill pending on the floor already includes a $4.9 billion tax penalty on large integrated oil companies. That is already in this bill--without this windfall profits tax--and imposes a significant penalty tax on the oil industry. Now, proposals to limit so-called windfall profits are premised on the notion that the oil industry profits are somehow excessive. I would point out to my colleagues that in the second quarter of 2005, the oil industry earned 7.7 cents, not quite 8 cents, for every dollar of sales. The average profit for all U.S. industries during the second quarter was 7.9 cents. In other words, the average profit was two- tenths of a cent more for sales across all industries. There were 13 industries in the United States that earned higher profits in the second quarter than the oil and gas industry, including banking, at 19.6 cents; software and services, at 17 cents; consumer services, at 10.9 cents; and real estate, at 8.9 cents. Are we going to impose a windfall profits tax on each of these industries that reaped a higher return on their investment than the oil and gas industry? Well, I doubt it. And thank goodness we are not. It simply is wrong to target an industry, particularly one that has not made excessive profits relative to other industries in the United States during this last year, and say: We are going to treat you differently, we are going to discriminate against you because we know you are unpopular, and we are going to tax you at a higher rate than we would otherwise tax business activity in the United States. Now, we have seen a spike in gasoline prices, up to, on average, $3.07 a gallon, which, thankfully, has dropped a lot now. I was back in Texas this last weekend, and I saw gasoline selling for $1.98 a gallon. That was certainly good news. Those prices are a little bit higher in other parts of the country, obviously, but the good news is, the price is coming down. It is that law that does not emanate from inside the beltway but one that governs all of our economic activities that applies here. It is the law of supply and demand--the law that this amendment would attempt to tamper with and create perverse incentives that are not good for America. They do not just target this industry, they actually are bad for our national security. They are unfair when you consider other industries. And it violates our fundamental principles as a nation that believes in the benefits of a free market. But the fact is, one of the things that cramped the supply of gasoline recently was the hurricanes that have damaged refineries and oilfields, including out in the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of the refineries and the oil wells have been offline while they have been repaired and now are largely being restored. What we are seeing, as they are coming online, with more supply, and given the same demand, is that the price is coming down. But the fact is, as well, that significant portions of the profits of the oil industry are going to have to be used to restore prehurricane infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico and in the affected region. One of the problems with this ill-conceived windfall profits tax is it will reduce needed investment. One of the things we need in this country, of course, is a greater supply of oil and gas because we know we are in a worldwide economic competition with countries such as India and China that are becoming increasingly industrialized and consuming more energy than they produce. Here again, the law of supply and demand pertains. By actually putting a tax on the profits that oil and gas companies have received as a result of their lawful business activity, we will deny them money they can and will invest back into creating a greater supply--exploring for more oil and gas, expanding their refineries-- which will, in turn, bring down the price of oil and gasoline. The other thing I would point out is, we have been here before. We have been there. We tried it. And we found that the effect of a windfall profits tax--no matter how good it feels--simply does not solve any problems and, in fact, creates more problems. In 1990, the Congressional Research Service analyzed the effects of the windfall profits tax that was enacted between 1980 and 1988. The Congressional Research Service found that the tax reduced domestic oil production from between 3 and 6 percent and increased oil imports from between 8 and 16 percent over its lifetime. At a time when Senator after Senator, Congressman after Congressman, has stood on the floor of our respective bodies and said, We need to reduce our dependence on imported oil and increase our domestic production, this tax, if imposed, would do just the opposite. It would decrease domestic production. It would increase our reliance on imported oil. It would make America less secure. And it would damage our domestic companies that employ hard-working Americans. It seems like there are so many good reasons not to adopt this amendment. I cannot think of a single good reason to do it, other than perhaps it makes Senators feel good to try to punish the big bad oil companies for making an excessive profit. But I do not think we want to be in the business of determining how much is enough and how much is too much. The last thing the Federal Government needs to do is get its clumsy hands on the free enterprise system in a way that damages our precious energy supply. We should be encouraging domestic production. We should be encouraging alternative forms of energy, which, by the way, the higher the price of oil and gasoline gets, the more people begin to look at what are other commercially available alternatives. That is good because what it does is it diversifies our dependency on an energy supply so we are not dependent on just one type of energy. That is the reason we need to--in addition to producing more oil domestically, expanding the size of refinery capacity so we bring the price down--look at nuclear energy, which is, in part, what we did through our Energy bill we passed this last summer. France, for example, generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. We need to look at other alternative forms of energy that reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, which cause environmental problems. Everyone who cares about the environment should care about our looking at alternative forms of energy. There are so many reasons this amendment is bad. I hope my colleagues will consider these arguments. I hope we do not stampede into adoption of this bad amendment based on the populist arguments that oil companies are big, so they must be bad, or somehow argue that to make a profit implies some sort of corruption or inappropriate activity. We have laws on our books against those who violate our anti-gouging laws, but it is no crime to make a profit in a free market system. It is that profit that creates an investment that expands the supply and ultimately brings the price down. It is the profit earned by these companies that allows them to employ hard-working Americans. If we want to put Americans out of business, if we want to increase our dependency on imported oil and reduce the production of domestic oil, then I guess we should pass this ill-conceived amendment. I hope my colleagues will reconsider and vote against the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume from the manager's time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my disappointment with respect to the funding level provided for Project Safe Neighborhoods in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations conference report. The President's Project Safe Neighborhoods has been one of the most incredibly successful crime prevention programs in our Nation. And today, we passed appropriations with tragically low funding for this important program that has been highly effective at removing from our streets criminals who use guns to carry out their crimes. When I was Attorney General of Texas, I joined with then Governor Bush to launch Texas Exile. That program, modeled after the effective Project Exile in Richmond, VA, also was extraordinarily successful-- providing local prosecutors with the funds to get more than 2,000 guns off the streets and to issue more than 1,500 indictments for gun crimes, resulting in almost 1,200 convictions in its first 3 years of existence alone. And when President Bush came to Washington, he built upon our success in Texas by making Project Safe Neighborhoods one of his top priorities and launching the Project Exile program nationally--providing badly needed resources to jurisdictions throughout the country to combat gun related crimes. And in the short time this initiative has been up and running, the results have been astonishing. Project Safe Neighborhoods' prosecution, prevention and deterrence efforts have helped fuel historical lows in gun crime across America as well as a 30-year low in the violent crime victimization rate. Over the past 4 years, Federal gun crime prosecutions have increased by 76 percent--and virtually all of these criminals spend time in prison--for example, 94 percent in fiscal year 2004. The administration has devoted over $1.3 billion to implement Project Safe Neighborhoods since its inception in 2001. These funds have been used to hire almost 200 new Federal prosecutors dedicated to gun crime and provide grants to hire approximately 540 new State and local gun prosecutors. While I appreciate any effort this body might take to embrace fiscal discipline--I question the efficacy of choosing to cut a program that literally is saving thousands of lives nationwide and making our society increasingly safer just as we are seeing the significant successes resulting from it. The additional Federal funding for these State and local gun prosecutors, as well as the associated community outreach efforts and other important initiatives are critical to the success of the program and to the national reduction of violent crime. That is why I was so concerned when I learned of the shortfall in this funding. None of the $73,800,000 in grants for State and local governments requested by President Bush was included initially in either the House or Senate. And I was not alone. Chairman Specter and Senators Grassley, Kyl, Sessions and Coburn from the Judiciary Committee as well as Senators Santorum and Lugar joined me in requesting full funding for the program in a letter dated September 8, 2005. And, I must thank my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, as well as fellow Texan, Congressman Jim Culberson, and their respective staffs, for their help in achieving at least a minimal amount of funding of $15 million that we were able to get into the conference report. The Project Safe Neighborhoods program serves as a model of coordinated government efforts--with Federal, State and local governments sharing the burden of prosecuting criminals and coordinating their resources to do so. At a time when some Federal agencies struggle to coordinate efficiently with state and local governments--the Project Safe Neighborhoods program serves as a model of efficiency and effectiveness. In closing, while I voted in favor of the appropriations conference report because of its many important programs--I remain committed to seeking full funding for Project Safe Neighborhoods next year and in the years to come and looking forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that we keep America's streets safe from violent gun-using criminals.