John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I commend the ranking member and chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence for the outstanding work they have done on this critical piece of legislation, passing it in the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2, which was no easy feat. This passed in the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 29, I believe. It is about as strong a bipartisan vote as you can possibly get. This is a well-thought-out piece of legislation that, once sent over to the House of Representatives, we were told the House of Representatives, rather than to deal with this legislation, would simply decide to fold their tent and go home. That is the height of irresponsibility. The Senator from Missouri described why it is so important for us to be able to listen to our enemies: because, simply, it saves American lives. We learned a harsh lesson on September 11, 2001, which is that we are not safe even within our own shores. There are those who believe in a radical ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent men, women, and children, and who are willing to use instruments of destruction, whether they be primitive tools such as flying an airplane into a building, or chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons--whatever they can get--to kill innocent civilians. We have to do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Thank goodness, due to the noble work of our men and women in uniform who are fighting in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world, we are keeping the enemies of the United States on the run. The best way we can deter these terrorist attacks is to listen in on conversations and communications. That is the only way we are going to be able to continue to do it. For the House of Representatives to know that they are causing our intelligence community to go deaf to the communications of terrorists who are plotting attacks against the United States is the height of irresponsibility. I hope it is not true and that they reconsider. My hope is they will come back and they will pass this important legislation that will encourage our telecommunications industry to cooperate with the lawful requests of the Commander in Chief as certified by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, and that is the Attorney General, so we can continue to listen to these communications in a lawful and legal way and protect the American people. For the House of Representatives to refuse to take up this matter and to vote on it is, again, I say, the height of irresponsibility, and it endangers American lives. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4036

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished Republican leader if, in fact, because of the burden of these lawsuits, some 40 different lawsuits against any telecommunications companies that may have participated, if, in fact, they chose not to participate in this program, is there any other option available to the intelligence authorities to listen in on communications between terrorists who are bent on wreaking havoc, death, and destruction on the American people? Is there anywhere else to go?

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for one final question?

Mr. CORNYN. I ask the distinguished Republican leader whether the voluntary cooperation of the telecommunications companies that have cooperated at the request of the Government and upon certification by the chief law enforcement agent of the country, the Attorney General, is in jeopardy, if we merely continue the current law as opposed to passing the bipartisan Senate bill? And if that is the case, doesn't that just as effectively deny us access to terrorist communications as if we did not pass the law itself?

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to express grave concern at reports that I hear out of the House of Representatives that they intend to adjourn and basically go on vacation for the next week or so without taking action on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization. That, of course, is the legislation we passed out of the Senate that provides the eyes and the ears for the intelligence community in the United States to detect and to deter future terrorist attacks against the United States. To me, it is unthinkable that the House of Representatives would adjourn and be so irresponsible as to leave this unfinished business undone and to leave America unprotected against future terrorist attacks. I know there is an argument that existing surveillance could be continued for up to a year. But what we are talking about is new contacts, new information that the intelligence community gets that would be impeded, impaired, and blocked by the failure of the House of Representatives to act on this critical piece of legislation that will expire on February 15 unless they act today or tomorrow. So it is the height of irresponsibility. I find myself questioning whether it could possibly be true that would happen. Also, one important part of the Senate legislation was to provide protection for the telecommunications carriers that may have cooperated with the U.S. Government shortly after September 11, 2001, in providing the means to listen in to al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists who were plotting and planning attacks against the United States and its citizens. I think it is a terrible message from the House of Representatives, if they are not going to act in a way that provides protection for those citizens, whether they be individual citizens or corporate citizens, who are asked by their country to come to the aid of the American people and provide the means to protect them from terrorist attacks. What kind of message does that send, that we are going to basically leave them out twisting slowly in the wind and being left to the litigation--some 40 different lawsuits that have been filed against the telecommunications industry that may have cooperated with the Federal Government in protecting the American people. This is on a request at the highest levels, from the Commander in Chief, and upon a certification by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General. What they were being asked to do was entirely appropriate and within the bounds of the law. But then, when the litigation ensues, to basically leave them hanging out to dry would be wrong. The Senate wisely addressed that issue. But if the House adjourns without passing the Senate version of the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which includes protection for the telecommunications industry that may have participated in this lawful exercise of our powers to protect our country, it would again be the height of irresponsibility and send the message that next time a citizen, whether it is a corporate or individual citizen, is asked to come to the aid of their country, you better think twice and consult your lawyers because you are going to get sued and the Congress is not going to take appropriate measures to make sure those who helped protect the safety and security of the American public are protected. Finally, I don't have the information in front of me right now, but there are substantial news reports that indicate that a group of trial lawyers who stand to make considerable amounts of money in terms of legal fees off this litigation are substantial contributors to Members of Congress. I hope the evidence does not develop that there are decisions being made in the House of Representatives on the basis of the interests of special interest groups such as trial lawyers who stand to gain financially from continuing this litigation that should be brought to an end here and now. I am here primarily to voice my grave concern that while the Senate has acted responsibly--I know not everybody is happy with the outcome-- to address this issue, if the House of Representatives leaves town and leaves this matter undone, the security of the American people is in peril, and it would be a tragedy indeed if something were to happen as a result of our intelligence community being blind or deaf to the dangers that do work both within our shores and beyond. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Colin Brooks, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 110th Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when I returned after the Christmas recess, along with all my colleagues, it was with high hopes that we would be able to work together to solve America's problems in a bipartisan way. There were some promising indications that would indeed be possible when the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Republican leader in the House and the President of the United States came together to deal with one of the emerging crises in our country, which is the economic downturn caused by the subprime lending crisis and a downturn in the housing markets. Unfortunately, we have begun to see that bipartisan cooperation fraying and some downright foot-dragging that causes me a lot of concern. I can't help but think if I am concerned, there are a lot of other people, not only in this body but across the country, who are concerned by the contradiction between what Members of Congress sometimes say and what actually happens. Sometimes we can get caught up in the Senate rules regarding cloture and how the amendment process works, and that is the kind of thing Senators and our staff like and we live with. Frankly, the one thing the American people can sense from a hundred miles off is hypocrisy--saying one thing and then doing another. I heard it suggested one time that the opposite of the definition of progress must be Congress. It sounds to me like something Mark Twain or Will Rogers might say, to say that Congress is the opposite of progress. But we have had two examples of important legislation we should be acting upon in a timely way that have been dragged down by inexplicable delay, and I think it is important that we focus on that. We have heard from the Republican leader this morning regarding his concerns that the bipartisan stimulus package, which, as Speaker Pelosi said, needed to be targeted, timely, and temporary, has now gotten bogged down in an attempt to add additional spending on that bill in a way that invites additional amendments on the floor of the Senate. That means further delay. Add to that a conference committee, which will then delay it even further, and that means the American people, who were expecting rebate checks on their taxes, will have to wait longer, and the chances that this stimulus will in fact be effective in helping to avert a recession makes it much less likely that it will have any impact whatsoever. So delay is costly in terms of our chances for having a positive impact on averting this recession.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Colin Brooks, a fellow on my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize one of my constituents, Tammi Mackeben, who has been named the 2008 School Counselor of the Year by the American School Counselor Association. Mrs. Mackeben was also named the Texas Multi-Level School Counselor of the year by the Texas School Counselor Association in 2007. The School Counselor of the Year contest is open to all 100,000 members of the school counseling profession. Mrs. Mackeben was nominated for this award by Principal Ricardo Damian and was evaluated by a select panel of industry experts on several criteria including: creative school counseling innovations, effective counseling programs, leadership skills and their contribution to student advancement. Mrs. Mackeben is 1 of 10 finalists from across the Nation, and the only representative from Texas. Mrs. Mackeben has worked as a counselor at the Ernesto Serna Two Way Dual Language School in El Paso, TX, for 7 years. She and her colleague Norma Guerra are responsible for counseling close to 700 students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade. Mrs. Mackeben works with students in the sixth through eighth grades, helping them to navigate personal and academic challenges, and preparing them to continue their education in high school. Both Mrs. Mackeben and Ms. Guerra have implemented Comprehensive Developmental Guidance and Counseling on their campus. The Guidance and Counseling Program received the CREST Award--Counselors Reinforcing Excellence for Students in Texas--from the Texas School Counselor Association and the RAMP Award--Recognized ASCA Model Program--from the American School Counselor Association during the 2006-2007 school year. The guidance, support and compassion that Mrs. Mackeben shares in her daily work is perhaps one of the best gifts a teacher can offer to her students. For all this and for being such a great Texan, I can only say: Thank You, Mrs. Mackeben!

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand the leaders may well be coming to the floor here in the next few minutes, and certainly when they arrive I will defer to them for the business about which I know they will want to inform the Senate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to talk about the global war on terror here for the next few minutes, and to recount some very good progress we happen to be making in Iraq and that the Iraqis appear to be making. I realize that because the news is not as bad as it once was, it has now fallen off the front page of the newspaper. Yet I think it is very important not only to our national security but because we are being asked to support our men and women in uniform in a variety of ways that we keep close track of the developments occurring both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. That is the subject of my comments. First, I acknowledge a report from the Associated Press indicating that one of al-Qaida's top commanders in Afghanistan, and a key liaison of the Taliban, Abu Laith al-Libi, was apparently killed in military action at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Reports indicate he is actually the fourth person in command of the al-Qaida and the Taliban, right after Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar, demonstrating that we continue to take the fight on the offensive against the very people who are responsible for perpetrating the murder of 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. I believe one of the reasons why we have not had a repetition of that horrific day on our own soil is because of the skill of our men and women in uniform, the weapons we have equipped them with, and the intelligence they have been able to gather that allows us to detect and deter terrorist activities not only on our soil but in Afghanistan against ours and allied troops, as well as Iraq. I think that is a bit of good news that we ought to acknowledge. Secondly, let me say the reason I wanted to come to the floor was precipitated by my visit in January to both Afghanistan and Iraq, where I had a chance to not only meet with Texas troops who are fighting in both of those countries but also military commanders from my State and across the United States, and to learn more as a Senator and member of the Armed Services Committee about the progress in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I was pleased to meet with GEN Raymond Odierno, from Fort Hood, TX, who is basically the second in command for General Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces, and who I know will be returning, along with many Texans, to Fort Hood in February, much to his family's pleasure. I know after all the time General Odierno has spent in Iraq, his family will be glad he is coming home, and particularly after the good news that was reported to me there and that I want to summarize here. The good news is that, as General Odierno said in a story in the Washington Post, reported today, we are going to be bringing back about 40,000 troops from the height of the surge until next summer, and then have what General Odierno called a strategic pause to sort of assess the stability of the military and security environment in Iraq. Of course, the hope is always that we can continue to bring more and more troops home, but as I heard in Iraq over and over, as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. That was the plan all along. But again, good news. General Odierno, in this article, was asked: Do you consider Iraq fragile? We have heard that phrase used over and over. While we have been successful, and the Iraqis have been successful, the conditions are still somewhat fragile. General Odierno was quoted in this article as saying: I think if we move forward with operational patience, it isn't that fragile. But he continued. I think if we leave tomorrow, it would be very fragile--which underscores, to my way of thinking, the importance of us drawing down our troops based on conditions on the ground and not based on some arbitrary or political timetable. If we did that, if we drew the troops down in a precipitous fashion based on some deadline we impose, without regard to circumstances on the ground, in General Odierno's terms, that would create a fragile security situation and perhaps even reverse the significant gains that have been made. We see another bit of good news, and this is in the Mideast Stars and Stripes today, that an operation led by Iraqi forces and supported by American troops has reopened the main highway linking Baghdad and Dyala Province after 16 months of being in insurgents' hands. That is good news, and another reversal for al-Qaida and the insurgency in Iraq. This chart indicates the locations of al-Qaida in Iraq in December 2006 and the battle of Baghdad that led to the actual surge. You will see, Madam President, on my left here--to your right--the improvements demonstrated by the shrinking of the red areas, which indicates the presence of al-Qaida in Iraq in December of 2007. This is presurge; this is postsurge. Not only is this a surge of American troops, but during the same period of time in which we surged additional American troops, there were an additional 100,000 Iraqi policemen and military recruited and trained, as well as some 70,000 citizens in these concerned local citizen councils. We have heard about the Anbar awakening, where people who had thrown their cause in with al-Qaida had