John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I disagree with the characterization of the distinguished majority leader. The objection to the proposed unanimous consent was to only a portion of the original Graham amendment of which I was a cosponsor. It completely overlooked and ignored 45 percent of the illegal immigration in this country caused by people who enter with a visa that is legal but then they overstay. My suggestion to the distinguished majority leader and other colleagues is that we not ignore that 45 percent but, rather, include that as an acceptable expenditure under current law for part of the $3 billion. He has explained to me that there is objection on his side to including that 45 percent of illegal immigration as part of the accepted expenditures for this $3 billion. I am sure he has accurately reported what his conference or caucus has said. But my concern is that we not spend money on the border security component and then pat ourselves on the back and claim success when, indeed, the proposal would have ignored 45 percent of the cause of illegal immigration. We need an approach that will deal both with border security as well as the interior enforcement caused by visa overstays.

Mr. CORNYN. My apologies, Mr. President. I will be brief. My staff reminded me there was one other amendment I was going to mention that I failed to mention. It will be an amendment I will also offer later on that builds upon the good work of Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from New Mexico, that was unanimously approved by the Senate earlier this week. My amendment will actually double the amount Congress can provide for the Border Relief Grant Program that will help local law enforcement in towns and cities along our borders cover some of the costs they incur serving as the backup to Federal officials when it comes to combating illegal immigration and fighting drug traffickers and other border- related crimes. The Senate unanimously approved this same amendment during debate on the immigration bill we considered earlier this year. It is also included in the comprehensive border security package Senator Graham has offered and is currently pending, and, of course, of which I am a cosponsor. It is the obligation of the Federal Government to adequately secure the Nation's borders and prevent the flow of undocumented persons and illegal drugs into the United States. For far too long, local law enforcement officers--I am talking about sheriffs, I am talking about police chiefs, and others--as well as local taxpayers, have borne the burden of law enforcement, given the failure of the Federal Government to adequately fund the Border Patrol and to demonstrate its willingness to secure the border. So now it is time not only to add to the Federal law enforcement officials--by increasing the number of Border Patrol--but it is time for the Federal Government to own up to its responsibilities and fund local law enforcement through this grant program to the extent they are willing and able to support the Federal Government's efforts to secure the border. This Border Relief Grant Program will give the men and women in law enforcement, who are on the frontline of securing America's border, the necessary support to do their jobs and ensure that local taxpayers do not have to foot the bill. These funds can be used to obtain equipment, hire additional personnel, and upgrade law enforcement technology. It is my hope my colleagues will support this amendment again, as they have before. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to, if I may, turn to one other issue; and that has to do with the nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick. I heard the distinguished Democratic whip, majority whip, speak to the Southwick nomination earlier, and I wish to make sure, in fairness, there is a complete consideration of the facts. Of course, Judge Southwick, the nominee to which the majority whip objects, has been given the highest marks by his peers for the qualities of fairness and compassion by both the Mississippi Bar Association and the American Bar Association on two occasions, both when he was nominated to serve as a Federal district judge and now with his nomination to the Fifth Circuit. Regarding Senator Durbin's concerns, of course, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, he voted to confirm Judge Southwick to a lifetime Federal bench. So I wonder why, now that he has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit, those concerns have arisen when, in fact, there were no such concerns expressed when Judge Southwick was nominated and confirmed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Federal district bench. I heard Senator Durbin criticize Judge Southwick for his participation in the case of Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services. The fact of it is, Judge Southwick did not write the opinion Senator Durbin is critical of. Of course, as a judge, unlike a legislator, a judge has no choice but to vote. He voted for the result, for the outcome of the case, but I think it is unfair to attribute the writing of the opinion to Judge Southwick, something he did not write. Of course, we all deplore the racial slur which was the subject of that opinion. The board determined, from the evidence before it, that the racial slur was an isolated comment, was made outside of the target's presence, was followed by an apology--which I think is significant--which was accepted and did not result in significant disruption of the workplace. Under Mississippi law, the board's ruling could only be reversed if it was ``arbitrary and capricious, accepting in principle the notion that a decision unsupported by any evidence is by definition arbitrary and capricious.'' The court of appeals majority, including Judge Southwick, operating under a highly deferential standard of review--which is applied in the case of agency decisions routinely--upheld the board's decision and found that there was some evidence to support the board's ruling that the isolated comment did not sufficiently disturb the workplace so as to justify the employee's termination. The majority made clear it did not endorse or excuse the slur. They said: We do not suggest that a public employee's use of racial slurs . . . is a matter beyond the authority of the employing agency to discipline. In other words, they said it would be appropriate to discipline a person for using racial slurs. Of course, Judge Southwick reiterated his disdain for the use of any racial slurs and has repeatedly told the committee that the use of the word at issue is--in his words--``always offensive''--I would hope we would all agree with that--and ``inherently and highly derogatory.'' At the hearing he said: ``There is no worse word.'' He said it was ``unique'' and that he could not imagine anything more offensive. In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, Judge Southwick wrote: Use of this word is wrong, improper, and should offend everyone regardless of the speaker's intent. I agree. As a legal matter, the Supreme Court of Mississippi explicitly agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that dismissal was unwarranted. That was the appeal from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The supreme court said: In this case, we find that the harsh penalty of dismissal of Bonnie Richmond from her employment is not warranted under the circumstances. We can agree or disagree with the decision made by the board that reviewed that. We can agree or disagree with the decision of the court of appeals. But I do not know why, after the American Bar Association-- the professional organization that reviews Federal nominees--after