John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senator from Washington has chosen to make a point of order against this timely amendment. This amendment is not delaying the underlying bill, contrary to the distinguished Senator's statements and the statements of the majority whip. We are prepared to set a vote on this amendment at any time this week. I understand the rules of precedence, and I am certain we have considered other amendments previously when similar points of order could have been made and the Senate chose not to raise the point of order. It is not self-executing; someone must raise it. It appears the other side believes the Senate should not speak on this, what I believe is the most important issue today. Again, we are prepared to set an immediate vote and move on to other issues. Having said that, I will alert my colleagues that the Senate will speak on this issue at some point. We will come back and the Senate will weigh in on this despicable ad. Unanimous Consent Request Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the two leaders today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of a resolution, the text of which is the exact language of the amendment which I have offered. Further, I ask unanimous consent that if the resolution is agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. Before the Chair rules, this unanimous consent request allows us to consider the language outside the Transportation appropriations bill, and I would hope there would be no objection to this.

Mr. CORNYN. I am glad to yield for some questions.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not yield at this time, although after I get through speaking I am happy to yield to my colleague. Mr. President, every generation has defining moments, moments when you know in an instant that the world as you knew it has forever changed. Some of these moments are cause for celebration, such as the Moon landing or the fall of the Berlin Wall. But some, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, are moments of intense grief, when the entire Nation holds its breath in shock and disbelief. The morning of September 11, 2001, was one such defining moment. Many of us closed our eyes, pleading with reality that what we saw could not be true. Many of us sat and cried, reeling from the loss of so many of our friends and neighbors. Many of us crowded into houses of worship across the country, looking for comfort and for answers. We watched as average Americans, finding extraordinary courage, became heroes. Firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel responded with remarkable bravery and determination, and many gave their lives so that others might live. The strength and generosity of ordinary Americans was the sole bright spot on that dark day. But what defines our generation is not just what we do in such moments but what we do the next day, and the next week, and the next year. Here we stand, 6 years later, remembering that day and reflecting back on all that has happened since that time. And here I stand, more proud of America than ever, and especially its response over the last 6 years. In the weeks following September 11, our country was faced with several choices. Would we crack under the weight of the tragedy and the threat of the terrorist mindset or would we unite against the idealogy of fear and hatred? Would we retreat from a dangerous global terrorism or would we work to create a safer world? Over the last 6 years, we have faced terrorism and extremism head on. We have stood firmly against those who would attack innocent civilians and push an agenda of fear. As a result, our country is safer and terrorism is being combated across the world. Of course, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to the brave men and women of the U.S. military. Their continued service and dedication to our country has literally helped to preserve the American way of life, and made the world safer, I might add, for everyone. Their strength and courage is an example to all of us, and we should always remember and honor their sacrifices. But the fact is, while we are safer than we were on September 11, 2001, we are not yet safe. Recent renewed threats from al-Qaida and arrests of terror suspects in Germany have proven that the danger is still looming for us. Fighting terrorism means we have to be right all the time, while the terrorists only need to be right once. We have to stay on the offensive, taking the fight to the enemy and always looking for ways to improve our national security here at home. Now, yesterday and today, Congress received a report from the general in charge of the Multinational Force Iraq, GEN David Petraeus, and from our Ambassador to the region, Ambassador Crocker. All of us will recall that when General Petraeus was nominated to this high office as a professional military man, his confirmation came to the Senate. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was proud to vote for his confirmation in the Armed Services Committee. As you can see by this chart, on January 26, 2007, the Senate unanimously confirmed this professional soldier as the head of the multinational forces in Iraq. Unfortunately, when General Petraeus's report was received yesterday before a joint hearing in the House, there was all too common partisanship and shrill rhetoric. But, in contrast, this report represents an honest, nonpartisan assessment of the conditions in Iraq, both political and marshal. You know, the fact is, it bears note that General Petraeus's report, along with Ambassador Crocker's, is exactly aligned with what the Director of National Intelligence issued in August in his report as well as the report of the independent commission created by this Congress headed by retired Marine Corps GEN Jim Jones, who testified just last week. As a result of these reports, we will now be faced with a choice: Will we heed the advice of our generals, particularly in the case of General Petraeus, a counterinsurgency expert, unanimously confirmed by the Senate, or will we close our ears and our minds to the facts and cave in to special interest groups that claim to know better than our distinguished military leaders? Even before this report was issued by General Petraeus, one such group began employing a despicable and reprehensible new tactic in anticipation of a report which contradicted their ideology. MoveOn.org sponsored this ad, which shamefully, despicably appeared in the New York Times, claiming that General Petraeus, this distinguished military warrior, was a traitor and that he would lie in his report. Lest anyone be misled into thinking this is a product merely of an individual organization, MoveOn.org, I would refer my colleagues to an article that appeared in the New York Times magazine on Sunday entitled ``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' What that article pointed out--I would commend it to all of our colleagues--is that an attack such as this is not an isolated event on behalf of an antiwar organization like MoveOn.org; it is part of a concerted strategy composed of some 20 outside special interest groups consulting with Democrats on the Hill. This organization, as the article reports, does not work only through media by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for ads like this; they coordinate extensively with Democrats on Capitol Hill, as the article points out. Mr. Matzzie, who is the head of this organization, is actually the Washington, DC, representative of MoveOn.org, and he himself, the article says, meets with Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, maybe once a month, he says, adding that he talks to their staffs once a day or at least a couple times a week. In the article, Mr. Crowley notes that senior Democratic aides sometimes even join in conference calls. This might entail discussions of political strategy or more substantive policy briefings by experts from the think tanks that are part of these outside interest groups as part of this organized, orchestrated effort on behalf of those who want to tear down the good name of a distinguished patriot like David Petraeus. This smear campaign consisted of an entirely unwarranted and fallacious attack and sought to impugn the name of a highly respected man of integrity. I have seen this kind of attack before. I suspect all of us have at one point or another. But sometimes it is called just simply ``poisoning the well.'' It is a simple principle: When you cannot refute someone's report, try to discredit them before they, in fact, even make it. Indeed, Mr. Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn.org who heads up the organization that is referred to in the New York Times magazine article entitled ``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' was quoted in Politico as saying this: We have to frame his statements before he makes them. He's not St. Petraeus, he's General Petraeus. This same article which I mentioned a moment ago quotes an anonymous Democratic Senator: No one wants to call Petraeus a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us. I hope all of my colleagues in the Senate will join me in condemning these disgraceful attacks against the good name and character of this general. Instead of making wild allegations, we ought to actually listen to what he has to say. It is always, I have found, a valuable tool to listen to what someone has to say before you try to argue with them. Of course, what he had to say in the House yesterday will be and is currently being repeated, I expect in large part in the Foreign Relations Committee this morning and the Senate Armed Services Committee this afternoon. The fact that General Petraeus has reported that these groups find so reprehensible is that we have actually made progress in Iraq in communities or in areas such as Al Anbar Province and in other places around the country; Al-Qaida in Iraq is losing popularity, and with it they are losing ground. For every person who abandons the doctrines of terrorism, we take another step toward a stable Iraq and a safer America. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, even before General Petraeus gave this report and in the face of the National Intelligence Estimate and the Jones Commission, denied the fact of violence actually going down in Iraq. This is just one comment made by the Senator from New York, who said: The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. Disclaiming that our 170,000 American uniformed servicemembers in Iraq have made any difference. The problem is that when you bet against the men and women of the U.S. military, you are going to lose. And those who bet against the U.S. military in claiming that their efforts would have no effect in Iraq have lost that bet because it has, and they just can't seem to handle it. Another statement by the majority leader attempting to undermine the credibility of this general--Senator Reid said: General Petraeus has made a number of statements over the years that have not proved to be factual. The chair of the House Democratic caucus, Rahm Emanuel, on September 7, 2007, said: We do not need a report that wins a Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. Suggesting that this general, whom we confirmed just last January by unanimous vote, in charge of multinational forces in Iraq would write a report that could be described as ``fiction'' is an insult. We should make no mistake about the fact that success in Iraq is inextricably linked to our safety here at home. Let us not forget that only 2 months ago, this Senate overwhelming passed a resolution declaring the dangers of a failed Iraq state and expressing our intent not to pursue any strategy which might lead to that failure, passed by a vote of 94 to 3. I agreed with Senator Reid back in January of 2007 when he said: Our hope, our prayer is that this President will finally listen, listen to the generals. That is what we are asking Senator Reid and our friends on the other side of the aisle to do today, is to simply listen to this good man who wears the uniform of the U.S. military and give him a fair hearing. We passed the measure I mentioned a moment ago about taking no action which would likely result in a failed state in Iraq because we recognized that Iraq is the front line in a much larger war, a global war on terrorism. When the Confederate and Union armies met near a small shoe factory in Gettysburg, they could not have known that battle would be a turning point in our Civil War. But as we stand now looking at the situation in Iraq, we must acknowledge that our success or failure there will be a turning point, one way or the other, in the global war on terror. Already we have seen Islamic terrorism spread across the globe from Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Jordan, India, and Bali. All have suffered from Islamic terrorism. European countries such as Spain, Great Britain, and most recently Germany have all had to face the growing threat of suicide bombers and terrorists. Even here at home recently we have seen two terror plots fail, thank goodness, at Fort Dix and at JFK Airport. Were we to close our ears and our minds to what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to report and abandon our effort to provide an ability for the Iraqis to govern and defend themselves, were we to leave the region to the hegemony of Iran, an enemy of this Nation which is developing nuclear weapons, we would leave not only the Iraqis but the people in the region--indeed, ourselves here at home--at the mercy of terrorist organizations and countries that give safe haven to those terrorists, a base of operations which would serve as a launching point for further operations into Europe and America. But if we create a stable self-sufficient Iraq, we can begin to push back the terrorist organizations in the Middle East. We can stop their spread and we can push back, just as the American military has in Anbar Province, recruiting local people, the sheiks, the tribes there to be part of the fight on our side and to eliminate al-Qaida from that region. Just as transparency is the enemy of corruption, free and stable nations are the Achilles' heel of terrorism. Today, 6 years to the day from when we were first attacked, we must redouble our efforts. We must combat terrorism throughout the world, starting with a liberated, secure Iraq. We should make sure that we give General Petraeus and our troops everything they need to win the battle and turn the tide of the larger war, not undermine them by condoning the kind of scurrilous attacks reflected in this New York Times advertisement by MoveOn.org. We should also remember that the war on terrorism is more than a military engagement; it is a battle of wills which we all fight. Every day we meet in this hallowed Chamber, we fight that battle. Every time Americans gather to worship without fear, we fight that battle. Every night when we go home to our families and we find comfort with our loved ones, we are fighting that battle. America's determination to continue our way of life is a powerful statement to the terrorists that you may threaten us, you may attack us, but you will never break the American spirit. We will always cherish freedom, and we will always pursue peace and justice throughout the world. Over the last 6 years, we have had to make many changes in order to adapt to this new threat, but one thing will never change: America will always fight against fear and extremism, and we will always stand up for a peaceful, more humane world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the increasing instability along the Texas/Mexico border is of great concern to me. U.S. citizens who live in the border communities of my home State are caught in the crossfire of drug cartels engaged in illegal trafficking of drugs, weapons, cash, and people. Nuevo Laredo, a city across the river from Laredo, TX, has been caught up in a violent turf war between rival drug gangs fighting for billion-dollar smuggling routes into the United States. This issue is relevant because many people are missing as a result of the violence in Nuevo Laredo, including over 20 U.S. citizens. One tragic example involves Brenda Cisneros and her friend Yvette Martinez a 27-year-old mother of two young girls. On September 17, 2004, the two women were celebrating Brenda's 23rd birthday at a concert across the border in Nuevo Laredo. Neither has been seen since. The ongoing drug wars in Nuevo Laredo are spilling over into Laredo and nearby communities in the United States. I fear the threat of violence to our citizens who live and work in border regions will only continue to escalate. This condition is unacceptable and Mexico must act immediately to end this situation. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials along the border routinely seize guns, ammunition, drugs, and illegal aliens. Additionally, Border Patrol agents face hundreds of assaults each year ranging from shootings, to rock throwing, to attempts to run them over. In August 2005, I sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting that additional resources be allocated to remedy this situation. The Attorney General and the administration quickly took action to protect the people of Texas by sending a Violent Crime Impact Team to address the violence, particularly the problem of missing persons. However, as I noted in a letter to Tony Garza, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, ``the good work of U.S. law enforcement will never be enough without serious commitment and strong efforts from Mexico.'' Since April 2006, I have been working with Ambassador Garza to encourage the Mexican government to help U.S. law enforcement and increase Mexico's efforts in locating the numerous missing persons from the Laredo area. I have also met with other top-level Mexican officials and urged them to allocate more resources toward finding the missing persons, and to coordinate efforts with the United States. It is clear that Mexico must do more to crack down on violence along the border. This legislation provides funds for international narcotics control and law enforcement. The purpose of this provision is to assist foreign countries in combating narcotics, gangs, terrorism, and crime. The House has already passed this bipartisan bill, and we must ensure the programs we are funding are focused in the right direction by including explicit language. According to the House Judiciary Committee report, the committee ``continues to support a strong United States counternarcotics assistance program in order to protect United States communities from the ravages of drugs.'' Furthermore, the House Judiciary Committee recommendation includes $27.5 million for programs in Mexico to support the fight against human, drug, and weapon smuggling. The amendment I am offering today ensures that a portion of this funding will be allocated for locating the many missing Americans who have been lost in the battles between drug cartels. It is simply unacceptable to allow U.S. citizens to become casualties of the violent war being waged by drug gangs in Mexico. The truth is that, just as the violence and instability on the border is a serious problem for both countries, the solution lies both with the United States and Mexico. It will take all of our efforts and Mexico's efforts combined to win the battle against border violence. Any legislation that appropriates funding for programs to combat drug smuggling in Mexico must also allocate resources to combat the fallout of drug trafficking. My amendment simply goes one step further in protecting our communities from the turmoil surrounding the narcotics conflict by facilitating the return of missing Americans to their loved ones.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Leah McCoy, be granted the privilege of the floor until November 29, 2007.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the August recess has given us all an opportunity to return to our constituents and reconnect with the people of our States and listen to what is on their minds, not just what we hear inside the bubble in Washington, DC. For my part, the issues I encountered wherever I went in Texas were concerns about the economy, about jobs, about Government spending. Many people are concerned, and given, unfortunately, the recent history of the Congress and the budget that has already passed, I don't blame them for their concerns. There are some very real reasons they should remain concerned about taxing and spending in the Congress. Mr. President, you will recall that in 2001 and 2003, when Republicans were in the majority, Congress passed well-timed tax relief that helped the economy overcome the fallout from corporate accounting scandals of the late 1990s, the bursting of the tech bubble, and the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. This well-timed and important tax relief put money back into the pockets of working families all across America, in the pockets of small businesses and entrepreneurs, and as a result, the economy has bounced back in an incredible and impressive way. Items such as bonus depreciation and the $100,000 expensing have allowed entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow, not only helping their owners and their families but also creating jobs for their community. We doubled the child tax credit for working parents. We provided tax relief to all taxpayers from higher marginal tax rates. We reduced the marriage tax penalty and protected millions of taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. We also provided capital gains and dividends tax relief for small investors, which have helped increase economic activity and fill the Government's coffers. We continue to benefit from this tax relief we are enjoying by seeing 8.2 million new jobs created, nearly 6 years of uninterrupted economic expansion, and surging tax revenues that have far outpaced projections and helped lower the deficit. In fact, last month, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the budget deficit will fall by more than one-third this year and is almost $20 billion lower than its previous estimate. Meanwhile, it was reported that the economy grew by 4 percent last quarter alone. Unfortunately, there are some on the other side of the aisle who want to fix what is not broken and roll back the progress we have made with the tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003. Instead of talking about tax relief for hard-working Americans, there are those who are talking about raising taxes on Americans. Instead of talking about supporting the American entrepreneurial spirit, some are talking about expanding the size of Government and increasing Government spending. First, we passed a budget a few months ago that contemplated the largest tax increase in our Nation's history, not as a result of the vote of Members of the Congress but by allowing the temporary tax provisions I mentioned a moment ago to expire without taking a single vote. This budget stacked the cards against taxpayers by making it easier for Washington to raise taxes. Then the Senate considered tax policies on a so-called Energy bill that produced no new domestic sources of energy. Instead, it would have reinforced America's dependence on foreign energy sources. At the same time, we have seen legislation pass that raises taxes that especially hits low- and middle-income individuals hard. Next, we saw proposals rejected that would have forced Congress to err on the side of the people by making it more difficult for the Senate to raise taxes. For example, a 60-vote point of order against legislation that raises income taxes that overwhelmingly passed the Senate but was later stripped out during the conference committee on the budget. In addition, some on the other side of the aisle have proposed to raise the Federal gas tax at a time when the price of gasoline remains around $3 a gallon. They have also proposed legislation that slaps what I believe could accurately be called a competition tax on America's entrepreneurs and small businesses by making it more difficult to keep capital at home and to attract capital from abroad. After all, capital formation is the lifeblood of domestic job creation. Finally, some have actually advocated rolling back the 2001 and 2003 tax relief that has done so much good for American businesses and provided my home of Texas with historically low unemployment rates. As this chart shows, American workers will have to work 79 days just to pay for their Federal taxes this year. And that, of course, is on top of the 41 days to pay their State and local taxes--which we can see far exceeds any other category, whether it is housing and household operation or health and medical care or transportation, clothing, or other items. They are far exceeded by the Federal tax bite taken out of the average taxpayer's paycheck. We have been treated to an interesting debate during the Presidential primaries already to see how leading Presidential candidates compare on various tax issues. We have seen proposals from the top Democratic candidates to actually raise the individual tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. We have seen proposals from the top Democratic candidates to tax private equity, carried interest at higher ordinary income rates, and we have seen a proposal to preserve the death tax. On the other hand, top Republican candidates have proposed to preserve the tax cuts, including the 35 percent top rate, preserving the lower capital gains rate for carried interest, and we see on the bottom the difference in the way the top Democratic candidates for President and top Republican candidates for President would treat capital gains and other taxes. Invariably, it seems as if the differences are between those who would take more of a tax bite out of the hard-earned income of the American taxpayer and spend more on Federal Government and those who believe the people who earn the money deserve to keep more of what they earn. This tax relief has given rise to an unprecedented expansion of the economy and job creation beyond some of our wildest dreams. The politics of tax and spend has unfortunately