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the events this morning, the votes we had prior to our adoption of the Defense Department authorization bill, particularly on the Frist, Warner, and Levin amendments, and try to put this in some context. First of all, I think we would all agree that our young men and women in uniform who are fighting for freedom's cause in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere are doing a magnificent job, one that they have volunteered to do since we no longer have had the draft. Only people who want to be in our military join our military. Certainly we have nothing but honor and respect for those who put themselves in harm's way in order to make us safer and, beyond that, to engage in the noble cause of delivering the blessings of liberty to those who have known nothing more than the boot heel of a tyrant, as 25 million or so have in Iraq, and those who lived under the Taliban--a similar number--where al-Qaida trained, recruited, and exported its terror in Afghanistan before we were able to turn both of those countries toward the path of democracy and self-determination as peaceful states. I regret that this war in which we are engaged, the global war on terror, with its central front being in Iraq today, has become such a political football. Unfortunately, we see it is just too tempting a target to partisans, some partisans, to try to engage in revisionist history in order to score political points or, as we have seen this morning, an attempt to impose an arbitrary deadline on the withdrawal of our troops in a way that would jeopardize everything that we have invested in terms of our young men and women, the lives lost, the injuries sustained, and the treasure we have invested in an effort to try to restore Iraq to a self-governing democracy. I wish to be clear that I am not questioning the patriotism of those who supported this arbitrary timetable for withdrawal in voting for the Levin amendment, but I am questioning their judgment. I think it is simply too important for us to engage in the partisan push and shove here on the floor of the Senate when there is so much at stake. To me it seems clear that a vote on the Levin amendment today was a bipartisan rejection of an artificial timetable for withdrawal. I have already seen some of the Web sites and even fundraising appeals that have taken place ever since these amendments were voted on. That is the kind of world we live in here in Washington, inside this big fishbowl where politics sometimes overtakes people's common sense or sense of duty. This clearly was not a Democrat victory, to change Iraq policy as some have already suggested, the spin doctors, those who attempt to spin the message of what happens here on the floor for some partisan advantage. I regret that some are attempting to use this message for political gain. This should not be about whether Republicans have scored points or whether Democrats have scored points. Rather, this should be about our military strategy on the ground in Iraq that is being implemented as we speak to restore Iraq to a self-governing democracy. How are we doing that? By a three-pronged plan that, No. 1, says we need to train the Iraqis to provide the security necessary so democracy can flourish; No. 2, to build basic infrastructure so the quality of life in Iraq is such that people feel they have a stake in the outcome, the success of this new democracy; and No. 3, to build democratic institutions, beginning with the passage of a constitution on October 15 and now leading up to election of their permanent government on December 15. The people of Iraq have been through a lot in these last years. They have been through, even since the fall of Saddam, a lot of turmoil since government after government has been created in this transition to permanent self-government. It is a shame, it seems to me, that there are those who would call for an artificial deadline for withdrawal, unfortunately to try to generate public opinion in a way that breaks our resolve and increases the likelihood that we will leave before we get the job done. I am grateful that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected that artificial timetable for withdrawal and made a commitment, as I see it, to stay and get the job done until Iraq gets back on its feet and has a reasonable chance of succeeding as a peaceful and democratic country. Last week, our country celebrated Veterans Day, last Friday, the day we set aside each year to honor the bravery and the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who serve our country. I had the chance, as did many of us, to return to my home State. I returned to Texas. I went to a ceremony at the Brazos Valley Veterans Memorial to honor these brave men and women. I have must say, I was struck once again at the great chasm that seems to separate the rest of America from the echo chamber here inside the beltway in Washington, DC. I was reminded of the differences in perception of what it is we are about and the obligation we have to support those men and women in uniform who are fighting for what we believe in. We know they are fighting for what they believe in, and they do so even when the going gets tough. They do not cut and run when it becomes politically expedient to do so. I had the chance to look across that audience. We had a large collection of World War II vets, people like my dad who flew in the Army Air Corps out of Molesworth, England, flying a B-17. Ultimately he was shot down and captured and spent 4 months in a German prison camp before General Patton and his colleagues came along and liberated him and his fellow POWs. But as I looked across that audience, I saw people like my dad, a generation that is certainly getting older and unfortunately leaving us at a relatively rapid pace. There were those present who had previously served, and there were some there who currently are serving. There were family members of loved ones who are now overseas and families of those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice. Although the circumstances differed from person to person there in that audience, they all had several profound things in common. I don't know that I could tell you that every single person at that veterans event was in complete agreement with the decision of this President or this Congress to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, but what I can tell you is that these people were all patriots. They support our troops 100 percent, and they support the ideals upon which our country was founded 100 percent. They know the contributions of our troops represent the Iraqi people's best hope for freedom and for democracy. So while there may be some here in Washington--in fact, there are-- who, of course, criticize what we are about and armchair generals who want to direct our combatant commanders and those who actually have the responsibility of conducting our national security and national defense operations, I thought it appropriate to point out that even though there are those who dramatically undervalue our efforts in Iraq, there is a huge chasm, it seemed to me, between what I saw there in Bryan- College Station at the Brazos Valley Veterans Memorial Friday night and what I hear argued in the halls of the U.S. Congress, including this morning. I am glad to report the obvious to all of us who live and represent constituencies around the country, that patriotism is alive and well, and our fellow citizens realize that we must continue to support our men and women in uniform in their brave and selfless and noble efforts. I have come to this Chamber several times during the past few weeks to speak about the situation in Iraq and to do my small part in refuting the false charges by some partisans that the administration has manipulated intelligence in the lead-up to the war. I wish to reiterate my view that we must not let the politics of the moment undermine the path to democracy in Iraq. Such a decision, such yielding to such a temptation would be incredibly shortsighted considering how much has been accomplished in a relatively short period of time and how dear our investment has been, both in terms of the lives lost and the money the American taxpayer has committed to this noble effort. We must stay the course in Iraq. If our troops were to leave prematurely, what would happen? It is likely that the country would collapse into chaos. Terrorists such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's No. 2 operative and Osama bin Laden's deputy, and Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's chief terrorist in Iraq and the one principally responsible for the terrorist attacks we saw last week in Jordan at the wedding reception that killed other innocent civilians--these are individuals who vowed to destroy America and everyone who stands in their way in their attempt to seize power. A letter from Zawahiri and Zarqawi makes this threat exceedingly clear. If there is any doubt about who our enemy is and what their goals are--on which there should not be after September 11--all one needs to do is read this letter. It is easily available to anyone who wants to read it. It is found in full on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence. That is www.dni.gov. In that letter, Zawahiri clearly describes al-Qaida's vision to establish an Islamic caliphate that would rule the Middle East, destroy Israel, and threaten the very existence of our way of life. The consequences of a United States pullout from Iraq should not be in question, either. In this letter, Zawahiri tells Zarqawi that when the United States leaves Iraq, al-Qaida must be prepared to claim the most political territory possible in the inevitable vacuum of power that would arise. Yes, that is right; a premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq would create a safe haven for al-Qaida. Iraq would be more dangerous-- not less--if we fail to finish the job. An early arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq would empower and embolden the sworn enemies of America and, indeed, all civilization and anybody who disagreed with them. Failure to stay the course and continuing to lay the foundations of a functioning democracy would result in more--not less--terrorist attacks. Let me say that again because there are actually some who make the specious argument that our very presence in Iraq results in more terrorist attacks. But the failure to stay the course, the failure to finish the job that we started in Iraq, and to continue to lay the foundations of a functioning democracy, would result in more--not less--terrorist attacks. This letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi makes that clear. Once they see America leave Iraq, once they fill the vacuum that exists, that is where they would continue to train, that is where they would continue to recruit, and that is where they would continue to export terror. Anyone who believes there would not be a greater probability of our sustaining another 9/11 on our own soil is kidding themselves. Some of the administration's critics are now arguing, as we heard this morning, for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. Their actions are nothing more than an attempt to gain the attention of a concerned nation for political advantage rather than a serious strategy for victory. Armchair generals in Washington, DC, are hardly in a position to know what is the best military strategy in Iraq. We ought to listen to our combatant commanders, such as General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, and General Casey, who is in charge of coalition forces in Iraq. They have told us we have to finish the job, that we can finish the job, that there is no military on the face of the Earth that can defeat the United States of America; that the only one who can defeat the United States of America is the United States itself--by losing our resolve, by prematurely withdrawing, by cutting and running, and leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves in what would surely descend into chaos. Our withdrawal from Iraq should be determined by the military commanders on the ground and our Commander in Chief. All of us who have been to Iraq to visit our troops on the ground are confident that over time the 210,000 or so Iraqis who have now been trained to provide security for their own people sooner or later will be able to take this job upon themselves and we can begin to gradually, as circumstances dictate on the ground, bring our troops home. Do all of us wish our troops could come home sooner rather than later? You bet we do. We want them to come home as soon as we can get them home, consistent with our duty to finish the job we started in Iraq. But we should not under any circumstance impose an arbitrary timetable on our forces, signaling weakness to our enemy, emboldening them to stay with their strategy because it must be working, and we must keep going even though it is tough. Our troops in Iraq are committed to victory. I mentioned the chasm that separates Washington, DC, and these Chambers from the rest of America when it comes to the perception of what we are about in Iraq and the fight for freedom's cause. There is also a huge difference when you travel to Iraq and talk to our troops. They wonder at some of the news reports and some of the politicalization of what they are about, that they aren't confused about their job, they aren't confused about the nobility of their cause and the importance of what they are about. Our troops in Iraq are committed to victory. I hope our elected officials would show the same resolve here at home. As every one of our military personnel in Iraq understands, Americans do not cut and run, Americans do not abandon their commitments, and Americans do not abandon their friends. We must remember that it is in the absence of democracy, in the absence of the rule of law that extremism appears. When the rule of law is implemented, when people have a forum by which to redress their grievances as we do in democratic circumstances, this is when the radical ideologues are stifled and even extinguished. We have to remember how far the Iraqi people have come in such a relatively short time--from a time when they were ruled by a dictator who cared nothing for human life and who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. I have seen, as have others in this body, the mass graves where at last count at least 400,000 Iraqis lie dead because of the ruthlessness of this blood-thirsty dictator. It was only 2 short years ago that the people of Iraq were oppressed by this brutal dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom kept silent out of fear for their lives and the lives of their family and other loved ones. But that is no longer the case. We have seen and continue to see that our strategy is working. The Iraqi people will vote in elections next month. I make a prediction that their turnout in these elections will be broad-based, across all the sects in Iraq, and their turnout will exceed the turnout we see in this country in our national elections. We saw that happen with, I believe, the 63-percent turnout in the vote to ratify the Constitution. It now appears that the Sunnis, many of whom boycotted that election, will finally participate in full force in electing their first leaders in a permanent government. I hope the Members of this body who yield to the temptation to politicize this issue realize their remarks run the real risk of not only dividing Americans but undermining the resolve for the important task we have at hand, and devalue the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and the noble cause they are about. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for joining me in the fight against global counterfeiting--a plague on our economy, on the safety of our citizens, and on our national security. S. 1095, the Protecting American Goods and Services Act, or PAGS, is important legislation designed to combat the trafficking of illegitimate goods throughout the world--and I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to send it to the President. I am particularly pleased to work with Senator Leahy in our continued bipartisan effort to protect intellectual property rights as well as to work on other important issues. Recently, we have worked together on a matter near and dear to my heart--good government legislation related to the Freedom of Information Act, and it indeed has been a pleasure to work with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and his staff again. Mr. President, the rampant distribution of illegitimate goods--be it counterfeited products, illegal copies of copyrighted works or any other form of piracy--undermines property rights, threatens American jobs, decreases consumer safety and, often times, supports organized crime and terrorist activity. Amazingly, it is estimated that between and 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade is conducted with counterfeit goods and services. According to FBI estimates, counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses as much as $200-$250 billion annually--and that costs Americans their jobs--more than 750,000 jobs according to U.S. Customs. In recent years, this plague on global trade has grown significantly. According to the World Customs Organization and Interpol, the global trade in illegitimate goods has increased from $5.5 billion in 1992 to more than $600 billion per year today; that is, $600 billion per year illegally extracted from the global economy. But perhaps most troubling, the counterfeit trade threatens our safety and our security. Counterfeit goods undermine our confidence in the reliability of our goods and service. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates that 2 percent of the 26 million airline parts installed each year are counterfeit. And the Federal Drug Administration estimates that as much as 10 percent of pharmaceuticals are counterfeit. Worse yet--evidence indicates that the counterfeit trade supports terrorist activities. Indeed, alQaeda training manuals recommended the sale of fake goods to raise revenue. And the reach of counterfeiting runs deep in my own home State of Texas. Data is difficult to collect, but a 1997 piece detailing Microsoft's efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy--while dated-- pointed out that this type of activity costs Texas over 10,000 jobs and almost $1 billion. Today, we know those numbers are much higher. Mr. President, we must act to stop this illegal activity. The legislation that we are sending over to the House today, the Protecting American Goods and Services Act, is not complicated, it is not long--but its global impact will be significant. The legislation is designed to provide law enforcement with additional tools to curb the flow of these illegitimate goods and it is perhaps even more critical for businesses, large and small, throughout America and for ensuring the safety of consumers around the globe. Those who traffic in counterfeit goods put Americans in danger, support terrorism and undermine the health of our Nation's economy. The PAGS Act fills certain important gaps in current counterfeiting law by clarifying the term ``trafficking'' to ensure that it is illegal to: Possess counterfeit goods with the intention of selling them; give away counterfeit goods in exchange for some future benefit--in effect, the ``bartering'' of counterfeit goods in such a way that avoids criminality and import or export counterfeit goods or unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. This bill will protect property rights, protect consumer safety, preserve American jobs and bolster the American economy by cracking down on the trade of illegal counterfeit goods and services. Each of these items was highlighted by the Department of Justice in its October, 2004 report on its Task Force on Intellectual Property. In it, the Department describes the significant limitation law enforcement often times faces in pursuing counterfeiters and offers, among others, the principles embraced in the Protecting American Goods and Services Act, as possible solutions to these obstacles. This legislation, and other reforms, will help turn the tide of the growing counterfeit trade. The legislation is critically important to law enforcement--but it is even more critical for businesses, large and small, throughout America--including in my home state of Texas--as well as for ensuringthe safety of consumers around the globe. Those who traffic in counterfeit goods put Americans in danger, support terrorism and undermine the health of our Nation's economy. It is time to put an end to this scourge on society. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward, and in so doing, protect property rights, protect consumer safety, preserve American jobs and bolster the American economy.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the distinguished ranking member for this accommodation. This is an important matter that does relate directly to our national security and that has to do with the remarkable progress that United States-India relations have made over the last several years and the path that lies ahead. As my colleagues know, Prime Minister Singh visited Washington in July for a historic state visit. This event marked a critical milestone in our improving relationship, but the Congress needs to help ensure that this relationship reaches its full potential. President Bush has made it a fundamental foreign policy objective to move United States-India relations to a new level and plans to visit India in the near future. India is the world's largest democracy, and our two great nations share many common values and common beliefs. It is only appropriate, then, that the United States and India become true strategic partners as we move into the 21st century. Fortunately, the days of the Cold War when the United States and India were at odds are long past. Today, the United States and India share a common vision for the future as we battle terrorism together and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS, and a host of other challenges that face our world. The United States is fortunate to have many Indian Americans who have helped bring our two nations closer together. There are 2 million people of Indian origin in the United States, approximately, many of whom are now U.S. citizens. There are about 200,000 Indian Americans in my State of Texas alone. Nearly 80,000 Indian students are studying in our Nation's colleges and universities. Their contributions to our Nation and our relationship have been remarkably positive. I will spend just a moment talking about an important agreement that was reached last July between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh that will require congressional approval to implement. This agreement, known as the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, will help India with its energy needs and help bring India into the mainstream of international nuclear nonproliferation efforts, both of which are worthwhile goals. While it is true that the agreement on civil nuclear cooperation is a significant departure from previous U.S. policy, still it represents a positive step as we grow in our strategic relationship with the nation of India. For more than 30 years, the United States and India have disagreed over India's decision not to sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. As such, the United States has not cooperated with India on the issue of civilian nuclear power. In short, we have been at a stalemate, which has neither served our nonproliferation goals nor helped India's need for energy resources. Fortunately, a civil nuclear cooperation agreement will allow us to move forward in a way that serves both the interests of the United States and the interests of India. In order to implement this agreement, Congress will need to approve. The fundamental question before Congress will be why should we allow civilian nuclear cooperation with India when they refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And will we not be somehow undermining our own nonproliferation efforts? The fact is, this agreement will enhance our nonproliferation efforts. It is correct that India is not a signatory to the NPT. They have decided, for their own national security reasons, that they will not become a party to the treaty, and no amount of international pressure, persuasion, or cajoling will convince them to do otherwise. This is a reality which we face, but the status quo for another 30 years is not acceptable either. Recognizing this reality, we must ask ourselves what we can do to promote nonproliferation efforts with India and bring them within the international nonproliferation regime. The civil nuclear cooperation agreement provides the answer. Despite not signing the NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India has an excellent nonproliferation record. They understand the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and that is why India has agreed to adhere to key international nonproliferation efforts on top of their own stringent export control regime. This is a significant step forward, which has been welcomed by the International Atomic Energy Agency Director, Mohamed El-Baradei, who understands that India will not come into the NPT through the normal route. This agreement brings India's growing civilian nuclear capabilities within international export control regimes. India will now assume the same nonproliferation responsibilities that other nations have with civil nuclear energy. Specifically, India has agreed to identify and separate civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs and file with the IAEA a declaration with regard to its civilian facilities. It has agreed to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. It has agreed to sign and adhere to an additional protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities. And it has agreed to continue its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Furthermore, it has agreed to work with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral fissile material cutoff treaty. It has agreed to refrain from the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and support efforts to limit their spread. Finally, India has agreed to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and adherence to the Missile Technology Control and Nuclear Suppliers Group. Each of these commitments represents a positive step forward. India, which is no stranger to international terrorism itself, is motivated by its own security needs to fight proliferation of nuclear weapons. The same is true of the United States. Both nations, as well, are dependent on oil imports to satisfy the needs of their economies and to create jobs for their people. Both nations, therefore, see in civilian nuclear energy cooperation an opportunity to satisfy these growing energy needs without environmental hazards of relying solely on fossil fuels. In short, this agreement is important to our growing international strategic partnership and for India's domestic energy needs. Although the administration's negotiations with the Indians are ongoing regarding the implementation of these commitments, I am confident that we are on the right track. I look forward to the role that Congress will play in this important process. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the chairman and distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. It is more with sadness than in anger that I rise to respond to recent allegations made by some Democrats that the Bush administration ``manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq.'' War is serious business. I don't need to remind my colleagues that more than 2,000 Americans have sacrificed their lives fighting to liberate the Iraqi people, and many brave Texans are among them. Today, Iraq represents the central front in the global war on terror. Yet we have even seen the sad occasion of having sustained 2,000 deaths of America's fighting men and women in Iraq spark an ill-advised and premature call for withdrawal of our troops by the angry antiwar left. That call has been picked up, in part, if not in whole, by some politicians seeking to capitalize on that anger. But merely venting anger without proposing alternative solutions is not the work of serious people. It is a sad commentary on our public discourse when politicians seek to use the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to advance a political agenda. While the critics focused on 2,000 Americans killed in action in Iraq, another important number to remember is 3,000--the number of innocent Americans killed on September 11. Is there any doubt that if we pulled out of Iraq prematurely without stabilizing security, without building the necessary infrastructure, and without allowing Iraqis to build successful democratic institutions as they are doing, that 9/11 would be repeated over and over and over again by an enemy that would continue to target innocent civilians in pursuit of their perverse ideology? If Iraq descends into civil war or is overrun by terrorists, if Iraq becomes a place where terrorists recruit, train, and export terror with impunity, how long do the critics believe it would take until we would be hit again on our own soil? The war on terrorism is a war we must win. The stakes are too high to use the war on terror as a political football. If there is any doubt about the enemy and their goals, all one needs to do is read the letter from Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, Zawahiri, his chief lieutenant in Iraq. Zawahiri clearly describes al-Qaida's vision of establishing an Islamic caliphate that would rule the Middle East and eventually the world. It would also, not incidentally, include the destruction of our best ally in the Middle East, the state of Israel. Although we are making progress in Iraq, as we saw most recently during the successful referendum on the constitution, there is obviously more work that needs to be done. We know that our troops have the will to win. I am concerned that there are some here at home and even in the Senate who do not share this same resolve because they stubbornly refuse to learn the lessons of 9/11. The latest accusation by some in the Democratic leadership, that the administration has manipulated intelligence and has exaggerated the threat, is nothing more than an effort to use the war in Iraq for political gain. That is shameful. It devalues the sacrifice our men and women are making on the battlefield every day. It places at risk everything that Americans have sacrificed on behalf of the cause of liberty here and abroad. Do the critics need to be reminded that it was a few years ago when Democrats joined Republicans in a bipartisan acknowledgment that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world? In fact, it was the Senate, in 1998, that unanimously passed the Iraq Liberation Act that called for the United States to support efforts to overthrow that terrible dictator. It was President Clinton who so