they have reviewed Judge Southwick's record, including his participation in that decision, and found him to be highly qualified, why we would come back and try to besmirch his reputation as a part of trying to defeat this nomination. I am sure there will be more discussion about Judge Southwick as we go forward. I hope we are not heading down a very dangerous path again, which is to deny this President's nominees--or any President's nominees--an opportunity for an up-or-down vote. Right now, I know the senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, has been talking to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman has offered a vote for Judge Southwick's nomination in the committee. But right now Judge Southwick is continuing to have consultation with members of the committee, in hopes he can get an up-or-down vote in the committee and then hopefully come to the floor where we can have a debate which will cover the whole range of Judge Southwick's qualifications and his resume and his record so the Members of the Senate can fairly ascertain for themselves whether he should be confirmed and then have an up-or-down vote. But right now I hate to see Judge Southwick unfairly criticized by attributing to him something he did not even say, by joining an opinion which was ultimately upheld by the Mississippi Supreme Court in compliance with appropriate legal standards. That is what judges do. They do not decide winners and losers and then try to justify the result. They apply the law impartially to everyone who comes before them. From all appearances, Judge Southwick has been true to that requirement and that great tradition of our judiciary. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Bensman, in this article, found the following in his investigation, and I will summarize. More than 5,700 illegal immigrants from 43 countries with majority Muslim populations, including state sponsors of terror, have been caught while traveling over the Canadian and Mexican border along well-established underground smuggling routes since 9/11, a traffic that continues today. Mr. Bensman estimates between 20,000 and 60,000 of these so-called special interest aliens, by virtue of their country of origin being countries where terrorism is, unfortunately, alive and well or because they are state sponsors of international terrorism, have gotten through without being caught since 9/11. These migrants, although relatively small in total numbers, are high risk because they hail from countries where American troops are actively battling Islamic insurgents, nations where radical Islamic organizations have bombed U.S. interests or murdered Americans. Unguarded U.S. borders are most certainly in the terrorists' playbooks as a means of entering the country. Since the late 1990s, at least a dozen confirmed terrorists have sneaked over U.S. borders, including operatives from Hezbollah, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, and one al-Qaida terrorist once No. 27 on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list. On the U.S. side of the border, the FBI is supposed to interrogate and conduct a threat assessment and interrogations on every captured special interest alien, but the process is severely flawed and open to error. Often, the FBI signs off on captured special interest aliens, allowing them access to the political asylum process without conclusively knowing whether they are or are not associated with terrorist organizations. Furthermore, Border Patrol agents are simply using expedited removal processes to kick special interest aliens back over the border into Mexico, where they will certainly try to cross again, with no investigation and no FBI referral whatsoever. This series of articles published in the San Antonio Express News will be an eye-opener for the people of this country. Frankly, those of us who are Members of the Senate have the privilege of having classified briefings from time to time. Of course, we cannot talk about that intelligence information on which we are briefed behind closed doors. But here in the public domain are the results of Mr. Bensman's investigation in chilling detail, chronicling the movement of an individual from Damascus, Syria, to Detroit, MI, via Moscow, Havana, into Guatemala, and then up through Mexico's southern border and into the United States. I have met with Border Patrol agents. Perhaps the current occupant of the chair and others have had the same experience I have. I asked them, out of the 1.1 or the 1.3 million people we actually detain coming across our southern border, for every person we detain, how many people do you think get across? I have heard estimates ranging from detaining maybe one out of every three to one out of every four. The truth is, nobody knows for sure who gets away. We do know that people who are detained and returned across the border likely try again. So it is hard to get good information. This is not a matter of solely economic migrants coming from Mexico or Central or South America into the United States. The truth is, Central America and Mexico are a land bridge into the United States for anybody anywhere around the world who wants to come here, anybody who has the money to pay the human smugglers to get them here. Obviously, these could be individuals who want to work and who want nothing but a better life--what we all have and want in America--but it can also be very dangerous people who want to do us harm. That is the reason this funding, this emergency funding for border security, is so important. It is also important that we begin to regain the lost public confidence that the Federal Government can actually deliver on its promises. We have been telling people for a long time how important it is in a post-9/11 world to know who is coming into our country and why people are coming here. Recognizing that if there is a way to separate the economic migrants and to create an immigration system that would give people an opportunity through legal immigration to come to the United States on a controlled basis, it will then allow law enforcement agencies an effort to target those who are common criminals, drug dealers or, indeed, terrorists or special interest aliens from state sponsors of terrorism. We were reminded again about the dangers from our porous borders when, on Monday, officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that they had arrested more than 100 gang members in Texas. These 121 suspects represent 27 different gangs, including the notorious Mexican Mafia and MS-13. Of course, MS-13 is the ultraviolent Central American gang that has come into the United States through our broken borders. More than half of these gang members had criminal charges against them, and nearly half of them were arrested on administrative and immigration-related charges. So we see time and time again, as most recently as the daily newspaper, what the threat is. Yet Congress continues to do not nearly enough to fix it. This amendment gives us an opportunity to fix the problem at the border. It is not just at the border. We need to deal with our broken immigration system because roughly 45 percent of the people who are illegally present in the country today in violation of our immigration laws came in on a legal visa but simply overstayed and melted into the vast American landscape. So we have to, as this amendment does, make sure we find ways to police visa overstayers. We need to make sure we continue to work on document fraud and identity theft that makes it hard for even good faith employers to determine the legal eligibility of prospective employees to work in America. This amendment is the first big step toward regaining the public's confidence again and