crept back into Washington and threatened to undo a lot of good work that has been done over the past several years. One rather confusing example is the recent passage of the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill increased the CHIP budget by 300 percent, effectively raising taxes to cover the expenditure. But this program has also increased the scope of CHIP coverage to include families of four with an income of more than $80,000, some 400 percent of the poverty level. This creates the double standard of such families being in need by CHIP standards but wealthy under the Tax Code. Our laws should never contain such a ridiculous double standard. This battle for higher taxation and fiscal irresponsibility is nowhere more evident than it is with the confirmation of Jim Nussle as the head of the Office of Management and Budget, a nomination we will be voting on later today. Despite the progress and economic boom that I have described, many Members of Congress are fighting against this nomination, even though this former chairman of the House Budget Committee was a major architect of these successful tax policies which I have described. The House majority leader even remarked that from 2001 to 2006 Congress had ``pursued the most fiscally irresponsible policies.'' And while our current economy seems to contradict that statement, the American taxpayer must certainly disagree. Congressman Nussle has a long and well-established history of financial responsibility and is considered by many to be a leading expert on budget issues and the Federal budget process. Congressman Nussle has worked hard to try to pass meaningful earmark reform, even before it became a popular political rallying cry. He was instrumental in writing the welfare reform bill, and he successfully passed six budgets. Finally, Congressman Nussle has been repeatedly praised for his work on taxes by national organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for the Committee on Government Reform, and the National Tax Limitations Committee. As we move forward, the last thing we should do is to reverse the policies that have helped bring around America's economy, reduced the deficit and put more money in the pockets of Americans. Indeed, we must pursue economic policies that encourage growth and protect the interests of America's taxpayers. The best way to do that is by maintaining the tax relief that has already helped millions of hard- working Americans and by confirming Jim Nussle as head of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since coming to the U.S. Senate in 2002, I have made it my mission to bring a little ``Texas sunshine'' to Washington. The State of Texas has one of the strongest laws expanding the right of every citizen to access records documenting what the government is up to. As attorney general of Texas, I was responsible for enforcing Texas's open government laws. I have always been proud that Texas is known for having one of the strongest and most robust freedom of information laws in the country. Unfortunately, the Sun doesn't shine as brightly in Washington. The Federal Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, which was signed into law 41 years ago, was designed to guarantee public access to records that explain what the Government is doing. Some Federal agencies are taking years to even start working on requests. Far too often when citizens seek records from our Government, they are met with long delays, denials and difficulties. Federal agencies can routinely and repeatedly deny requests for information with near impunity. Making the situation worse, requestors have few alternatives to lawsuits for appealing an agency's decision. And when requestors do sue agencies, the deck is stacked in the Government's favor. Courts have ruled that requestors cannot recover legal fees from agencies who improperly withhold information until a judge rules for the requestor. That means an agency can withhold documents without any consequences until the day before a judge's ruling. Then the agency can suddenly send a box full of documents, render the lawsuit moot and leave the requestor with a hefty legal bill. And the agency gets away scot-free. In the meantime, the delay can keep mismanagement and wasteful practices hidden and unfixed. Documents obtained through FOIA helped reporters for Knight Ridder--now part of McClatchy Company--show the public that veterans who fought bravely for our country have trouble obtaining the medical benefits they deserve upon returning home. Thousands died waiting for their benefits, many more received wrong information. Legal fees alone topped $100,000 along with the time and effort. Few citizens have such time and budgets. To address problems of long delays and strengthen the ability of every citizen to know what its government is up to, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced bipartisan legislation to reform FOIA. There are, unfortunately, many issues in the Senate Judiciary Committee that have become partisan and divisive. So it is especially gratifying to be able to have worked so closely with Chairman Leahy on an issue as important and as fundamental to our Nation as openness in government. Today we are making history by passing the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007, also known as the OPEN Government Act. I am grateful to Senator Leahy and to his staff for all their hard work on these issues of mutual interest and national interest. A special thanks to Lydia Griggsby, Senator Leahy's counsel, for her diligence and hard work. And I would like to thank and to commend Senator Leahy for his decades-long commitment to freedom of information. I also want to especially thank Senators Kyl and Bennett and their respective staff members, Joe Matal and Shawn Gunnarson for their good faith efforts to resolve differences and move this bill out of the Senate. We couldn't have done it without their cooperation and fair- mindedness. Open-government reforms should be embraced by conservatives, liberals, and anyone who believes in the freedom and the dignity of the individual. Passage of this important legislation is a victory for the American people. From my vantage point here in Washington, DC, it is about holding accountable the politicians who continue to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government. And it is about holding accountable the bureaucrats who populate the Federal Government's ever-expanding reach over individual liberty. This legislation contains important congressional findings to reiterate and reinforce our belief that FOIA establishes a presumption of openness, and that our government is based not on the need to know, but upon the fundamental right to know. In addition, the act contains over a dozen substantive provisions, designed to achieve four important objectives: (1) to strengthen FOIA and close loopholes, (2) to help FOIA requestors obtain timely responses to their requests, (3) to ensure that agencies have strong incentives to act on FOIA requests in a timely fashion, and (4) to provide FOIA officials with all of the tools they need to ensure that our government remains open and accessible. The OPEN Government Act is not just pro-openness, pro-accountability, and pro-accessibility--it is also pro-Internet. It requires government agencies to establish a hotline to enable citizens to track their FOIA requests, including Internet tracking, and it grants the same privileged FOIA fee status currently enjoyed by traditional media outlets to bloggers and others who publish reports on the Internet. The act has the support of business groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, media groups and more than 100 advocacy organizations from across the political spectrum. Without their help, this legislation would have been impossible. We owe it to all Americans to help them know what their government is up to and to make our great democracy even stronger and more accountable to its citizens