finally gotten tired of their barbaric practices and their treachery and had begun to cooperate with Americans and Iraqi forces. That has led to what I would call--some have called-- a concerned local citizens council. I have told people it reminds me of a neighborhood watch on steroids. What it does is provide intelligence as to the locations of improvised explosive devices, and perhaps insurgent or terrorist activity, which has allowed our troops and the Iraqi troops to work with the local citizens to help shrink the influence of al-Qaida in Iraq, as indicated by the comparison between this chart on my right in December of 2006, presurge, and postsurge 2007, in December. So that is obviously good news. We also have four snapshots of sectarian violence in the city of Baghdad. You will recall that at one point we heard from some Members on the floor that the Iraqis were on the verge of a civil war because of the ethnosectarian violence. You will see here that from December 2006, as indicated by the yellow and red, how much of Baghdad was consumed by sectarian violence. This, of course, had all along been the aim of al-Qaida, to incite the sectarian hatred and violence in a way that would consume Iraq. And we saw, in December 2006, that was unfortunately enormously successful. But you can see from December 2006 to December 2007, presurge to postsurge, how these areas of yellow activity are shrunk, and virtually none of the red, the highly intensive sectarian violence, is occurring. So here we see, in a very remarkable contrast from presurge and postsurge, a reduction in ethnosectarian violence, a dramatic improvement, and perhaps best evidenced by the fact that many refugees are moving back from other places to their homes in these areas. Finally, perhaps most demonstrative of our success is these charts which indicate an overall drop in attack trends. This chart starts in December of 2006 and ends in December 2007, indicating a tremendous reduction--by about two-thirds--in the number of overall attacks in Iraq. Again, a significant improvement. I think those are all the charts I have, but let me say that I also acknowledge the tremendous success the Iraqis have made when it comes to political reconciliation. That is another thing that, of course, we all had hoped for. In our meetings with Iraqi leaders--Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--we said: Congratulations on the success of this surge of Iraqis and multinational forces, leading to an improved security situation. But Senator Coleman and Senator Isakson and I, in our visit there, told Iraqi leaders: Now you need to continue your political surge, now that the security situation has improved considerably. We know as a result of the improved security situation that the Iraqis have now begun a sort of political reconciliation, both at the local, or tribal, level and at the provincial level, which has led to greater security, but also at the national level. They have passed, finally, one of the benchmark pieces of legislation that many Members of Congress had urged them to pass from time to time, known as the debaathification reforms. The Iraqi Council representatives passed what they called the accountability and justice law, which represents a significant step forward in the political reconciliation between the various sects and bringing back into the Government, back into society, some of the baathists who are at the local level--after they have been vetted to make sure they are no longer a threat. Because of Saddam Hussein's influence, people could not teach in schools, could not engage in civil life unless they were a member of the Baath party. Well, thanks to the Iraqi Council of Representatives, they now have an opportunity to reengage in civic life in Iraq in a way that is very important. We also know the Iraqi leaders have passed a budget and an important pension law. Recently, Iraqi health care providers gathered in Baghdad for a 2-day medical conference, the first of its kind in more than 15 years. Madam President, I know we have other colleagues wishing to speak here on the floor, and I am about through with my comments, but I think it is worth reminding ourselves and reminding the American people what the impact has been of this surge of American and Iraqi forces thanks to the counterinsurgency strategy devised and deployed by GEN David Petraeus. I had an opportunity to see General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad. They are pleased with the success they have seen, both militarily and from a diplomatic perspective. But they obviously recognize that things still need to continue on the trend toward improved relations, and the Iraqis need to continue their political reconciliation. I think it is very important, as the story of Iraq tends to go from the front page to perhaps the middle of the newspaper, or from the top of the evening news into perhaps not even being the subject of a news story, that we recall for ourselves and for all Americans the contributions our brave men and women in uniform have made. This will not only protect our vital national security interests but make sure other people across the world, in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, can enjoy the blessings of liberty. To me that has been one of the most noble things America has continued to contribute, even to people whom our young troops have not met, to be able to deliver to them the opportunity to live in peace and to achieve their potential. To me, that is one of the greatest things about this country of ours, that people will put themselves in harm's way, they will risk death itself or serious injury to help other people enjoy those blessings of liberty. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders.) The Senator from Washington.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my agreement with the wise words of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and expand on the theme he spoke to, along with the Senator from Tennessee earlier. When I was younger and was going to college, I thought I wanted to become a doctor, but that was until I encountered organic chemistry and physics, and that persuaded me that maybe there was something else out there for me to do. But I did learn about the Hippocratic oath which is what the medical profession takes, this oath basically to first do no harm. I think that ought to be something that guides us as we look at how do we deal with this impending challenge with regard to our economic situation. I do think we have started off in a very strong way, and I express my congratulations to Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader Boehner, and Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson for the work they have done which met with as close to universal approval on a bipartisan basis as you can get in the House of Representatives for what the Speaker has called a targeted, temporary, and timely economic stimulus. That will hopefully allow us to avoid a recession and, of course, all the fallout that would result from that recession, including people out of work and obviously negatively affecting the quality of life for a lot of Americans, including my constituents in Texas. We have to look at this as both a short-term issue and a long-term issue. I hope the kind of bipartisan cooperation and the movement we have seen will start a trend. I am encouraged, as my colleagues have already heard, by some of the work that is being done on a long-term basis by Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg, both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee on which I serve, to deal with the impending long-term crisis of entitlement spending. If we do not do anything in the next 30 years, the only programs that we will have money to spend on as part of the Federal Government is Medicaid, Medicare, and other entitlement spending, plus the interest on the national debt. That is it. We will not have any money to spend on national defense, research, innovation, education, and other programs that are very important to the continued prosperity and future of our country. That is a looming disaster out on the horizon I hope we will respond to. We cannot afford to take the year off in Congress because we know we are in an election cycle. We have a Presidential election coming up in November, and a third of this body will stand for election as well. But as the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has pointed out, we have had an election every 2 years since 1788 in this country--we are going to have another one in November--and we can't use that as an excuse for simply sitting back and becoming spectators rather than active participants in trying to solve the challenges on the economic, security, and all other fronts on both a near-term basis and a long- term basis. Of course, there are other things we need to do to be able to restore public confidence in the U.S. Congress and Government, and one of the things you will be hearing more about is the proposal that we will be making for a 2-year budget, the idea being that, as we saw last year, on an annual budget we basically spend all year in the