demonstrating that we are actually serious about delivering on our promises, not engaged in overpromising but underdelivering, as we have in the past. I will be offering at a later time some amendments myself. Coming from a border State with 1,600 miles of common border with Mexico, this is a personal issue to many of my constituents, particularly. While some, such as the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, believe strongly in the need for more fencing along the border, it is controversial along the border in south Texas. I have worked with those local officials and property owners. We have two amendments I will be talking more about later. The consultations we have conducted have been useful in coming up with creative ways to accomplish the nonnegotiable goal of border security. I noticed most of the property abutting the Rio Grande River is private property. I am not sure the Border Patrol or the Department of Homeland Security has really thought through the fencing idea and what it would mean to condemn through eminent domain proceedings private property along the border in Texas. I am informed that in Arizona and other places, much of the property along the border is already owned by the Federal Government, so we don't have that issue. But I have found in Texas, this is a controversial issue. I have been pleased to work with my colleague, Senator Hutchison, to make sure that in this amendment and in every opportunity, we have insisted upon consultation with local elected officials and property owners to achieve the most effective means of border security, recognizing that result is nonnegotiable but how we get there should be the subject of consultation and negotiation. Getting back to the private property issue, one of my amendments will ask the Department of Homeland Security to produce a report talking about the impact on border security due to the fact that much of the property, for example, in Texas is private property and asking them to come back and tell Congress so we can make more intelligent decisions about how to effectively use the taxpayers' money to accomplish that nonnegotiable goal of border security, given the fact that a lot of that property is private property and would require, if fencing was going to be built on it, that some sort of eminent domain proceeding would go forward. Obviously, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Mississippi, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would want to know whether the Federal taxpayer is going to be asked to pay just compensation for eminent domain proceedings if, in fact, those were contemplated. There is a lot of beneficial discussion going on as we talk about this with local officials and others. For example, on my many visits to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, I have heard local law enforcement officials and the Border Patrol talk about the problems caused by an invasive plant commonly called Carrizo cane. Carrizo cane, as it turns out, grows so big and so fast that not even the night-vision technology used by Border Patrol agents can penetrate the Carrizo cane. It serves as a safe haven for human smugglers and common criminals along the border. If the Federal Government could work with local officials and local property owners to eradicate Carrizo cane, this robust perennial grass that can grow to a height of 20 to 30 feet, multistemmed clumps that resemble bamboo and forms large colonies, it would enhance the natural barrier the Rio Grande River already provides in many places along the border. Thus, it would also assist the local Border Patrol agents by providing a clear line of sight and ready access to areas that are currently not available to them because of the dense growth of this Carrizo cane. I am pleased to say the Border Patrol has taken the suggestion and is talking to local officials and property owners. This shows some real promise. But it demonstrates what happens when you have local officials and people who live in the community talking to Federal officials trying to come up with a solution to a common problem. Now, when the Federal Government--folks operating in the Beltway-- decide they have a better idea, and they do not care what local and State officials think about it, well, usually that creates a lot of conflict and it also creates a less perfect solution and maybe not a solution at all. So I will be offering that Carrizo cane amendment as well as another amendment which would require a report by the Department of Homeland Security on the impact of border security measures on private property owners along the Rio Grande River a little later on. But I close by saying the threat posed by common criminals--as a result of our broken borders--to drug dealers is very real. As Mr. Bensman's article points out, the access through our broken borders to virtually anybody in the world who has enough money to pay the smugglers to get them in is an open door to people whom we prefer not come here; namely, people who come from countries that are state sponsors of international terror and, perhaps, people with the goals of harming innocent Americans, taking advantage of the same broken borders that yield access to economic migrants. Exhibit 1 [From the San Antonio Express-News] Breaching America: War Refugees or Threats? (By Todd Bensman) Damascus, Syria.--Al Nawateer restaurant is a place where dreams are bartered and secrets are kept. Dining areas partitioned by thickets of crawling vines and knee-high concrete fountains offer privacy from informants and agents of the Mukhabarat secret police. The Mukhabarat try to monitor the hundreds of thousands of Iraq war refugees in this ancient city, where clandestine human smuggling rings have sprung up to help refugees move on--often to the United States. But the refugees who frequent Al Nawateer, gathering around Table 75 or sitting alone in a corner, are undaunted, willing to risk everything to meet a smuggler. They come to be solicited by someone who, for the right price, will help them obtain visas from the sometimes bribery-greased consulates of nations adversarial or indifferent to American security concerns. The deals cut at places like Al Nawateer could affect you. Americans from San Antonio to Detroit might find themselves living among immigrants from Islamic countries who have come to America with darker pursuits than escaping war or starting a new life. U.S.-bound illicit travel from Islamic countries, which started long before 9-11 and includes some reputed terrorists, has gained momentum and worried counterterrorism officials as smugglers exploit 2 million Iraq war refugees. The irony is that the war America started to make itself safer has forced more people regarded as security threats toward its borders. A stark reminder of U.S. vulnerability at home came this month when six foreign-born Muslims, three of whom had entered the country illegally, were arrested and accused of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix in New Jersey. What might have happened there is sure to stoke the debate in Congress, which this week will take up border security and immigration reform. But the Iraqi refugee problem provides a twist on the question of what assurances America owes itself in uncertain times: What do we owe Iraqis thrown into chaos by the war? Politically, immigration can be a faceless issue. But beyond the rhetoric, the lives of real people hang in the balance. A relatively small but politically significant number are from Islamic countries, raising the specter, some officials say, of terrorists at the gate. For those few, the long journey to America starts at places like Al Nawateer. The restaurant's reputation as a meeting place is what drew