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know Members are working in good faith to try and resolve this controversy. I decided to go directly to the source, the Director of National Intelligence, right off the floor here tonight monitoring the debates. I asked him what the difference was between the Rockefeller-Levin proposal and the Bond-McConnell proposal. He said to me the Rockefeller-Levin proposal has, in his view, unrealistic timelines. It creates situations of delay, and it creates other structural problems with regard to monitoring foreign-to-foreign communications which should not be the subject of lengthy court proceedings that are otherwise necessary to monitor domestic communications. The Director of National Intelligence, who is nonpartisan, an individual experienced in military matters and intelligence-gathering matters--I don't know any better source to go to who would give me an objective rendition of the differences between these two bills. I hope colleagues will support the McConnell-Bond alternative as one that would be superior to the Rockefeller-Levin proposal and one more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this important legislation with Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This bill is yet another example of the great things that can come from bipartisan cooperation. Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a Washington, DC problem. It is a problem in statehouses and city halls across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch. The legislation we introduce today, the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, will strengthen the enforcement of U.S. Federal laws aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and public trust. Our bill does this both by making substantive changes to public corruption laws and by giving prosecutors new tools to use in their battle against corrupt officials. The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act increases the maximum punishments on several offenses, including theft and embezzlement of Federal funds, bribery, and a number of corrupt campaign contribution practices. For example, it cracks down on theft or bribery related to entities that receive Federal funds, by increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 10 to 15 year and lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, from $5,000 to $1,000. It clarifies the law in response to several court decisions narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the bill broadens the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official acts,'' clarified that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the result of bribery, and clarified that intangible property interests such as licenses can now trigger the mail and wire fraud provisions. Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case. It expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to bring the case against corrupt officials in any district where any part of the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice. Finally, the legislation gives Federal law enforcement what they need most to prosecute public corruption: more resources. Funding of $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 will help enhance the ability of the Department of Justice and the Offices of Inspectors General to effectively combat fraud and public corruption. Importantly, these improvements to current law come with significant input from the career professionals in the Department of Justice. But this legislation by itself is only a start if we want to clean up Washington, DC. Two additional reforms, in particular, are necessary: the OPEN Government Act, and earmark reform. The operations of Government should be as transparent as possible. Quite simply, refusing to let the public have full access to Government records is a betrayal of public trust. This Senate must live up to its duty to provide transparent government and pass the crucial FOIA reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act. Similarly, Congress too often permits its members to walk ethical tight- ropes through questionable earmarking practices. The public sees these for what they too often are: handouts of taxpayer money to special interests. I think it is of the utmost importance that we increase transparency in the earmarking process, exposing the process to the light of the day. I urge my colleagues to support the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, as well as these other important reforms. I look forward to debating these issues in Committee and here on the Senate floor. And I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other legislation we have crafted together.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I applaud the good work of the Senator from South Carolina in pointing out the defects in this bill. I know he has been criticized for exercising his rights as a U.S. Senator to object to a unanimous consent request that the bill go to conference committee where, as we all know, Republicans and Democrats would ordinarily sit down together and work out a compromise and would then come back to the floor for a vote. But as a result of the process employed by the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and the Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, Republicans have had no opportunity to have any impact whatsoever on the final language of this bill. The only time we will have a chance to voice our views on this bill will be the vote that is coming up now. So make no mistake about it, the bill we will be voting on is not the product of bipartisan negotiations; it is exclusively the act of the Democratic majority. I think only time will tell whether this bill operates as advertised or whether, as the Senator from South Carolina points out, it is a complete sham, perhaps presenting a patina or a thin veneer of reform, when, in fact, it really is rotten to the core because of the fact that business as usual will continue to be carried on here when it comes to the nondisclosure of the appropriation of Federal tax dollars for special purposes. Reporting of Bundled Contributions

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this important legislation with Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This bill is yet another example of the great things that can come from bipartisan cooperation. Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a Washington, DC problem. It is a problem in statehouses and city halls across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch. The legislation we introduce today, the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, will strengthen the enforcement of U.S. Federal laws aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and public trust. Our bill does this both by making substantive changes to public corruption laws and by giving prosecutors new tools to use in their battle against corrupt officials. The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act increases the maximum punishments on several offenses, including theft and embezzlement of Federal funds, bribery, and a number of corrupt campaign contribution practices. For example, it cracks down on theft or bribery related to entities that receive Federal funds, by increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 10 to 15 year and lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, from $5,000 to $1,000. It clarifies the law in response to several court decisions narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the bill broadens the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official acts,'' clarified that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the result of bribery, and clarified that intangible property interests such as licenses can now trigger the mail and wire fraud provisions. Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case. It expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to bring the case against corrupt officials in any district where any part of the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice. Finally, the legislation gives Federal law enforcement what they need most to prosecute public corruption: more resources. Funding of $25 million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 will help enhance the ability of the Department of Justice and the Offices of Inspectors General to effectively combat fraud and public corruption. Importantly, these improvements to current law come with significant input from the career professionals in the Department of Justice. But this legislation by itself is only a start if we want to clean up Washington, DC. Two additional reforms, in particular, are necessary: the OPEN Government Act, and earmark reform. The operations of Government should be as transparent as possible. Quite simply, refusing to let the public have full access to Government records is a betrayal of public trust. This Senate must live up to its duty to provide transparent government and pass the crucial FOIA reforms contained in the OPEN Government Act. Similarly, Congress too often permits its members to walk ethical tight- ropes through questionable earmarking practices. The public sees these for what they too often are: handouts of taxpayer money to special interests. I think it is of the utmost importance that we increase transparency in the earmarking process, exposing the process to the light of the day. I urge my colleagues to support the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, as well as these other important reforms. I look forward to debating these issues in Committee and here on the Senate floor. And I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other legislation we have crafted together.