appropriations process with very little opportunity for oversight of this huge bureaucracy--the executive branch of the Federal Government. And without oversight, we know bad things can happen. Perhaps with oversight bad things can happen, but we cannot be asleep at the switch when it comes to the oversight responsibilities we have for the Federal Government and Federal spending. One example I wish to point out is something my colleagues have heard me comment on before, and it is a Web site called expectmore.gov. I hope people who are hearing what I am saying here today will take the opportunity to look at this expectmore.gov Web site created to demonstrate the review by the Office of Management and Budget of over 1,000 Federal Government programs. What they found out is that 22 percent of those programs either are ineffective or else--what may be even worse--they weren't able to tell one way or the other whether they were effective, as Congress intended. That is 22 percent of 1,000 different programs. Yet Congress has done virtually nothing to eliminate those ineffective programs or to make sure those that could be improved and could be effective are in fact improved and the problems corrected. I hope we would use this as an opportunity to deal with our budgetary problems both in the near term and the long term. I have proposed another initiative, based on the sunset commission that exists in my State, and exists in a number of other States, where periodically we would go back and look at the very reason for the existence of Federal programs. In my State, the sunset commission has been very effective in allowing the State legislature to look at programs--government programs--to determine whether they are still needed and to start at a zero-based budget and force these agencies to justify their budget, rather than what happens here in Washington, which is that things tend to grow and grow and grow and develop their own constituency, and then a bureaucracy that has a vested interest in their growth and proliferation, and there is very little impetus, very little pressure on Congress to eliminate ineffective and unnecessary programs. I hope we will continue this early spirit of bipartisan cooperation on the emergency stimulus package that came out of the House, and we will do more to carry on this trend when it comes to dealing with our mid- and long-term economic problems, not for ourselves but for our children and for our grandchildren. There are things in the economic stimulus package that came out of the House that I have some questions about. But I do agree it is important for confidence building in the markets and to demonstrate we are actually capable of acting when action is required that we act on a timely basis to pass this House-passed measure. I believe there were only 35 votes against the House stimulus package yesterday, and as I said earlier, that represents overwhelming bipartisan support for this negotiated product. I know there are Members of the Senate, myself included, who have some other ideas about what we might be able to offer to improve that. The problem is, as we all know, under the rules of the Senate it is basically a free-for-all once that bill comes to the Senate floor, and there can be numerous amendments, there can be filibusters and other delays, which I think are dangerous indeed when a timely response is called for in terms of this targeted, temporary stimulus package. My conclusion is I think we are better off and the country is better off in the long run showing that we can act on a prompt basis by passing the House version. Now, that does not mean we can take the rest of the year off or we don't have to be responsive to other concerns that arise, as I have indicated earlier. If there are other things we need to do, then I think there are other opportunities for us to do them. But I do think it is important early on in the year to demonstrate our commitment to working together to solve America's problems. I saw a poll the other day that said 98 percent of the respondents were sick and tired of the bickering and the partisanship they see in Congress. I am shocked anybody would have to take a poll to conclude that, and why it wasn't 100 percent rather than 98 percent. But here is a chance for us to act, and I hope we will act in the short term to deal with this economic challenge we face in the markets, but then in the long term to make sure that the prosperity we have enjoyed, thanks to our parents and grandparents, will be handed down to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our side?

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate that, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when I came to Washington about 5 years ago, a colleague of mine said: Welcome to Washington, DC. It is about 8 square miles of logic-free environment, where perception is reality. I always chuckled when he would say that, and I have repeated it myself a few times to audiences back home in Texas because I think it, unfortunately, has a grain of truth to it. One reason I think people chuckle at that, and maybe groan a little bit inside when Washington is described that way, is because we send out such contradictory messages at the same time. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, and the President of the United States have come together and said: We have come up with a bipartisan package to stimulate our economy; to make sure, if it is possible, that we avoid a recession that puts many Americans out of work and hurts them in an economic and personal way. That was a very welcome message that I heard and the public heard, and I think it was a hopeful one. I, for one, hoped it would signal some kind of new period of cooperation in light of the fact that, frankly, what we had been doing was not working very well, as evidenced by one of the historic lows in congressional approval ratings as a result of the dysfunction in the Senate, and Congress as a whole, last year. By that I mean you will recall we didn't pass but 1 of the 12 appropriations bills on a timely basis by the end of the fiscal year last year, so we had to roll everything into a big Omnibus appropriations bill. Some say ``ominous'' appropriations bill, and I think that is an apt description. It was chock full of earmarks and things that people hadn't had adequate time to scrutinize, much less to debate and shine the sunlight of public scrutiny on. So I would hope we would learn from the dysfunction of last year and we would look to the example of bipartisan cooperation as evidenced by the House of Representatives and the White House on the economic stimulus. Of course, it wasn't limited just to appropriations last year. We saw basically a standstill, after 36 votes on Iraq, on nonbinding resolutions calling for unilateral withdrawal. Finally, we passed, at the very end of last year, a $70 billion emergency appropriations so that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would get the support we owe them as a moral obligation, as a sign of our commitment to support the troops, to protect our national security interests. But it took us a long time and a lot of hot air to finally get there. Then, of course, there was the alternative minimum tax, which, true to form, people said: Well, let's tax the rich. Originally, it was designed to tax 155 taxpayers. Last year, it affected 6 million people. And if we hadn't acted, which we finally did at the end of last year, it would have affected 23 million middle American taxpayers. Thank goodness we were finally able to get the work done, that was our responsibility, but not, frankly, in good form last year. So it is with some hope that we find ourselves learning from that experience last year and the low approval ratings that they brought. My hope was this early sign of bipartisan cooperation on the economic stimulus package would sort of start a new trend. Unfortunately, on a matter that really is fundamental to our responsibility--I think our first responsibility: to keep America and Americans safe--we find ourselves falling back into the old bad habits of dysfunction once again. What I mean by that is, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is vital to our national security. It is vital that we continue to be able to listen to foreign terrorists who are communicating with each other, plotting and planning future terrorist attacks on our homeland and on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. Rather than pass legislation that would address that, we passed a patch in October for 6 months, which expired in December. So we passed another 1-month extension. And now we find ourselves with our backs up against the wall with this Protect America Act extension expiring February 1. And I was discouraged to hear the majority leader say this morning that it was impossible to pass a reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. What he suggested is that we need another patch for 1 month, or a short period of time, without addressing the primary issues that need to be voted on. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez, talked about the civil liability immunity for the telecoms that may have cooperated with the United States Government at the highest levels based on a request from the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, during a time of war, and the certification by the Attorney General that what they were being asked to do was legal and, in fact, necessary for us to protect ourselves against another attack, such as the one we suffered in Washington and in New York on September 11, 2001. We know if this law expires without our addressing all aspects of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, our intelligence officials will be literally blind and deaf to the important intelligence that will allow us to detect and deter future attacks against American citizens. In fact, last summer the Director of National Intelligence told us we were missing about two-thirds of the communications between foreign terrorists that were necessary to protect our country. That is why we passed the Protect America Act. So why in the world we would get bogged down in the same sort of bickering and partisan divide rather than come together to solve this in a bipartisan fashion, frankly, escapes me. As was pointed out earlier, this very same legislation passed in the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2. That is a bipartisan supermajority, sponsored by the chairman, the Democrat, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman, Senator Bond, a Republican. So with that kind of bipartisan support for a product that the Director of National Intelligence and the leadership of our defense community tell us they need in order to continue to protect America against attacks, why is it impossible for us to pass this legislation? I don't know of any other explanation than just downright stubbornness. And, frankly, it is the kind that represents a sort of reminder of the bad habits of the past that I had hoped we would have learned from and change. Frankly, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, what is happening on FISA is insane because we are resorting to the same old bad habits and not reaching out and solving this problem, which is very real and very urgent. Let me say a word about the economy. I mentioned the economic stimulus package that was negotiated between the Democrat Speaker of the House and the Republican leader and the representative of the President, Secretary Paulson. I find myself in agreement with the remarks made earlier by Mr. Alexander, the Senator from Tennessee. While there are parts of that agreement that I, frankly, don't like all that much, given the nature of the legislative process, I think it represents a compromise. And looking at some of the proposals coming out of the Senate, to add additional costly programs to grow the size of Government, which invariably will either raise taxes or will send the IOU down to our children and grandchildren to pay by way of expanding the deficit, I am beginning to think the bipartisan package out of the House of Representatives represents a better alternative than I have seen so far discussed here in the Senate. The last thing we should be doing is using this national challenge to our economy--a great risk of seeing people put out of work and seeing them suffer economically--and taking chances on growing the size of Government or raising taxes or passing the debt down to our children by growing the size of Government and expanding the size of this package in order to satisfy an individual or group of Senators' desire to add pet projects on to that stimulus package. So I hope we will act in a bipartisan fashion to support the House-negotiated legislation, a bipartisan package, just like the Intelligence Committee product is a bipartisan package, and just like we acted at the end of last year, after a lot of dilly-dallying and a lot of delay, to finally pass, in a bipartisan way, legislation that appropriated emergency funding for our troops, that protected middle-class taxpayers from a tax they were never intended to pay in the first place--the alternative minimum tax-- and the other business that we finally did after so many months of delay at the end of last year. My hope, Mr. President, is that we will not punish those who cooperate with the United States Government in a time of war to help us listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists by refusing to pass this important piece of legislation because it sends the wrong message that if you don't cooperate, you can basically make America blind and deaf to our enemies. That is a danger to all of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't know why any Member of the Senate would object to procedures we would employ within the bounds of the law to listen to communications of terrorists in order to detect and deter further terrorist attacks on our own soil or against Americans or our allies. That is what this legislation does. Unfortunately, I think we are beginning to see a dangerous trend on the part of the Senate: Never failing to put off until tomorrow what we could and should do today. This legislation has been considered for an awfully long time, as we all know, in a bipartisan vote of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 13 to 2. In October, this legislation was voted out of the Intelligence Committee in a carefully crafted attempt to consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and all other intelligence community members who might be impacted by this legislation. There has been opportunity after opportunity for input into this legislation by Members of the Senate. Yet we hear today there are those on the floor of the Senate who are saying: Well, let's not vote on this legislation now. Let's kick the ball down the road another month so we can have the same debate, the same discussion we have been having for all those many months leading up to this point. The only reason we are where we are today is because we were unable to get a lengthy extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in August. Because of objections by those on the other side who are complaining about this legislation again today, we were only able to pass this legislation until December and then another extension was granted until February 1, when this Protect America Act expires of its own terms. I would hope this body would continue to act in a strong bipartisan manner in which the Intelligence Committee has voted this bill out of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2. I appreciate the fact that this body tabled the Judiciary Committee's partisan substitute and sent a signal that bipartisanship and consensus may once again become ascendant in matters of national security in the Senate. I think we would see that as a welcome development. At a time when we are talking about an economic stimulus package and seeing cooperation from the Speaker and the minority leader in the House and the President of the United States on matters affecting the economy, why can't we get that same sort of bipartisan cooperation on matters affecting national security? Today, the Senate is poised to move this critical national security legislation one step closer to the President's desk. Today's vote will tell us much more about whether this Senate is ready to set aside partisanship and willing to get the job done. Members of this body will remember that in December we had to pass an Omnibus appropriations bill that affected all discretionary spending of the U.S. Federal Government because we had been unable to pass 11 out of the 12 appropriations bills that it was our responsibility to pass. Unfortunately, this Senate has an unfortunate recent tendency to put off things until tomorrow what we should and could be doing today, and we should not let that happen. We need to finish this legislation to give Members a chance to debate and then to vote. I don't favor each and every provision included in the bipartisan compromise that is sponsored by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, but I do appreciate the fact that it is a carefully crafted compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is the product of extensive consultation and negotiation with the experts in our intelligence and defense communities. In other words, this legislation reflects the valuable and necessary input of the very men and women who are currently intercepting phone calls, text messages, and e-mails between al-Qaida and their operatives--those who wish to do America and America's interests harm. The Senate has two choices today as the deadline for action rapidly approaches on February 1. On the one hand, we can show the American people that at least when it comes to matters of national security, it is possible to put partisanship aside and to get the job done in a bipartisan way. The other choice, which the majority leader has proposed, is we ask the American people for an extension, that we kick the can down the road for another month, only to find ourselves back in precisely the same posture we are in today: With no issues resolved and with the same old debates to be rehashed when we ought to finish the job today and follow the path of maximum responsibility. I ask