Aamr Bahnan Boles. Night after night, Boles, a lanky 24-year-old, sat alone eating grilled chicken and tabouli in shadows cast by Al Nawateer's profusion of hanging lanterns: Boles always came packing the $5,000 stake his father had given him when he fled Iraq. Boles was ordering his meal after another backbreaking day working a steam iron at one of the area's many basement-level garment shops when he noticed a Syrian man loitering near his table. The Syrian appeared to be listening intently. He was of average build and wearing a collared shirt. Boles guessed, he was about 35 years old. When the waiter walked away, the Syrian approached Boles, leaned over the cheap plastic table and spoke softly. He introduced himself as Abu Nabil, a common street nickname revealing nothing. ``I noticed your accent,'' the Syrian said politely. ``Are you from Iraq?'' Boles nodded. ``I could help you if you want to leave,'' the Syrian said. ``Just tell me when and where. I can get you wherever you want to go.'' For an instant, Boles hesitated. Was the Syrian a Mukhabarat agent plotting to take his money and send him back to Iraq? Was he a con artist who would deliver nothing in return for a man's money? ``I want to go to the USA,'' Boles blurted. ``It can be done,'' said the Syrian. But it wouldn't be cheap, he warned. The cost might be as high as $10,000. Hedging against a con, Boles said he didn't have that kind of money. The Syrian told him there was a bargain-basement way of getting to America. For $750, he could get Boles a visitor's visa from the government of Guatemala in neighboring Jordan. ``After that you're on your own,'' the Syrian said. ``But it's easy. You fly to Moscow, then Cuba and from there to Guatemala.'' The implication was obvious. The Syrian would help Boles get within striking distance of the U.S. border. The rest was up to him. Boles knew it wouldn't be easy or quick: Not until a year later in-fact, in the-darkness just before dawn on April 29, 2006, would he finally swim across the Rio Grande on an inner tube and clamber up the Texas riverbank 40 miles west of Brownsville. But Boles was undaunted. He cut a deal with the Syrian, setting in motion a journey into the vortex of a little-known American strategy in the war on terror: stopping people like him from stealing over the border. River of immigrants Near the tiny Texas community of Los Indios, the Rio Grande is deep, placid and seemingly of little consequence. But its northern bank is rigged with motion sensors that U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor closely, swarming whenever the sensors are tripped: Here and all along the river, an abstract concept becomes real. America's border with Mexico isn't simply a political issue or security concern. It is a living body of water, surprisingly narrow, with one nation abutting its greenish- brown waters from the north and another from the south. Since 9-11, the U.S. government has made guarding the 1,952-mile Mexican border a top priority. One million undocumented immigrants are caught each year trying to cross the southern and northern U.S. borders. Because all but a tiny fraction of those arrested crossing the southern border are Mexican or Central American, issues of border security get framed accordingly and cast in the image of America's neighbors to the south. Right or wrong, in this country the public face of illegal immigration has Latino features. But there are others coming across the Rio Grande, and many are in Boles' image. People from 43 so-called ``countries of interest'' in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa are sneaking into the United States, many by way of Texas, forming a human pipeline that exists largely outside the public consciousness but that has worried counterterrorism authorities since 9-11. These immigrants are known as ``special-interest aliens.'' When caught, they can be subjected to FBI interrogation, detention holds that can last for months and, in rare instances, federal prison terms. The perceived danger is that they can evade being screened through terror-watch lists. The 43 countries of interest are singled out because terrorist groups operate there. Special-interest immigrants are coming all the time, from countries where U.S. military personnel are battling radical Islamist movements, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Philippines. They come from countries where organized Islamic extremists have bombed U.S. interests, such as Kenya, Tanzania and Lebanon. They come from U.S.-designated state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan. And they come from Saudi Arabia, the nation that spawned most of the 9-11 hijackers. Iraq war refugees, trapped in neighboring countries with no way out, are finding their way into the pipeline. Zigzagging wildly across the globe on their own or more often with well-paid smugglers, their disparate routes determined by the availability of bogus travel documents and relative laxity of customs-enforcement practices, special- interest immigrants often converge in Latin America. And, there, a northward flow begins. Nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in support of the Graham amendment, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, and to provide my colleagues some information I found particularly revealing in the form of a four-part series in my hometown newspaper, the San Antonio Express News, written in May of 2007. The author of the series, a reporter by the name of Todd Bensman, chronicles the movement of an Iraqi individual from Damascus, Syria, to Detroit, MI. It is particularly instructive, as we are contemplating this amendment and the importance of funding border security measures, that this kind of information be brought to the attention of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have the first of the four-part article from MySA.com entitled ``Breaching America: War refugees or threats?'' printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thought we were getting along well until that last comment by the majority leader. I want to solve this problem too. I think my record of involvement in the immigration and border security issue has demonstrated that. I am not interested in scoring political points; I am interested in solving the problem. But I am suggesting that the proposal by the majority leader will not solve the problem. It solves 55 percent of the problem, not the remaining 45 percent. I assure the distinguished majority leader that I am interested in a solution. That is why I proposed that some of this money would be able to be allocated for interior enforcement, including the 632,000 absconders, people under final orders of deportation who have simply gone underground or who have left the country and then reentered illegally, both of which are classified as felons under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. I would have thought that the majority leader would think that an appropriate use for some of this $3 billion in this amendment, to go after those felons, to make sure our laws are enforced according to the letter of the law as written by Congress. I regret he does not see it the way I do. I guess that is where we are. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I welcome the opportunity always to work with the distinguished majority leader on legislation, including this legislation. But the fact is, the American people have lost confidence in the Federal Government when it comes to broken borders and our lack of enforcement of our immigration system. It is more appropriate that we contain the requirements in the amendment itself and not in letters he and I might write to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The fact is, the Department is not going to do anything unless we direct them to do so in legislation. I regret the distinguished majority leader has to object to my request to include, in addition to border security, provisions saying that the money could be spent for interior enforcement as well. If that is the way it is, that is where we are.