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before I talk about the topic that brings me to the floor, I express my gratitude to the majority leader, Senator Reid, for bringing up the freedom of information reform bill that Senator Leahy, the Senator from Vermont, and I have been working on for a number of years. When I was attorney general of Texas, it was my responsibility to enforce our open Government laws, and I became a big advocate of greater transparency, more openness in Government, because I believe that only a public that is truly informed can give their consent. It has to be informed consent. That is, after all, the very fundamental basis for the legitimacy of all of our laws. When I came to the Senate, I was pleased to see that Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had been very active in this area. We joined efforts in a bipartisan way to work on these reforms. I know Senator Kyl has some concerns. He expressed those this morning. He has been good about working with us to try to work our way through that. I share his hope and aspiration that we can work through the differences and perhaps complete our work on those Freedom of Information Act reforms this week before we break for August. I think that would be a very positive development and one that is certainly worthy of the Senate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to turn to the topic that will engage us for perhaps most of the remainder of the week, and that is ensuring that quality health care is available to the next generation. This is, and should be, a top public policy priority for the Congress. Certainly, it is one of mine. I think there will be a lot of attention paid to the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program that will be on the floor shortly. It is noteworthy that SCHIP, so called, was created by Congress in 1997 to fill a gap in our health insurance system. It was targeted at working poor families who had too much income to qualify for Medicaid but could not afford regular health insurance. This program has been enormously successful nationwide, lowering the uninsured rate by nearly 25 percent, and especially in my State of Texas, where we have about 25 percent of our total population currently uninsured. So this has gone a long way to make sure people got access to quality health care. Interacting with Medicaid, insurance coverage has been extended under this program to more than 1 million Texas children who would have otherwise not been covered. So SCHIP deserves reauthorization and renewal. Unfortunately, the Senate Finance bill that will come to the floor seems to take us on a path toward a major step that failed in 1994, and that is a federally funded takeover of national health care. The Senate Finance Committee is proposing a near quadrupling--that is four times-- of SCHIP funding that would increase taxes, weaken private insurance coverage, and create a new de facto entitlement program for middle- class families, all courtesy of the beleaguered American taxpayer. A close analysis demonstrates that, if enacted, the Senate bill would actually have the unintended impact of degrading health care for many children and will not be as nearly beneficial to Texas as a more modest alternative, which I intend to support. The original SCHIP program--again, it is worth spelling out the acronym--State Children's Health Insurance Program--was limited to those families at up to 200 percent of the official poverty level or $40,000 for a family of four. But some States have found a way to expand coverage from first children, then to parents, then to childless adults, and then to families with much higher incomes. Some States, such as New Jersey, now use SCHIP funds to cover families with income of up to 400 percent of the poverty level--up to $82,600 a year for a four-person family. So that is what I mean when I say that SCHIP is now being transmogrified, transformed into a middle-class entitlement, if this finance bill were to pass. Minnesota, instead of using the State Children's Health Insurance Program to target relatively low-income children, as Congress intended, spends 61 percent of SCHIP funding on adults; and Wisconsin spends 75 percent of their SCHIP funding on adults. If this were the U.S. military, we would call this ``mission creep.'' The Senate bill would encourage these distortions further. Nearly a third of the newly covered, some 2 million children, already have private insurance. So let me be clear. What this bill, if enacted, would do would take some people who currently have private insurance and substitute taxpayer-paid-for insurance under this program because, of course, why would anybody pay for something that the Government starts giving away for free? They will drop their private insurance and many of the parents will decide to drop theirs as well, transferring these expenses to the American taxpayer. But many SCHIP programs pay physicians at Medicaid rates; that is, the reimbursement for physicians--a reimbursement rate that is so low that many doctors simply cannot afford to take patients based on those Medicaid rates and, thus, they are refusing new patients. Ironically, the switch to Government-paid SCHIP could mean reduced health care for those recipients who decide to give up private insurance to get free insurance. But where reimbursement is at the Medicaid rate, where there are so few doctors who can afford to treat patients at those rates, children will end up with actually less care in some instances and not more. Many supporters are happy because funding for this expanded program will be paid by tobacco users, through a 61-cent per pack cigarette tax increase. But the accounting is fundamentally flawed. To make it balance, the Senate bill pretends spending on this accelerating program will go from $8.4 billion in 2012 to only $400 million in 2013. As our Republican leader notes, ``Does anyone seriously think Congress will decide to cut SCHIP by $8 billion in one year, so that millions who rely on it will lose their health insurance?'' Of course not. This is phony accounting. No business in America could run its operations this way, and the Federal Government should not try. Supporters of the finance bill claim a badge of fiscal responsibility because this bill only uses $35 billion of the $50 billion budget authority it was given during this year's budget reconciliation. But the finance bill gets that additional $15 billion in budget authority by setting aside billions of dollars for a so-called incentive fund. The SCHIP program was designed as one huge incentive already for the States. The creation of this program says to the States: Go cover children; Congress will give you more money for doing that than we will for covering anyone else. So why are we creating an incentive on top of another incentive? And these incentive payments, of course, will be used to go beyond covering children, which is, of course, Congress's original stated intent. This goes from what I would call mission creep to another incremental step toward a federally controlled, Washington-dictated health care system, paid for by huge tax increases on the American taxpayer. Perhaps the answer is that this fund exists to provide expanded coverage for nontargeted populations; that is, populations Congress did not intend--adults, for example. After all, States, under the Finance Committee bill that is coming to the floor, will have relative freedom to use these funds as they see fit. Where, I ask, is the accountability? Where is the responsibility? The finance bill also puts aside at least $2 billion in a so-called contingency fund. First an incentive fund, then a contingency fund-- both slush funds. But this contingency fund will only be drawn down by $400 million total over 5 years. This represents less than 1 percent of overall spending. I think this blatantly shows the level at which this bill is overfunded. So while the bill is only claiming to spend part of the budgetary authority it is given, it is still creating two budgetary slush funds. I think it is there for another purpose. I think this is another attempt, as I said, to incrementally federalize health care. There will be some of us who will join together, with our leader and Senator Lott, Senator Kyl, and others, to offer a scaled-down alternative called Kids First, which refocuses SCHIP on its intended purpose. It concentrates on outreach--locating and enrolling eligible children. Some 75 