my colleagues: What excuse could there possibly be to put the tough choices off for another month? What justifies asking the American people for more time to get the job done when we know what the choices are and we have simply to make those choices by our vote today. We have had 6 months since the Protect America Act was passed in August of last year to get the job done. In that time, this legislation has been subjected to scrutiny by two Senate committees, and there has been significant time debating this legislation on the floor. The fact is there is no acceptable excuse for failing to do our duty and our job. The excuses offered for delay are as compelling as the old school house claim that my dog ate my homework, I couldn't get it done. I say no more excuses, no more extensions. It is time for Congress to come together in a bipartisan fashion in the national security interests of the United States. It is specious to say there is no consequence to another extension, and it is the height of irresponsibility to argue that delay is the only responsible choice. As America's elected leaders, we have a responsibility to keep America safe. We cannot simply close our eyes and wish away the terrorist threat. It is easy this many years after September 11 to be lulled into a false sense of security as time takes us further away from that terrible attack on American soil. But it is undeniable that the threat from al-Qaida and Islamic extremists remains. In the face of the very real threat of radical Islamic terror, Congress must be resolute and we must eschew attempts to split along partisan lines, and we must embrace bipartisan solutions to our very real national security problem. That is what a vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee bill would reflect: a bipartisan solution to a national security challenge. That is why it defies credibility to argue that the responsible thing to do is to put the job off for another month. The majority leader's plea for an extension implies that the only two choices we have are, on the one hand, an extension for 1 month and, on the other hand, no bill at all. Neither of those is a responsible choice. In fact, there is a third option, and that option is for the Senate to pass a consensus bill that has the bipartisan support of the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee and a bipartisan majority of the Senate, experts in the intelligence community, and the President of the United States. Let's be clear about what an extension means. An extension means further delay. It means putting off tough choices. It means not only to do so in a time of war but in a time of economic fragility, when we have other work we need to be doing on the floor of the Senate that is being taken up unnecessarily by repeating the same arguments over and over without any conclusion. It also means Congress has lacked the courage to relieve some of America's leading companies from the burdens and costs of litigation arising from their cooperation in the war on terror. Let us remember the telecommunications companies that may have cooperated with our Government at the request of our President, and upon the certification of the Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer, that what they were being asked to do was within the law. To continue to subject them to litigation for doing their civic duty, to incur ongoing expense and inconvenience and to risk information that is sensitive to our security coming out during the process is simply not a responsible option. Some in Congress apparently think these companies should have second- guessed the legal representations made by the President and the Attorney General in the days and weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks. Some in Congress have argued that the companies had a duty not to cooperate, a duty to refuse to assist this Nation's intelligence community with tracking terrorists during wartime. That is, unfortunately, how far we have come in this debate and how off the mark some have come. These companies, as every good citizen who cooperates with their Government to try to keep America secure in good faith, deserve the protection we are being asked to give them in this legislation. These costly lawsuits have not only put in jeopardy the future cooperation of these firms but also the critical national security concerns potentially exposed to the discovery process in civil litigation. It may be popular in some quarters to bash corporate America, but that rhetoric is sorely misplaced in this debate. The men and women who manage these companies made a good-faith decision to do their patriotic duty--to help their Government to track terrorists and to save American lives, and they should not be punished for it. They should be thanked for their cooperation. For Congress to allow these burdensome lawsuits to continue this long is unfortunate and unjust indeed, but for Congress to continue to put off the tough choices and leave these companies in legal limbo is not only unfortunate and unjust, it is also irresponsible. Now is the time for Congress to decide the question--no more excuses, no more delays, no more extensions. Today, the Senate can choose a path forward, a bipartisan path on critical national security measures, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to move this bipartisan bill forward by voting for cloture at 4:30. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator Alexander, my colleague from Tennessee, for his comments and for his leadership. We decided it would be helpful to come to the floor and talk a little bit about the retreat that Senator Alexander laid out and our reasons for believing that it is important that we not take the year off just because it is a Presidential election. I think Senator McConnell most recently pointed out that we have had elections in this country every 2 years since 1788. So if we are going to use that as an excuse for not getting things done, we will never get anything done. We have a lot of important issues we need to address, and we will. The month or so that we were in recess, from the Wednesday before Christmas until we came back the day after Martin Luther King's national holiday, I enjoyed being at home in Texas. As always, I traveled around the State and talked to a lot of people. But I also listened. What I heard from my constituents is the same thing I bet virtually every single Senator heard, and that is that people are sick and tired of the bickering and partisanship. They are sick and tired of seeing Congress not solving problems that only Congress can solve. Frankly, they are beginning to feel more and more like Congress is irrelevant to their daily lives. I think that is what accounts for the historically low approval rating we have seen of the Congress in the last year. The problem is--and the occupant of the chair knows as well as I do-- that I don't think the public differentiates between Republicans and Democrats when they give Congress a low approval rating, by and large. I think it is up to us, working together, to try to elevate that low approval rating by doing what our constituents expect us to do, and that is to work together when we can, without sacrificing our basic principles. Let me say a word about that. Lest anybody confuse what Senator Alexander and I are saying, that we are somehow taking leave of our principles, that is absolutely not true. In Washington, I usually tell folks that we have Democrats in Texas and we have Republicans in Texas. They are all pretty much conservative by national standards, Washington standards. But the fact is, my constituents expect for me to get something done. But that is not done by sacrificing principles. I do think we have important differences, and I think those should be debated, and then we should vote. We should be held accountable in the next election for our votes and for what we have done or not done. I think there is an important difference between standing on your principles and then looking for common ground to try to come together and solve problems. I agree with what the Senator from Tennessee said. We all know it is a fact of life in the Senate that you cannot get anything done without bipartisan support. Our 60- vote rule for cloture to close off debate in order to have an up-or- down vote requires it. So why not recognize that, sure, we can say no, no, no, but occasionally I think we ought to look for an opportunity to say yes where it doesn't sacrifice our principles, but it does find common ground to try to get things done on behalf of the American people. I have constituents who asked me, as recently as last night: Don't you find life in the Senate and in Washington and in the Congress frustrating? Many say I could never do what you do because I would be so frustrated by it. I think there is plenty of opportunity for frustration, if we dwell on that. But I prefer to look at the opportunities for making life better for the American people and for offering solutions on the difficult issues that confront us. To me, that is what I get up and come to work for. That is why I enjoy being in the Senate. I believe it gives me a chance, as