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, last week was not a great week in the U.S. Senate. We had an overnight session that was designed to highlight the efforts by the majority to pass a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq, regardless of the consequences of that timeline and that withdrawal. We then had another episode where I think both sides of the aisle were sort of forced to look in the abyss and to pull back because, as I am sure the Chair and other colleagues will recall, there was an amendment clearly offered to embarrass the President and this side of the aisle based upon the commutation of the sentence of Scooter Libby. There was an amendment offered highlighting the dozens of pardons issued by President Clinton. As you will recall, Mr. President, people paused at where we had gotten to in this debate--the acrimony and incriminations--and decided to figuratively lay our guns on the table and walk away. That vote on the Scooter Libby commutation was actually vitiated, something I have never seen happen before, but I guess anything can happen by unanimous consent in the Senate, and it did. And there was no vote on the amendment to deal with the Clinton pardons. I mention those because I think, unfortunately, the Senate has gotten to a bad place, not only in the eyes of the American people, where 16 percent, according to the most recent poll I have seen, believe the Senate is doing a good job, but we have gotten to a bad place in terms of the hyperpartisan atmosphere and the point-scoring that seems to take precedence over all other matters. That is not the kind of Senate I ran to serve in, and I know that a number of colleagues feel exactly the same way. On Tuesday mornings, thanks to Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, we have instituted a new breakfast meeting each week. It is a bipartisan meeting. This was the subject of some conversation--the amendments, the hyperpartisan atmosphere, and really the episodes I just mentioned that occurred last week. Again this morning, on Wednesday morning, one of the highlights of my week, I attended the Senate Prayer Breakfast. It is also bipartisan, obviously. This was brought up again, although I am not going to go into any detail since both of those meetings occur without any policy statements and, obviously, press is not invited; it is a private meeting where Senators can come together on a bipartisan basis, both at the Wednesday breakfast and the Tuesday breakfast, and talk about issues we care about, trying to do things for the American people, in the case of a prayer breakfast to share stories and get to know each other a little bit better. I will say that there is some recognition that the Senate has too many team meetings--and by that I mean with Republicans meeting with other Republicans trying to figure out how we can win or score points against Democrats and Democrats meeting with Democrats thinking about ways they can score points against Republicans--and not enough meetings where we get together on a bipartisan basis to try to figure out what we can do to get business done for the benefit of the American people. Senator Kyl mentioned the woeful record of accomplishments so far this year. I note that beyond the unanimous consent requests that were proffered this morning that passed the Wounded Warrior legislation and the pay raise for our men and women in uniform, the minimum wage increase is the only substantive legislation that has passed so far this year, notwithstanding that being part of the ``6 for '06'' part of the campaign our friends on the other side of the aisle made part of their agenda. I note, as Senator Kyl has pointed out, that since taking power more than 200 days ago, the new majority has renamed 20 post offices. But my point is that it has opened more than 300 investigations and held more than 600 oversight hearings. Unfortunately, this has resulted in an effort to try to score political points by looking backward, conducting investigations about matters that have happened in the past or, I fear, too often partisan purposes and at the loss of our ability to look forward and figure out how do we work together to solve problems. I guess one of the most recent manifestations of this hyperpartisan atmosphere and the kind of point-scoring we see going on, to the detriment of passing good bipartisan legislation, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, announced recently his intention to submit two resolutions to censure the President, one for his handling of the war in Iraq and the other for antiterrorism policies the administration has established. Of course, if he does follow through with his stated intention to submit these censure resolutions, that would prompt debate on what I believe would be meaningless political gestures and would further delay substantive legislation we should be considering. Senator Kyl mentioned the most direct example of the kind of game- playing we have seen recently with the Defense authorization bill. Of course, that served as the platform for the debate on the withdrawal resolutions and the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by Senator Levin and Senator Reed, but when that did not pass, of course, that legislation was pulled from the Senate's agenda. Of course, as Senator Kyl pointed out, there are a lot of important parts of that bill which will not be enacted because it was pulled down. I am glad to see that the Wounded Warrior legislation, which I have worked on as part of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has now passed, as well as the 3-percent across-the-board pay raise. But other important parts of that legislation have not been passed, including a $4.1 billion authorization to procure Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. These, of course, are a new design of vehicles that are designed to defeat improvised explosive devices, which have been one of the most deadly weapons used against our troops in Iraq. Unfortunately, many of these weapons have been shipped, especially explosive foreign penetrators, from Iran to Iraq. There are other important parts of this legislation: For example, adding $2.7 billion for items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirements list, including money for reactive armor and Stryker requirements; $207 million for aviation survivability equipment; $102 million for combat training centers, and funding for explosive ordnance equipment, night-vision devices, and the like. There is also $50 million in supplemental educational aid to local school districts affected by the assignment or location of military families, so-called impact aid, which affects my State. A lot of school districts depend on that money which is provided to local school districts because, of course, Federal property cannot be taxed for purposes of local education, and when you have a Federal military installation there with a lot of children going to those schools, the only way they can pay the bills is to get this impact aid. I could go on and on. Unfortunately, because of what we have seen in this hyperpartisan atmosphere, those important provisions of the Defense authorization bill have not been passed, although I am glad that the Wounded Warrior legislation and the 3-percent pay raise did pass this morning by unanimous agreement. Then, of course, we see another casualty of the