eloquently described the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the consequences of inaction when he said: The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live at peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. President Clinton went on to say: Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war against his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He did will deploy them, and he will use them. President Clinton was correct in that assessment made in 1998. We are fortunate that today Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the region or to the world due to the bipartisan vote of the Congress to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein in October of 2002. It was a bipartisan vote of the Senate that authorized that use of force. Today, the political dynamics have changed. For their own cynical reasons, some Democrats have charged that the Bush administration has somehow manipulated intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. These same individuals are calling for yet another investigation to somehow justify their patently false claims. I remind my colleagues that this issue has been investigated not only by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence but the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission. Of course, the results of both investigations do not support the charges of manipulation, so we hear yet another call for another investigation. Wishing that the results were different cannot make it so. What do they propose? To initiate investigation after investigation until somehow they manage to will into existence the results they have been hoping for, I imagine. I wish to ask my colleagues, did President Clinton lie when he discussed the intelligence that led him to support the forced ouster of Saddam Hussein? Did he manipulate intelligence to justify his bombing in Iraq? Or did he rely upon the same intelligence that this administration and this Congress and our allies did when they came to the same conclusion that Saddam was a threat to the region and to the world? Are there Senators who today would renounce their vote to remove Saddam by force in October of 2002? Out of the bipartisan 77 who voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, I have only learned of two who have said they regret that vote and would renounce it. Before the war, a leading Democrat--in fact, the Democratic leader-- clearly stated his position in Iraq. As of this morning, his quotation was still on his Senate Web site. It says: What is my position on Iraq? Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far- reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction. I agree with this statement on the Web site of Senator Reid of today, November 7, 2005. But today we are told by the same Democratic leader that somehow this administration was responsible for manipulating intelligence to authorize the war in Iraq when, in fact, he took the same position at the time that force was used. At least his Web site takes that same position today. For the record, I would like to read the conclusions of the Intelligence Committee investigation and the Silberman-Robb investigation so there will be no doubt that the Bush administration did not manipulate intelligence to justify this war. The Intelligence Committee report, which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, states the following: The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Likewise, the Silberman-Robb Commission, a bipartisan commission appointed to look into our intelligence failures, concluded: The Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion, but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD affected the analytic process. Madam President, this much is clear. No one attempted to manipulate intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq--not President Clinton, not Members of the Senate, not this administration, all of whom, based upon the same intelligence, concluded that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the national security of the United States. Instead, we found that while some of our intelligence was wrong on Hussein, it was obvious, and it is obvious today, that he was a threat to the civilized world. I believe all of this crystallizes into a question about how doubts are resolved in a dangerous and uncertain world. Do we resolve doubts in favor of a tyrant who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, who demonstrated an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, who refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors after 17 Security Council resolutions ordered him to do so, and who at last count murdered at least 400,000 of his own people who are lying in mass graves? Giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt would have been a crazy and irresponsible thing to do. Of course, the 77 Senators who voted for the use of force against Saddam in October 2002 weren't buying that Saddam was some harmless individual then. So why now? Sure, we need better intelligence and we have undertaken substantial and meaningful intelligence reform to remedy the defects. Intelligence by its very nature is never certain, but we are restructuring our intelligence community to ensure the President of our country, whether he be Democrat or Republican, gets the most accurate intelligence available. Meanwhile, I hope the Members of this body who have politicized this issue by making false allegations of manipulation of intelligence would realize that their allegations only serve to divide the American people and to dishonor the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and undermine critical American resolve to finish the important work that we are about in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, of which I am an original cosponsor. I want to commend Senator Specter and the other cosponsors of this bill for tackling the critical issue of judicial and courthouse security. Our democracy depends on the dedication of public servants, including the men and women of the judiciary--from the trial courts to the appellate courts--who daily preside over important and difficult issues. They faithfully carry out their duties and diligently work to support the administration of justice. We must do all that we can to provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who sometimes are targeted for violence or harassment because of the position they hold. Unfortunately, episodes of courthouse violence in this country are on the rise, including in my home State of Texas. I was a judge for 13 years and have a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today. I am outraged by acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those families. Acts of violence against judges are unacceptable and reflect a distortion of the role of the judiciary. Judges are impartial umpires of the law--they simply call the balls and strikes--and they cannot help but disappoint people. However, it is unacceptable for judges, courthouse personnel or other law enforcement officials to face threats and violence for doing nothing more than faithfully carrying out their professional duties. The Senate Judiciary Committee has examined issues related to courthouse security at a recent hearing. At this hearing, the Judicial Conference raised several important issues, including its working relationship with the United States Marshals Service, the need to protect judges outside of the courthouse, and common instances of intimidation and harassment directed at judges. This hearing and these issues provide the foundation for this bill. Let me discuss a few of the security improvements made by this bill. The U.S. Marshals Service has primary responsibility for providing security to the judiciary. However, the Judicial Conference testified that they are not consulted when decisions, which directly implicate their security, are made. The Marshal's Service should willingly coordinate and communicate with the judiciary on security concerns. This legislation would codify this commonsense idea and keep the judiciary informed of, and allow them to provide suggestions for, decisions regarding their security. This bill also addresses a relatively recent problem that poses a particular danger to public officials. Personal information, such as home addresses and phone numbers, of Federal officials when posted on the Internet can be readily accessed and used to intimidate or harm them. Recently, personal information of Federal judges have been posted on the Internet and used to facilitate threats against them. This bill would punish those who, with the intent to harm, post restricted information of public officials, or of their immediate family, on the Internet. Additionally, members of the Federal judiciary have been targets of intimidation or harassment by some who file false liens against the real or personal property of a judge who has presided over a criminal or civil case, or who has otherwise acted against the interests of a litigant. This provision would make it a crime to knowingly file a false lien against the property of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer on the basis of their official status. Finally, and importantly, this bill authorizes Federal grants to be made available to State courts to improve security for State and local court systems. We must comprehensively approach this problem by providing funding to State courts to update their security while standing by to swiftly and severely punish those who cause or attempt to cause harm to anyone within the courts. It is important for us to do all we can to protect the men and women who make up our judicial system because they are essential to the proper administration of justice. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, of which I am an original cosponsor. I want to commend Senator Specter and the other cosponsors of this bill for tackling the critical issue of judicial and courthouse security. Our democracy depends on the dedication of public servants, including the men and women of the judiciary--from the trial courts to the appellate courts--who daily preside over important and difficult issues. They faithfully carry out their duties and diligently work to support the administration of justice. We must do all that we can to provide adequate security to these dedicated men and women who sometimes are targeted for violence or harassment because of the position they hold. Unfortunately, episodes of courthouse violence in this country are on the rise, including in my home State of Texas. I was a judge for 13 years and have a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today. I am outraged by acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those families. Acts of violence against judges are unacceptable and reflect a distortion of the role of the judiciary. Judges are impartial umpires of the law--they simply call the balls and strikes--and they cannot help but disappoint people. However, it is unacceptable for judges, courthouse personnel or other law enforcement officials to face threats and violence for doing nothing more than faithfully carrying out their professional duties. The Senate Judiciary Committee has examined issues related to courthouse security at a recent hearing. At this hearing, the Judicial Conference raised several important issues, including its working relationship with the United States Marshals Service, the need to protect judges outside of the courthouse, and common instances of intimidation and harassment directed at judges. This hearing and these issues provide the foundation for this bill. Let me discuss a few of the security improvements made by this bill. The U.S. Marshals Service has primary responsibility for providing security to the judiciary. However, the Judicial Conference testified that they are not consulted when decisions, which directly implicate their security, are made. The Marshal's Service should willingly coordinate and communicate with the judiciary on security concerns. This legislation would codify this commonsense idea and keep the judiciary informed of, and allow them to provide suggestions for, decisions regarding their security. This bill also addresses a relatively recent problem that poses a particular danger to public officials. Personal information, such as home addresses and phone numbers, of Federal officials when posted on the Internet can be readily accessed and used to intimidate or harm them. Recently, personal information of Federal judges have been posted on the Internet and used to facilitate threats against them. This bill would punish those who, with the intent to harm, post restricted information of public officials, or of their immediate family, on the Internet. Additionally, members of the Federal judiciary have been targets of intimidation or harassment by some who file false liens against the real or personal property of a judge who has presided over a criminal or civil case, or who has otherwise acted against the interests of a litigant. This provision would make it a crime to knowingly file a false lien against the property of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer on the basis of their official status. Finally, and importantly, this bill authorizes Federal grants to be made available to State courts to improve security for State and local court systems. We must comprehensively approach this problem by providing funding to State courts to update their security while standing by to swiftly and severely punish those who cause or attempt to cause harm to anyone within the courts. It is important for us to do all we can to protect the men and women who make up our judicial system because they are essential to the proper administration of justice. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my vote on the motion to waive with respect to the Lincoln amendment No. 2356, as modified, be recorded as a ``yea.'' This does not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in 1928, Herbert Hoover ran for President based on the slogan ``a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.'' Under the provisions of this bill, the American taxpayer is being asked to subsidize television--digital television to be specific--to the tune of $3 billion. I congratulate the leadership and particularly Chairman Gregg for the good work he has done trying to save the beleaguered American taxpayer quite a bit of money and to reduce the Federal deficit. What we are being asked to do here, what the taxpayers are being asked to suffer is a transfer of money from their pocket basically to the living rooms of the television-watching public so we can transition from analog to digital TV. But to make things even more ironic, what this $3 billion is supposed to do is to provide converters so they can take the digital signal and transition it back to the analog and reverse the action of this Congress. It makes no sense. We can do better than this. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. I call up amendment No. 2408 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the manager of the bill and the ranking member. I wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment filed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia that would strike the Judiciary Committee's H-1B visa provisions and insert a prior amendment, the Sessions amendment, that actually was defeated in the Judiciary Committee. This, of course, is an attempt by the Judiciary Committee to comply with the reconciliation instructions to generate some additional funds to meet the budgetary requirements of the budget resolution. This is a part of the reconciliation process with the Judiciary Committee to come up with some savings funds to meet the instructions of the Budget Committee. The Judiciary Committee decided to sweep all of the unused H-1B visas for the last few years and to use that as a means to satisfy the reconciliation instructions. The ability to track and retain the best talent around the world is a major factor in American competitiveness. Arbitrary caps on employment- based green cards and temporary visas for highly trained workers hurt our ability to track and keep that talent and ultimately jobs here in the United States. In other words, for all of those who are concerned about outsourcing jobs out of America to other countries ought to be in favor of this Judiciary Committee provision and be opposed to the amendment filed by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. It will keep jobs here in America rather than export them to places like India and China. The Judiciary Committee in the House met its budget reconciliation obligation by imposition of a $1,500 fee on L-1 visas. The L-1 visa is used by multinational companies to transfer executives, managers, and employees with specialized knowledge. This additional fee would not be used to improve processing or otherwise provide relief on other pressing immigration issues such as the H-1B cap being reached 2 months before the fiscal year even began or 2 months after it began. That proposed solution by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia will do nothing to address that critical need of the American economy. Restoring access to the previously allocated H-1B visas will not only make significant strides toward deficit reduction through the additional fees that will be charged but also raise significant additional sums for scholarships and training of U.S. workers. It will also provide additional money for enforcement against fraud in the immigration system. The fact of the matter is the United States of America is not training a sufficient number of engineers and scientists. In 2001, only 8 percent of all degrees awarded in the United States were in engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences, which is more than a 50-percent decline since 1960. Today, more than 50 percent of all engineering doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. engineering colleges are to foreign nationals. The United States must find a way to increase the pipeline of U.S. engineers. I know many companies already partner with U.S. universities and colleges, and indeed this is a long-term challenge of our economy-- to create a sufficient number of homegrown engineers and scientists to meet the demands of our innovative economy. But in the short term, we must ensure that our immigration policies do not unnecessarily restrict access to highly trained individuals, the kinds of employees that will create those additional jobs here in America. Once again, the demand for high-tech temporary visas far exceeds the statutory cap imposed by Congress. As I mentioned a moment ago, the fiscal year 2006 visas were gone 2 months before the fiscal year even began. They ran out in August 2005. There is also a shortage of green cards, even for certain multinational managers and executives. That means that in addition to the years of processing delays, many immigrants must now wait several more years for a visa to be available. We need comprehensive immigration reform in this country. We need to do more, a lot more, to strengthen our borders, to make sure that we know who is coming into our country and why they are here. Indeed, this body, I am confident, will be addressing that need for comprehensive immigration reform in the near future. But it is more than border enforcement--it is interior enforcement. It is enforcement at the workplace. But it is also making sure that by sensible immigration laws we provide the trained workforce necessary for American businesses to thrive and prosper and create additional employment here in America. On the other hand, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has proposed no raising of the cap to keep unused H-1B visas from previous years but instead to put a tax on the L-1 visa of $1,500 each. These L- 1 visas are issued pursuant to trade agreements with countries such as Chile, Australia, Singapore, and other countries so that when they conduct business operations in the United States, pursuant to these free trade agreements, their managers and high-level employees can actually come here pursuant to that free trade agreement. Likewise--this is the important part--our managers and high-level employees can go to their country, pursuant to the free trade agreement, so that the benefits of this free trade agreement can be reached in the fullest. It doesn't take much of an imagination to imagine that if we put a $1,500 tax on each L-1 visa issued to employees of some nation that has a free trade agreement with the United States, they will simply turn around and retaliate and impose the same fees on American workers in those countries. Rather than producing additional revenue, this will, in essence, be a wash. In other words, this amendment does nothing to solve the problem about a shortage of highly trained engineers and scientists who come here because we simply don't have enough on a temporary basis so that jobs can stay here. This amendment does not solve that problem. This amendment, also, I believe, creates additional problems and distortions in our relationships with countries with whom we have negotiated and authorized a free trade agreement. It is not only not helpful to the cause that we are seeking to cure by the Judiciary Committee's proposal, it is positively harmful in that it creates the potential for retaliation. I wish we lived in a world where all of the good, high-paying, innovative jobs we create in this country could be satisfied by American workers. Indeed, the H-1B visa program requires that companies advertise for Americans first and that they pay people who get H-1B visas comparable wages with what an American worker would make so that there is no manipulation of this visa to pay perhaps a foreign worker far less and undercut the wages of American workers. There are already protections built into our immigration laws to make sure that doesn't happen. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Byrd amendment. And I urge my colleagues to uphold the reconciliation bill, and vote it out as part of this package through the Budget Committee.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling has been an issue in the Senate for quite awhile, and yet, after all this time, we're no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. In reviewing the storied history of this issue, it is clear that there is no shortage of viewpoints. One view that has been overwhelmingly vocalized is that U.S. producers of beef and pork want to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States of America. They are proud of what they produce, and they should be: the U.S. produces the safest, most abundant food supply at the most affordable price, and our livestock producers want to capture the value they add to the market. But just like every other debate in Washington, the debate over country-of-origin labeling has been about the means to accomplish the goal. It is not that we are fighting about whether or not promoting U.S. products is a good idea. We are fighting about how to do it. Some in the U.S. Senate, and some around the country have said: ``If it isn't mandatory, it's not labeling,'' or that the current mandatory labeling law that passed in the 2002 Farm Bill is the only way labeling will work. I strongly disagree. The current mandatory law is an example of a good idea gone awry. The warning signs of the negative impact of this law have long been on the horizon. On a number of occasions the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and Budget have published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. In 1999, GAD testified before Congress that ``there is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of mandatory labeling. The next year, GAO released another study indicating that. U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would . . . pass their compliance costs back to their suppliers . . . in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. And when USDA issued its proposed rule, they included a cost-benefit analysis that said implementation could cost up to $4 billion--with no quantifiable benefit. The rule was followed by a letter from the Director of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this Administration.'' Not surprisingly, these predictions were recently realized when several processors, preparing for implementation of mandatory labeling in September 2006, sent their suppliers letters spelling out the arduous procedures that would be employed to verify animal origin, ensure compliance, and indemnify the processors from liability for inaccurate information. Given these ominous warnings, many of my constituents are rightly concerned about the financial and record keeping burdens this law will impose on them. They ask: How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting U.S. products be so expensive? There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products. I am pleased that the conference report for the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act contains a provision that will delay implementation of mandatory country-of-origin labeling until 2008 because it gives us 2 more years to enact a meaningful, cost-effective labeling program like the Meat Promotion Act of 2005, which I introduced with 13 of my colleagues earlier this year. This bipartisan, commonsense legislation would establish a voluntary country-of-origin labeling program driven by the free-market, not the rigid legal interpretations of Federal bureaucrats. I stand with livestock producers that want to market and promote the products they proudly raise. I believe they should be able to market and promote their products as born, raised, and processed in the United States, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 provides the most effective and efficient opportunity for them to do so, while adding value to their bottom line and helping the economy of rural America.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2277.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished Senator from Iowa as we try to work in the conference to try to accommodate and indeed try to maximize the funds for this important initiative. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2278

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment supports the administration's request for second-year funding for the Community- Based Job Training Grant Initiative. Although that is a mouthful, this goes to one of the most basic needs of our country, and particularly our growing economy. For those who are concerned about offshoring and outsourcing of jobs to other countries, for those who are concerned about American citizens who have not yet attained a living wage in their jobs, this is the answer to all of those challenges, and more. The primary purpose of the grants that are included in this program is to strengthen the role of community and technical colleges and train workers for the skills required to succeed in high-growth, high-demand industries. The amendment covers publicly funded institutions of higher education that grant associate degrees. Community-based job training grants are awarded to community and technical colleges that demonstrate they are engaged in a strategic partnership with business and industry. In other words, this is not just the teaching of academic subjects but, rather, working with industry to determine what sort of job skills they need for the good jobs they can provide, if they can find a sufficient number of trained employees to do them. Applicants for these grants are required to identify workforce challenges and their ability to implement workforce solutions for locally identified high-growth, high-demand occupations. This amendment will help increase the capacity of community colleges to provide innovative job training strategies in local demand industries. They will be able to develop training criteria with local industry, hire qualified faculty, arrange on-the-job experiences with industry, and use up-to-date equipment. Community colleges are one of the best kept educational secrets in this country. They are adaptable, flexible, affordable, and accessible by all segments of the community. This amendment will help community colleges train 100,000 new and experienced workers in demand industries and then increase the retention and earnings of trained workers. The Labor Department is committed to making all curricula and training techniques developed through the grants available to community colleges nationwide so these grants help more than just the direct recipient of the grant. This amendment will help millions more workers access education and training for exciting career opportunities and a brighter future. The first grant competition for $125 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2005 and was issued in May. Nearly 400 community colleges submitted proposals and 70 community colleges in 40 States were awarded grants on October 19. I am particularly proud that 7 of the community colleges in Texas were awarded grants through the first $125 million competition. I have long been an advocate of these kind of workforce partnerships and initiatives formed with community colleges and local business communities because I have actually seen them succeed. While in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of these initiatives across the State of Texas, in Austin, in Houston, Pasadena, Laredo, Beaumont, Sherman, El Paso, Lubbock, and Victoria. I remember in particular a young Hispanic woman, a single mom who had been a prison guard in Amarillo, TX who, as a result of a program that she trained in in an Amarillo community college, was able to increase her earnings and brighten her future, as well as get out of her somewhat dangerous job as a prison guard to begin working on the production line for the V-22 tilt rotor being made at Bell Helicopter in Amarillo, TX. This is only one example of how we can provide the resources to individuals so they can improve their future, improve their skills, and satisfy the needs of employers who search, often in vain, for qualified workers to take these good and very well paying jobs. I know, in consultation with the distinguished floor manager of this bill, that this contains an offset that causes some concerns. What I would like to do is continue our discussions with Senator Specter, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the distinguished manager of this bill, as we proceed through this process to try to find some way to maximize the funds available to this particular program in the conference and hopefully restore some of the money that would otherwise be cut. I realize the subcommittee is working within allocation caps and we don't want to cause any unnecessary concern. But this is an initiative that I feel so strongly about, and I think the more our colleagues learn about this, the more our colleagues will be supportive of this restoration of these funds for this important initiative. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished manager of the bill, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am honored to serve, for his accommodation. I certainly do not want to detract from the efforts to complete this important appropriations bill. I do thank the Senator for yielding to me so I may address some of the historic events occurring today in Iraq. This has been the subject of other speakers. I thought it was important that while this is on the minds of a lot of people, that we talk about some of our successes in Iraq and what the facts are with regard to what reality is like there on the ground. I am disappointed to hear some Members, primarily on the other side of the aisle, this morning blaming America for the insurgency and claiming that our military does not have a plan for victory. That is not true as a factual matter, and they know it. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, we had the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, General George Casey, and the CENTCOM commander, General John Abizaid here, along with Secretary Rumsfeld and others, to talk precisely about what conditions were like on the ground in Iraq, how our plan was going, and what the future looked like. We do have a plan, and I wanted to talk about it for a minute. I want to note my concern that to use Iraq as a convenient political football only undercuts the brave young men and women who are fighting there, not only on behalf of the beleaguered Iraqi people but on behalf of us here. We know that the central front in the war on terror today is in Iraq. We know that foreign fighters and other jihadists who adhere to an extremist ideology, who believe that they can use force to kill innocent Americans because they simply hate who we are and our way of life, that Iraq is where they are being drawn. If we leave prematurely, if we fail to finish the job that we have undertaken there, then it will simply leave a haven available for those who want to train, recruit, and finance international terrorism and who will then threaten us on our own shores, as we were hit dramatically on September 11. In reality, it is the critics of our military that have no plan. They simply want to cut and run. They believe in retreat. The most disturbing of all, their proposals serve merely to divide the American people. I am particularly concerned when I hear people make the argument, as I have heard on the floor of the Senate, that Iraq was not a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Perhaps these critics need to be reminded of the statement of President Clinton in 1998 which clearly lays out the threat that Iraq posed at that time. President Clinton said, talking about Saddam: What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction . . . He will then conclude he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. This was on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton. Then, on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said: The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of this people, the peace of the region, and the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. That was President Clinton on December 16, 1998. I am pleased that this body passed that same year the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated: It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. The Congress passed that legislation because, indeed, Saddam Hussein was a threat in 1998 and remained a threat. Fortunately, today, he is no longer a threat. But we must stay the course. Complaints without solutions are simply not productive. What are the proposals coming from those who criticize our current efforts in Iraq? Some complain that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to finish the job, but at the same time all they talk about is creating an arbitrary timetable for cutting and running and bringing those troops home before they finish the job, before we finish the job. Then others say our presence in Iraq actually creates additional terrorism. But what they don't explain is what we would leave the Iraqis with if we were to leave prematurely. Again, complaints are not solutions. GEN George Casey, whom I mentioned a moment ago, who is the leader of the coalition forces in Iraq, said when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: We're in a tough fight but we've been in tough fights before to advance the cause of democracy and to protect our way of life. We should not be afraid of this fight. We and the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of wills if we don't lose ours. Again: We and the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of wills if we don't lose ours. Just this morning, we heard that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has announced an overwhelming majority of Iraqis has approved the country's constitution; that is, 78 percent of those who voted yes to approve that constitution which has now been cleared. You know what. Their voter turnout was 63 percent, better than most elections we hold here in the United States, given our long tradition of constitutional democracy. Soon the Iraqi people will have a chance to elect their elected representatives in parliamentary elections on December 15 which will provide the final step in their march to democracy and self- determination. Yes, the Nation of Iraq has made remarkable political progress in the last 2 years, but they still have a way to go to achieve a fully functioning democracy. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in her eloquent remarks she clearly outlined the political and military strategy in Iraq: Clear, hold, build. Clear, hold, build. That is to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable national Iraqi institutions. I could not agree more with Secretary Rice. This is a strategy that has been articulated for quite some time now by the President of the United States. This strategy is the only way we will see the blossoming of a democratic Iraq. In 2003, not that long ago, the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein was brought to an end. The Iraqi people were liberated and a provisional government established. In 2004, a five-step plan was announced to end occupation in Iraq and to bring our troops home, and in 2005 that transition is well underway. Our strategy is working. The Iraqi people will vote in elections in December and soon will select a government that will serve them for the next 4 years. As I mentioned, Iraqi participation in these recent elections was very strong, including among Sunnis who boycotted the earlier election last January. These elections were also much more peaceful than the previous elections. A clear path is being charted to implement the rule of law and we must continue our support for the Iraqi people to achieve success. It is clear that the implementation of the rule of law is the next step, a necessary next step to achieve stability in Iraq. It is in the absence of democracy, it is in the vacuum created by the absence of the rule of law, that there is no forum, no mechanism for justice to address grievances in which extremism will rear again its ugly head. Only 2 short years ago the people of Iraq were oppressed by a brutal dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom held their silence out of fear for their lives. No more. As it has been said before, freedom is on the march. Part of implementing law and justice, not to mention providing a measure of closure for the people of Iraq, is the trial of Saddam Hussein which began on October 19. Unfortunately, this trial has been postponed because--and it comes as perhaps no surprise--the defense lawyers representing him said they needed more time to prepare. Well, I for one do not begrudge them additional time, but it is not so much for them, because I doubt any level of preparation, any amount of investigation will absolve Saddam Hussein of the blood that is on his hands, but I do believe that perception is important, and it is important that the public perception, the international perspective be that this is, indeed, a fair proceeding and that Saddam Hussein, even the most brutal of tyrants and dictators, is, indeed, entitled to the protection of the rule of law and entitled to a fair process. Of course, this trial is one of the first formal acts in the path to restoring the rule of law, and it is important Iraq demonstrate to the world that it can conduct this trial in a fair manner, as it is a foundational and deeply symbolic proceeding. A series of declassified U.S. intelligence documents and other U.S. agency reports provides a wealth of evidence substantiating Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and more evidence of Saddam's brutality is provided by the people of Iraq who had suffered under his boot heel for years. A portion of these documents concerned Saddam's responsibility, along with other members of his regime, for the massacre in 1982 of Shiites in a town 35 miles north of Baghdad after an unsuccessful coup d'etat, including an attempt on the dictator's life. It is said he may be tried at least a dozen times for crimes he committed during his regime, to include gassing of Kurds and suppression of a Shiite uprising in the south. However, the Iraqi Government is reportedly considering foregoing additional trials if Saddam is convicted as expected and such conviction results in the death penalty under the laws of the sovereign nation of Iraq. In remarks before the United Nations, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ``a murderous tyranny that lasted 35 years and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament.'' In a report entitled ``Mass Graves: Iraq's Legacy of Terror,'' compiled by the United States Agency for International Development, it is estimated that nearly 400,000 Iraqis lie buried in mass graves--Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, all killed because neither Saddam Hussein nor his regime valued life in the least. I am confident that some day in the not too distant future an appropriate measure of justice will be meted out to Saddam Hussein for the atrocities he committed against his own people, the people of Iraq. And that is as it should be. I am sure that the symbolism of this first tribunal being held in Iraq to try their former dictator is not lost on the people of Iraq. This restoration of the rule of law, this process which is designed to administer justice, is commensurate with the rule of law. We must continue working with the Iraqi people to ensure that democracy, freedom, progress, free markets, self-governance, and the rule of law are allowed to flourish. It is the only way to promote stability in that country and throughout the greater Middle East. There is no enemy on the face of the Earth that can defeat the people of the United States of America unless, of course, it is the American people ourselves, by losing our resolve to stay the course, to finish a job that was just in its initiation and which is just in its goals. We must stay the course. We must maintain our resolve. To hear the comments of those here in this body and elsewhere who would attempt to hijack this just cause in the interest of political gamesmanship does nothing but harm our efforts, the resolve of the American people, and undermine the heroic and noble efforts being carried out on a daily basis by our young men and women who are fighting in freedom's cause, not just for us but for the people of Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

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