one American, to do what I can to try to make life better and to make a difference. It is not about sacrificing principles. It is doing what we said in the preamble to the Constitution when we said: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . . We said that in 1787, in a document that was ratified by all of the States by 1790. That should be our goal still today--to be true to that statement of principle about what our goals are as a nation. The Senator from Tennessee did go through a number of concrete proposals and talked about what our alternative will be to the proposals being made on the other side of the aisle. Again, I agree with him, that the American people don't expect us to come here and split the difference on everything in order to come up with an agreement if they believe that outcome is devoid of principle or sacrifices fundamental values. There are differences between the parties. Those differences ought to be reflected in a dignified and civilized and respectful debate that highlights those differences, and then we have a vote on those different points of view. We will either pass legislation or not based on that vote. But I think it will be acting in the greatest tradition of the Senate, and in a way that our constituents back home earnestly wish we would act and, unfortunately, in a way that we have not always acted. I have to believe all Members of this body want to see our economy as strong as it can possibly be going forward. They want to see that our Nation is secure and our defense remains the best in the world; that all Americans have access to quality health care; that taxpayers not be compelled to foot the bill for wasteful Washington spending. I have to believe that all of our constituents, and indeed all Members of the Senate, believe that we need a sustainable energy policy that allows us to turn away from our over-reliance on imported oil and gas from dangerous parts of the world. I think, as Senator Alexander pointed out, principled differences on important legislation need to be debated in the Senate and voted on and resolved rather than be left without a solution and unaddressed. We do have an opportunity, I believe, this new year as we have come back not just to say no, no, no, to every idea that is offered on the floor but to say: Here are our alternative solutions to the problems that confront America. Mr. President, you will be hearing us on the floor of the Senate on a weekly basis not only addressing legislation offered by the majority-- and, of course, it is the majority leader's prerogative to set the agenda to call up bills; we will not be able to do that as Members of the minority--but what you will hear from us is a principled proposal to solve the problems that confront America on each of the big issues this Nation wants us to address and wants us to expend our very best efforts to try to solve. I am delighted we have seen a sort of renewed enthusiasm for finding solutions in a principled way. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee, the retreat we had I thought was one of the most hopeful retreats I have ever participated in as a Member of the Senate because I think what we saw is a recommitment to try to solve problems, to avoid the partisan bickering and the divisiveness that has resulted in the historically lower approval rating of Congress and which turns off so many of our constituents. Of course, as we all know, as elected officials, if we do not respond to our employer and try to address the concerns our employer has--and our employers are our constituents--then our employers may look for somebody else to do the job in the next election. It is up to us to be responsive to those concerns, and I think without sacrificing principles, by staying true to those values we brought with us but looking for common ground. That is the art in our job, and it is more art than science. I have said it before and I will say it again, I think compromise for compromise's sake is overrated because if all compromise means is sacrificing your principles in order to get a problem behind you, I don't think you have done your job. Doing your job means standing on your principles but looking for common ground, consistent with those principles, to solve problems. There is plenty of common ground to find if we will work a little bit harder and a little bit more in earnest to try to find it. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud of the work that is being done by the State comptroller of Texas, Susan Combs, who has created a Web site wherethemoneygoes.gov. We need to use greater transparency and the accountability that goes with it to restore public confidence in how Government works. I look forward to working with our colleagues across the aisle and hope to find common ground, not to pick fights and find out where we differ but to find where we can move this country forward and solve some of the problems that confront us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to join my distinguished colleague from Tennessee who recently was elected to the leadership on this side of the aisle. His responsibility and mine is to help try to find a way to work together, not by sacrificing our principles but to try to find that common ground rather than what divides us. But first let me also express my congratulations to our new colleague from Mississippi, Senator Wicker, who had a distinguished career in the House of Representatives and comes here, I know, with a lot of hopes and aspirations. I look forward to working with him as he represents his State and as I represent my State, the State of Texas, and as we all work together to represent the United States, hopefully, to provide for the aspirations and dreams of the American people to make it possible for them to live their dream. That is what the United States has always been; that is what it should remain. I cannot help but reflect, returning from our holiday recess, I had somebody this morning in the cafeteria say: Welcome back from your vacation. I said: Well, I prefer to call it the alternate work period because it was not entirely a vacation, although I did get some time off, as did my colleagues. But I trust that we all came back refreshed and rejuvenated and ready to take on the challenging work that lies ahead. I have to say, if I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times as I traveled the State of Texas, people are frustrated with Washington, DC. They think Washington is broken. They do not hear about those occasions when we work together to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis. They hear the conflict and the divisiveness and the partisanship, and they do not like it. I had to tell them, each of my constituents when they mentioned that: Well, I do not like it very much either. I did not run for the Senate and I do not serve in a position of public trust to come up and pick fights. Everybody knows in politics it is always possible to pick a fight, but it does not take any particular genius to do that. What we ought to be doing, and what it takes hard work to do, is trying to find common ground. There is plenty of common ground. Senator Alexander mentioned a number of tremendous bipartisan accomplishments--the America Competes Act. There have been a number of opportunities for us to work together in a bipartisan way. I am particularly proud of some legislation that Senator Pat Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I were the cosponsors of that the President signed into law in December, the first reform of the Freedom of Information Act in perhaps as much as 25 years. I think perhaps the best anecdote to public skepticism about Washington is greater transparency because I believe giving the public information about how their Government works is a way to empower them to hold elected officials and Government accountable. When things happen in secret, behind closed doors, that does not happen. So I am delighted there are plenty of opportunities for us to work together. I think we should embrace them, not run away from them or look for opportunities for us to pick fights and to feed that skepticism and really the sense that I think many people expressed to me that they feel as though Washington is increasingly irrelevant when it comes to dealing with the challenges that affect our lives. The economy is one that has, of course, come roaring to the forefront as an issue on which we need to work together. I was pleased to hear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid say they wanted to work with the President to come up with a stimulus package that is timely, targeted, and temporary, something that would hopefully get the economy moving again as it has been for roughly the last 4 years, where we have seen an unbroken record of growth of the economy, increased number of jobs, some 9 million new jobs created. Frankly, the way that happened is because we allowed the American taxpayer and small businesses to keep more of what they earned so they could invest it, they could spend it on the education for their children, they could do whatever they wanted to with it because it is theirs. Sometimes I think