percent of uninsured children already qualify for either Medicaid or SCHIP. Kids First aims to sign them up. It also subsidizes eligible families to keep their private coverage and doesn't provide an incentive for them to drop their private coverage to get free coverage courtesy of the American taxpayer. The Senate bill increases spending by $35 billion over 5 years--I should say so far because I know there are amendments that will be offered, and I think I have read Senator Kerry and others will offer amendments to bump that figure to $50 billion, and we have seen even larger figures suggested on the House side. So no telling what a conference committee will ultimately come back with. But Kids First, the alternative which will be offered by this side of the aisle, will cost only $10 billion more than the current SCHIP program. Ironically, under Kids First, the children in my State, Texas, would come out far ahead over the Senate Finance Committee version. SCHIP, as we know, is a joint Federal-State effort involving matching Federal funds. After cutbacks for budget reasons a few years ago, Texas is now ramping up its SCHIP program, enrolling additional eligible children. However, the Senate Finance Committee bill would confiscate about $660 million that Texas has so far left unspent from prior years because we have been responsible, because we haven't used the money that was designated for children to cover adults, as 14 other States have. Under Kids First, we would keep access to all unspent funds for 2 more years so we can locate and recruit and sign up more children--the designated target for this Children's Health Insurance Program. But here is the bottom line: Texas would have $1.6 billion in SCHIP Federal matching funds available next year under Kids First and only $1.06 billion under the Senate bill. In other words, we would be better off under the alternative rather than the Senate Finance Committee bill, and so would the children, who would be the beneficiaries of those funds. Additionally, any matching funds left unspent after that would go back to the U.S. Treasury, and that would not be used to subsidize other States that game the system and distort the program beyond Congress's original intent. One alternative provides the prospect of better health care for Texas children, plus lower taxes, a fiscally responsible government, and more money and more control for my State. For this and other reasons I have stated, I will vote for the Kids First Act, the alternative we will offer, and not the Senate Finance Committee bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time for the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak during our allocation of morning business for up to 20 minutes, with the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, being reserved the last 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about health care because we are going to be on this issue next week. It seems to me there are three things we all care deeply about in this country, no matter who we are or from where we come, and that is access to good quality education for all of our children, a job for people who want to work, and access to quality health care. The fact is, in my State, unfortunately, we have a health care crisis because about 25 percent of the population in my State does not have health insurance. So where they go for their health care is to the emergency rooms of the local hospitals, and that creates a lot of problems because that is the most expensive health care, the emergency room. People who go to the emergency room for their primary health care, if it is not truly an emergency but they have nowhere else to go--and you can hardly blame them--what it does is causes a lot of emergency rooms to go on divert status, and so true emergencies have to go to a farther off location to get care, thus entailing some risk and potentially even loss of life as a result of the delays. We have to tackle this problem. I know there are a lot of good ideas out there. We will be talking about some of those ideas next week when we talk about the reauthorization of the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, that is important to my State and important to insuring children around the country. The problem that has grown up in SCHIP is that, unfortunately, Congress's original intent to provide health insurance to low-income children, up to 200 percent of the poverty level, has simply been overtaken by some States. I believe it is a total of 14 States now that use that money, those Federal funds, Federal taxpayer funds, to actually insure adults, obviously not part of Congress's intent, which was to focus on low-income children. Additionally, the original concept of SCHIP was dedicated to low- income children up to 200 percent of poverty level. We have seen proposals where some have said it ought to go up to as much as 400 percent of the poverty level, which, for a family of four, can mean an income over $80,000 a year and a mandate that SCHIP be used to provide health insurance for people with incomes in excess of $80,000 a year for a family of four. The challenge I think we have is to make a decision between whether we are going to continue to encourage access to private health insurance, a market-driven response, or whether we are going to simply say the Federal Government is going to take this whole matter over and we are going to have a single-payer system, a national system for providing health care. That, to me, is a very important debate. Frankly, from my standpoint, I believe every American needs the resources and the ability to purchase health insurance. I think going to a single-payer, Washington-controlled health care system is simply not the way to go. There are a number of ways we can approach this, and I hope this important debate we will have next week will address these issues. I think we have to end Tax Code discrimination against those who cannot get health insurance through their employer by giving a tax break to every American so they can purchase their own health insurance. Part of the problem is, people are frequently bound to an employer. They are afraid to leave that employer lest they be precluded from getting another health insurance policy because of previous existing conditions. So many people simply lack the portability of their health insurance, the ability to take it from job to job. In effect, they are bound almost to the extent of involuntary servitude with their current employer. We have to change that by creating portability. I think we need to give individuals the ability to take control of their health care needs and to continue to preserve something they think is very important, and that is the relationship between the patient and their health care provider, along with the freedom to choose what is in the best interest of that individual patient, rather than to have the Government determine for them what kind of health care they are going to get and perhaps ration it and create a huge, expensive bureaucracy to do so. I also hope part of this debate on reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program will allow us to look at what the ultimate goals are of some of the proponents. One concern I have is that the dramatic expansion of funding proposed by the Finance Committee--in language we haven't yet seen--will be a precursor to one more incremental step to a Government-controlled, Washington-centered health care bureaucracy, and that will make it harder and harder for us to provide the opportunity for individuals to purchase their own health insurance, along with the right to choose.