hyperpartisan atmosphere where it took more than 100 days for the new majority to allow the passage of an emergency war funding bill for our troops in combat. This delay caused a lot of dislocation and hardship for our men and women in uniform and their families, the very people we ought to be trying to lighten the burden for rather than burden them further with the political theater and the political wars in the Senate. Then there is the issue of judicial nominees. The last 2 years of President Clinton's term of office, with a Republican-controlled Congress, there were, if memory serves me correctly, 15 to 17 circuit court nominees confirmed. So far, we have only had a handful confirmed by this Congress, and we have judges stuck in this slow walk of a process--for example, judges such as Leslie Southwick, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Southwick's qualifications and credentials are outstanding. The American Bar Association has given him its highest rating. He was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee for a life- tenured position as a U.S. district judge during the 109th Congress. Although he is from Mississippi now and serves on the State courts in Mississippi, he graduated from the University of Texas in 1975. After completing law school, he clerked for the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and then for Judge Charles Clark on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. After a few years in private practice, Judge Southwick reentered Government service in 1989 when he became a deputy assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1994, Judge Southwick was elected 1 of the first 10 judges on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He remained on the bench, except for a military leave of absence from 2004 until 2006. During that time, he served as a staff judge advocate for the 155th Brigade combat team in Iraq. Despite his stellar qualifications and strong support from his two home State senators, so far it has been the demonstrated intent of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to block his ability to get a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and to prevent him from getting an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I should correct that. In fairness, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has offered to give Judge Southwick a vote in the committee, but we know committee Democrats are poised not only to tarnish the good record of this judge but then to perhaps send him here with a negative vote in committee. I know there are talks that are ongoing. Unfortunately, I think this is a demonstration again of the hyperpartisan atmosphere that unfortunately poisons relations, not only between colleagues in the Senate but turns off so many people across the country. It is regrettable. My hope is, as we did last Thursday night, that we can walk away from this hyperpartisan atmosphere, seeing that basically no one wins when congressional approval hovers at 16 percent. It is hard to imagine that it could go much lower. Unless we turn away from the kinds of practices we have seen for the first 200 days under this new majority and unless we try harder to work together, have less team meetings and have more bipartisan meetings where we talk about what we can do to pass legislation for the benefit of the American people, I fear Congress will continue to be held in low esteem by the American people. It is important that we wake to what should be a wake-up call that is provided by these low poll numbers and the recognition that this serves no one's best interests, certainly not the best interests of the American people. My hope is that rather than just naming more post offices, rather than passing one or two bills, such as the minimum wage bill and now these bills by unanimous consent this morning, we will seize this opportunity to try to do what is in the best interest of the American people. That is why most of us came to the Senate. Unfortunately, we have been captivated by the partisanship that is insisted upon too often by narrow special interest groups that seem to spend a lot of time at the Capitol and have way too much influence, in my view. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a crime bill that I hope all of my colleagues will support. Several of my colleagues and I have worked with the Department of Justice to develop an important comprehensive crime bill which will provide new tools to law enforcement and prosecutors across the country. This is an important issue. The New York Times wrote recently that violent crime was on the rise in our larger cities. Murder, robbery and gun assaults seem to be on the rise in midsized to large cities. Experts attribute this increase, in part, to the spread of drug use, gangs, high poverty, a record number of people being released from prison, and easy access to guns and a willingness to settle disputes with them. This comprehensive crime bill will help law enforcement officers and prosecutors beat back this rise in violent crimes. It is an extensive bill but let me discuss a few of its provisions here. Over the past several years, Congress has worked to crack down on child predators. From the PROTECT Act in 2003 to last year's Adam Walsh Act, Congress has made clear that those who commit crimes against our children will face swift and severe punishment. The bill I am introducing today builds on this momentum and adds additional tools to the prosecutorial arsenal. Among the changes provided in this bill is an increase in the punishments for a variety of sex offenses, including providing mandatory minimums for possession of child pornography. The bill would triple the criminal fines available against electronic service providers who knowingly and willfully fail to report child pornography and would make it a Federal crime to participate in the sex tourism trade in order to produce child pornography. We must protect the most vulnerable of us, children, and these provisions will continue this progress. The bill amends the armed career criminal statute to create a tiered punishment approach such that defendants with more serious criminal histories who use guns will face harsher punishments, including mandatory minimum prison sentences. Additionally, the bill also increases the statute of limitations for violent crimes from 5 to 10 years. The bill also makes some technical but important changes to the gun statutes. For instance, the bill inserts an interstate commerce jurisdictional statement in 18 U.S.C. 924h cases, the statute that prohibits the transfer of firearms to others who intend to use those firearms in a drug trafficking or violent crime. This corrects a post Lopez congressional oversight and ensures that if this statute is used, it will not be struck down. Additionally, this bill provides that those felons who are arrested for possession of firearms will be detained without bail pending trial. We need to send a strong message of deterrence to those who would illegally use firearms. This bill sends that message loud and clear. Finally, the bill includes some significant changes to critical terrorism statutes. For instance, this bill criminalizes providing financial support to families of suicide bombers. It also increases penalties for those convicted of material support and denies Federal benefits to convicted terrorists. These are but a few of the provisions contained in this bill. Congress must continue to evaluate and, when necessary, provide needed tools to law enforcement to enable those public servants to effectively do their job. This bill does that and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a crime bill that I hope all of my colleagues will