it is helpful to remind ourselves that the money that hard-working Americans earn is their money. It is not ours. It is not the Federal Government's money. Sometimes I think when people are in Washington too long they begin to think of this as revenue pay-fors, ways to raise funds so that Government can grow bigger and spend people's money. Well, the American people understand there are some things they cannot do for themselves and Government has to do, such as the common defense, and they are willing to pay their taxes for efficient Government that delivers a particular result that Government only can provide. But we ought not to use this stimulus package, the downturn in the economy, as a way to burden the American people with more taxes or find new ways to grow the size of the Federal Government. So I hope we can continue in a careful and judicious and thoughtful way to find common ground to work on a stimulus package that the President will sign and that will enjoy bipartisan support. Now, there is a lot of skepticism, as I said, about Washington. Part of it is that the Government does not spend the tax dollars well, efficiently. I have to tell you there is good evidence of that. There is a Web site associated with the Office of Management and Budget called expectmore.gov. I hope people will look at that. What I discovered when I looked at it is that the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed 1,000 different Federal Government programs and found 22 percent of them either ineffective or the Office of Management and Budget cannot tell whether they are serving their intended purpose. I am not sure which is worse. Either they are proven ineffective or else you cannot tell. Either way that is unacceptable and we need to find a way to deal with those wasteful Washington programs that need to be eliminated. I proposed a Federal sunset commission that is modeled after many of the States, such as my State, the State of Texas, where you have periodic reviews of those programs, and every once in a while the bureaucrats have to come in and justify the reason for the program's existence. If circumstances have changed, the program is no longer needed, it can be eliminated or the budget, rather than securing an inflationary or cost-of-living increase in the size of that program each year without any real scrutiny or oversight, they start out with a zero- based budget and have to justify each dollar of that budget. So I think a national sunset commission would help us eliminate more wasteful Washington spending. As I said, I am proud of the work that Senator Leahy and I were able to do in a bipartisan way to reform the Freedom of Information Act to give people more information about their Government so they can hold Government and Government officials accountable. But I think there is more that we need to do. Recently, earlier this month, the Government launched a new Web site called www.usaspending.gov which allows Americans to search for Federal grants and contracts. I am going to propose legislation--I am eager to find colleagues on the other side of the aisle with whom I can work; I am sure there will be a number of them--to build on this Web site and allow taxpayers to see how the Government spends their tax dollars. Now, I wish I could say I thought of this on my own, but the fact is, our comptroller in the State of Texas--may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Senate Sportsmen's Caucus, I am concerned about misguided efforts by some in Congress to ban Federal funding from flowing to international wildlife conservation organizations and programs that support regulated recreational hunting, particularly on the African continent. The facts are clear. Twenty-three African counties currently license approximately 18,500 hunters, generating over $200 million annually in the process. Regulated recreational, sport, and trophy hunting is saving many animal species in Africa. Licensed and regulated tourist hunting boosts local economies and propagates wildlife by providing foreign governments and villagers a financial incentive to protect and conserve local wildlife populations. In September of this year, I joined my colleagues on the leadership team of the Senate Sportsmen's Caucus in sending a letter to our conferees negotiating the Department of State and Foreign Operations funding bill with the other Chamber. We laid out the facts and noted that even the National Geographic News reported in March 2007 that ``trophy hunting is of key importance to conservation in Africa by creating [financial] incentives to promote and retain wildlife as a land use over vast areas . . .'' Tourist hunting has proven to be a valuable tool to conserve wildlife and habitat and has contributed to the survival of the African elephant, white and black rhino, leopard, markhor, argali, and other species. Trophy hunting organizations such as the Dallas Safari Club located in my State of Texas have a vested interest in promoting the welfare of wildlife and they provide countless resources that eliminate human suffering and improve livelihoods in remote areas of the world by conserving wildlife, growing local economies, and reducing poverty. It is my hope that all Members of Congress will recognize the positive impact that conservation and hunting organizations have on the preservation of species, and that Federal partnership with these groups leverages significant private sector contribution to global wildlife conservation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my State, like many States, has produced some political giants: Lyndon Johnson, Phil Gramm, John Tower, many great political figures. But one I recall specifically: Bob Bullock, a Democratic Lieutenant Governor in what was generally considered the most powerful political position in State government. I remember one time he said that there are two types of politicians: one who wants to be somebody, and the other who wants to do something. Most decidedly, Trent Lott is of the latter category. I have heard comments today about his great ability to compromise. I think compromise is in and of itself overrated. Compromising with principle, looking for common ground while staying true to your convictions and your principles, is an art and one that Trent Lott has practiced throughout his congressional career. Since the foundation of our Nation, Congress has been the workplace for many men and women who have come from modest beginnings and who took it upon themselves to shoulder great responsibilities. They have undertaken the noble yet difficult work of governing in the best interests of the American people. This has always been the defining characteristic of our country. In Lincoln's phrase: Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This year, after more than three decades of public service in the Congress, we bid farewell to a man who has embodied this notion. Trent Lott from Pascagoula, MS, always took to heart his responsibility as a representative of the State and he has never lost touch with his roots. We have heard reference to his memoir, ``Herding Cats,'' which I told him, after reading it: It was surprisingly good. He said: Why were you surprised? I said: I am not going to go there. It was surprisingly good. But he answered one particular critic in his memoirs by saying: I ascended to the leadership of the Senate because I was from the Magnolia State. I found this to be a telling statement about a man who not only represented his State's interests but sought to represent its character and was literally impelled to public service. As we know, he served Mississippi in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, in the majority and minority, through the administrations of seven Presidents. He has experienced just about everything a life in politics has to offer--the good, the bad, and the ugly. When his beloved home State was hit by a natural disaster named Katrina, he made it his top priority to see that the people of Mississippi were shepherded through the most difficult of times. Throughout his life and service, Senator Lott has served his home of Mississippi with unflinching resolve. His principled and dedicated service has earned him a national reputation as a strong leader. His fervent desire to solve some of our Nation's biggest problems has put him at the forefront of national politics. Trent has always sought to find common ground on important legislation, and there is no doubt in my mind his absence will be profoundly felt. But as many have already observed, Senator Lott has paid his dues. He has done his time. He has served his State. He served his country. So while it is with sadness we say goodbye to a colleague and a statesman and, most importantly, a friend, it is with great joy that I wish Senator Lott the best of luck in the next stage of his life. Trent, thank you for everything you have done for our country, for the Senate, this great institution, and for everything I have learned from your example. I know you and Tricia have a bright future ahead, and I know you especially look forward to spending more time with your children and grandchildren. We wish you the very best.