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding was that you cited 30 minutes of morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last evening the majority leader and I had an exchange on the Senate floor with regard to a proposed amendment by our side that would enhance Federal spending on border security measures and interior enforcement by $3 billion. While it is fair to say there was virtually universal support on this side of the aisle, there was some objection on the other side of the aisle, so that amendment was defeated. Then the majority leader came back with a proposal that would strip some of the language from that amendment, but nevertheless would commit $3 billion to border security. I told the majority leader that I believed it should also include a way to spend that money not just on the border but also for interior enforcement of our immigration laws. In particular, I mentioned the sad phenomenon of roughly 600,000 absconders, people who have been ordered deported and who have simply gone underground rather than obey that lawful order from a court, or people who have actually been deported and then reentered the country after they have been deported. Both of those categories of individuals are known as absconders. They are, under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, felons. I thought it was important that if we were going to be serious about enforcing our immigration laws we not just deal with the border, as important as that is, but we also deal with interior enforcement. We were unable to reach an agreement last night, but I am pleased to say the majority leader was generous enough to call me last night and to tell me he wanted to look more closely at the language we had proposed. I take it from some of his remarks this morning on the floor that it is likely we will be able to reach some sort of agreement that will see those funds in this bill, $3 billion, where the Federal Government will finally do what it has advertised and promised to do for a long time, and that is to actually put the resources behind border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, rather than promise a lot and deliver very little. I am grateful to the majority leader for working with me on that issue. I am hopeful Senator Graham, who was the principal proponent of the border security amendment yesterday that I was proud to cosponsor, will be back here at 10:30 a.m. when we get back on the bill to talk about that amendment. I hope we can reach an agreement. It will go a long way toward beginning to regain the lost confidence and trust of the American people when it comes to our broken immigration system. If there is one diagnosis I would make from our immigration debate over the last few weeks, it has been that people do not trust the Federal Government to actually do what it promises to do in this area. Where we have to start is on a firm foundation of border security and interior enforcement and from that build to a more comprehensive approach that deals with all aspects of the problem.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to Senator Graham for his strong leadership on this issue. I know Senator Pryor, on the other side of the aisle, is the principal Democratic cosponsor. I concur with what Senator Graham said. The necessity for this particular amendment is occasioned by the neglect of the Federal Government over the last 20 years at meeting its commitment to do whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe. This has become, of course, a national focus in a post-9/11 world, when we have to know who is coming across our borders and what their intentions are. We cannot any longer assume people are coming across for benign reasons or are simply economic migrants because we know the same broken borders that allow a person to come across who wants to work in the United States can be exploited by human smugglers or drug traffickers and potentially even those who want to come here and commit acts of terrorism in the United States. Yesterday, I made a part of the Congressional Record, by unanimous consent, the first of a four-part article written in the San Antonio Express News, documenting the movement of what are called special interest aliens; that is, individuals who are coming to America, from countries where terrorism is flourishing, through our broken southern border. The particular story that is documented talks about a young Iraqi who traveled from Damascus, Syria, to Moscow, to Havana and then to Guatemala and then up through the southern border, our southern border with Mexico, into the United States. Thank goodness this individual did not appear to be committed to a life of terrorism, but it demonstrates the kind of vulnerability we have in this country, and it is important we do everything possible to protect it. I am pleased with the majority leader's agreement to now allow us to include the use of these funds for interior enforcement because we know 45 percent of the illegal immigration in this country occurs not from people who violate the border but people who enter legally, then overstay and then go underground. So I am grateful to the majority leader and am pleased to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have no objection, and I appreciate the generous remarks of the majority leader and his willingness to work with Senator Graham and me on this important issue.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that out of our allotted morning business time I be granted 5 more minutes, and then I will turn the floor over to my other colleagues who wish to speak.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate that, Mr. President. Mr. President, one of the concerns I think many people have about the dramatic expansion proposed by the Senate Finance Committee's adding an additional $35 billion on top of the existing $25 billion commitment for State health insurance plans in the SCHIP program is that it bears remarkable resemblance to a plan originally proposed by the health care task force of President Clinton, and particularly the one that has come to be known--and I don't know whether she takes pride in this title or is offended by it, and I certainly don't mean any offense, but sometimes known as Hillary Care. This was a plan, as we will all recall, that grew out of a task force chaired by the then-First Lady which I think states very clearly its goal to start the role of Federal control of health coverage with kids first, or children, and then to add employer groups, individuals, and then Medicaid recipients. So that instead of the current 50 percent of health care in America today paid for by the Federal taxpayer and the Federal Government, it would grow to 100 percent, which would simply preclude any private marketplace and the individual choice that goes along with it for individuals. Mr. President, just so you don't take my word for it and that it is made clear, I will offer from that task force report page 22, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Clearly, in this document, you will see that it does say that this proposal phases in universal coverage starting with Kids First. It says Kids First is really a precursor to the new system, and then other populations it proposes to phase in are employer groups, individuals, Medicaid recipients, and the like. So I think that is what a lot of us are concerned about. And perhaps Senator Clinton, now that she is a Member of this body, will talk to us a little bit about it and what her intentions are, what the intentions of the proponents are of the Finance Committee bill because there are some very serious concerns. I will yield in a moment to the Senator from South Carolina, who has been so active in this area, but I think, as he will explain, there are a lot of us who would like to see not just additional money being provided for children's health insurance but that literally we make as our goal to provide each and every American access to their own health insurance, along with the individual choice and the freedom and the portability that will provide. I know the Senator from South Carolina has done an awful lot of work on it--I have learned a lot from him in this area--and I think it is an important time to start this critical debate, and not just stop with the expansion of the SCHIP program, but to seek as our goal to provide each and every individual access to health care coverage of their own choosing. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Option 3: Kids First Coverage Implementation Start: January 1, 1995. Phase-in: By Population, Beginning with Children. Universal Coverage Achieved by: January 1, 2000. Summary This proposal phases in universal coverage, minimizes the financial burden of the program at the outset, and covers the most vulnerable of our citizens--children--as quickly as possible. Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children. Other populations are phased in as follows: Employer Groups: July, 1997; Individuals: January, 1998; Medicaid: January, 2000. States may be granted a grace period under certain circumstances. This proposal is designed in two parts which will be implemented simultaneously: I. The quick coverage of children--``Kids First''; and, II. the development of structures for transitioning to the new system and the phasing in of certain population groups. Part I, Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with States given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures. The Federal government, States, and the private sector will play a role in its implementation and financing. Part II of this proposal involves the development of purchasing cooperative (PC) structures and the actual phase- in of all other population groups within the PC system.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side in morning business?