support. Several of my colleagues and I have worked with the Department of Justice to develop an important comprehensive crime bill which will provide new tools to law enforcement and prosecutors across the country. This is an important issue. The New York Times wrote recently that violent crime was on the rise in our larger cities. Murder, robbery and gun assaults seem to be on the rise in midsized to large cities. Experts attribute this increase, in part, to the spread of drug use, gangs, high poverty, a record number of people being released from prison, and easy access to guns and a willingness to settle disputes with them. This comprehensive crime bill will help law enforcement officers and prosecutors beat back this rise in violent crimes. It is an extensive bill but let me discuss a few of its provisions here. Over the past several years, Congress has worked to crack down on child predators. From the PROTECT Act in 2003 to last year's Adam Walsh Act, Congress has made clear that those who commit crimes against our children will face swift and severe punishment. The bill I am introducing today builds on this momentum and adds additional tools to the prosecutorial arsenal. Among the changes provided in this bill is an increase in the punishments for a variety of sex offenses, including providing mandatory minimums for possession of child pornography. The bill would triple the criminal fines available against electronic service providers who knowingly and willfully fail to report child pornography and would make it a Federal crime to participate in the sex tourism trade in order to produce child pornography. We must protect the most vulnerable of us, children, and these provisions will continue this progress. The bill amends the armed career criminal statute to create a tiered punishment approach such that defendants with more serious criminal histories who use guns will face harsher punishments, including mandatory minimum prison sentences. Additionally, the bill also increases the statute of limitations for violent crimes from 5 to 10 years. The bill also makes some technical but important changes to the gun statutes. For instance, the bill inserts an interstate commerce jurisdictional statement in 18 U.S.C. 924h cases, the statute that prohibits the transfer of firearms to others who intend to use those firearms in a drug trafficking or violent crime. This corrects a post Lopez congressional oversight and ensures that if this statute is used, it will not be struck down. Additionally, this bill provides that those felons who are arrested for possession of firearms will be detained without bail pending trial. We need to send a strong message of deterrence to those who would illegally use firearms. This bill sends that message loud and clear. Finally, the bill includes some significant changes to critical terrorism statutes. For instance, this bill criminalizes providing financial support to families of suicide bombers. It also increases penalties for those convicted of material support and denies Federal benefits to convicted terrorists. These are but a few of the provisions contained in this bill. Congress must continue to evaluate and, when necessary, provide needed tools to law enforcement to enable those public servants to effectively do their job. This bill does that and I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2339 at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for the consideration of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, no one disputes that a key part of America's economy is our ability to innovate and retain the most qualified workers, especially in areas such as math, science, and engineering. There is one step Congress can take this year to help provide at least temporary relief. My amendment would allow the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to recapture unused employment-based visas. These unused visa numbers would go to nurses, physical therapists, and other key areas for people with extraordinary ability with advanced degrees. This amendment would also include a one-time H-1B visa increase of 115,000 for fiscal year 2008 only, given if that cap was hit in the first day this year. This amendment will go a long way to help provide the legal workers who are the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am grateful for the statement of the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, in support of this amendment. I believe it is noncontroversial. If there is one thing we ought to be able to agree upon in this debate, it is that it is not in our self-interest to leave Iraq as a failed state. Where we diverge is where the Senator says we have to put more pressure on the politicians. I think we need to do that, but not so much pressure that they simply collapse, which is my concern. That is why I believe what General Petraeus has said, which is that the situation in Iraq is hard but not hopeless. That gives me some hope that we can provide them the space they need in order to make those hard political decisions, which are extraordinarily difficult. If you think about it, the kind of decisions they are being called upon to make--for example, the sharing of oil revenue--I might suggest that is equivalent to the U.S. Congress trying to solve the Social Security insolvency problem. It is not easy for to us do. We have not done it yet. How in the world can we expect this new democracy, particularly under such stressful and difficult circumstances, to do things that we ourselves would find extraordinarily difficult to do? Talking about debaathification and things like that--the Baathist Party, under Saddam Hussein, was guilty of the most heinous sorts of crimes against the Shiite majority. This is a country traumatized from years of a police state under the boot heel of a terrible, blood-thirsty dictator like Saddam Hussein, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed by Saddam Hussein. So it is not surprising that this traumatized nation is having challenges coming back from that and that they are slow to make decisions that we think they should be making. But the basic minimum is that they need the security in order to have the space in order to make those difficult decisions. That is what this new plan is, which is only in the early stages of being implemented by General Petraeus, designed to do. What are the early reports? We are beginning to see some progress, particularly in Anbar Province in dealing with al-Qaida that up until recently basically had the run of the place. The tribal sheiks and others are coming forward and volunteering for the police and security forces. So I guess we are seeing the most hard-bitten cynics, but there are some signs that things are getting a little bit better in terms of the security context. It seems obvious that basic security has to prevail in order for the Iraqis, in exercising their new democratic government, to try to reconcile some of these terrible and difficult decisions. I am delighted that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has said he will support this amendment. My hope is that this is one thing in the course of all of this fractious debate that we can unify behind. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would just like to add Senator Bunning after Senator Schumer, if I may.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, but I do see things a little differently. First of all, when he talks about a civil war in Iraq, he seems to overlook the fact that al-Qaida is present in Iraq and is the precipitating cause for the sectarian strife we are all concerned about. What would he do to deal with al-Qaida in Iraq, which they regard as the central front in their war against the West? When my friend from Illinois says we need a limited presence of our American troops in Iraq, I am not sure what that means, but I sure would rather have the four star Army GEN David Petraeus determining the appropriate tactics to deal with the threat on the ground rather than politicians, armchair generals here in Washington, DC.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. I rise to discuss my amendment which lays out the consequences of a failed state in Iraq. As every parent of a teenager knows, one of the things you have to impress upon your teenager is the consequences of their actions. I think we need to have an adult conversation and talk about the consequences of our actions in Iraq. The one thing we all agree on is that we want to bring our troops home. We want to bring them home as soon as we can. The line of division between us seems to be between those who want to do so based upon an arbitrary political timetable and those who want to do so based on conditions on the ground. So I think it is important to have--as any adult would say to their child--a conversation about the consequences of your actions because I think these are the birds that are going to come home to roost should the Levin amendment be adopted. As we know from the Iraq Study Group as well as the National Intelligence Estimate, the consequences of a failed state in Iraq are numerous, but they are significant and highly dangerous to the United States. First of all, Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and U.S. allies. The Iraq Study Group found that a chaotic Iraq would provide a still stronger base of operation for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. That is not me talking; that is the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group also noted that al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world. The National Intelligence Estimate presented by the intelligence community, which consists of the best and the brightest America has to offer, concluded that the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be that al-Qaida would attempt to use Anbar Province for further attacks outside of Iraq, neighboring countries would consider actively intervening in Iraq, and sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement. The Iraq Study Group found that a premature American withdrawal from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaida would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory, much as they did when the Soviet Union was run out of Afghanistan. A failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional conflict involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The Iraq Study Group noted that Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence. The Iraq Study Group noted that Iran could send troops to restore stability to southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oilfields. The regional influence of Iran could arise at a time when that country is on a path to producing a nuclear weapon, as we know they are all about. A failed state in Iraq would lead to massive humanitarian suffering. I know we are all concerned about what we see as the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, but those of us who are concerned about that huge humanitarian crisis there must also be concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq should we prematurely withdrawal our troops and that country descend into massive ethnic cleansing and genocide and massive dislocation of refugees to other areas of the Middle East. A recent editorial in the New York Times said Americans must be clear that Iraq and the region around it could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who work with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, and even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan, Syria, and Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make a power grab. The Iraq Study Group found that if we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. My amendment commits the Senate to take no action that would lead to a failed state in Iraq that would invariably, in the opinion of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group of experts, as well as the National Intelligence Estimate, lead to consequences that would not only be devastating for the Iraqis, it would be destabilizing in that region and would lead to greater loss of life and greater insecurity in the United States. So I hope all of my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment at 2:45 when that vote is scheduled. I can't imagine any possible objection to this sense of the Senate on the consequences of a failed state in Iraq. Finally, I would say this is an important part of the overall debate where we talk about not only what our preferred policy is but what the consequences of a failure would be. I think part of a responsible adult debate is talking about what the consequences would be as we commit ourselves to take no action that would lend an increased likelihood to that failed state. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, to my knowledge, we are of one mind that we do want to leave Iraq. The question is, Under what conditions? I don't believe Prime Minister Maliki certainly is on record as saying he wants us to leave at a time when his government would be rent asunder and Iraq would descend into sectarian war and perhaps a regional conflict. But the fact is, GEN David Petraeus, the general whom we confirmed unanimously just a short time ago, has recommended to the Commander in Chief a new strategy known as the surge, which was completed just last month, a few short weeks ago. Now he has said to give that surge an opportunity to do its job and he will come back and report to us in September. I think we ought to give that a reasonable chance. While the distinguished majority whip wants to talk about the Levin amendment, I think we will have plenty of time to talk about that during the course of the evening. The irony is, we are ready to vote on the Levin amendment at almost any time. But we are going to have a big political theater tonight. We will have a lot of fun having a Senate slumber party for the benefit of organizations such as moveon.org, which is having a press conference at 8:30 tonight. We ought to be having a serious debate and voting on these amendments, which we are happy to do at virtually anytime. I worry when I hear my friend say stabilization will take place on Iraqi terms, as if the only consequences of a failure in Iraq would be borne by the Iraqis. The fact is, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community, the Iraq Study Group, and others, it will make America less safe by creating a safe haven for organizations such as al-Qaida to plot, plan, train, and to export future terrorist attacks against the United States. If we think they are modest in their goals, I think we need to think again. Rather than a crude instrument like an airplane flying into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, this terrorist organization in Iraq, which considers Iraq the central front in their war against the West, is trying to get biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. Woe be the day that they get their hands on those and use them against America or its allies. So I think we should be of one mind with this sense of the Senate that says we would take no action that would make it more likely that Iraq would descend into a failed state to create that haven for terrorists. I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack Kammerer, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am struck by the fact that during the course of this debate on the Levin-Reed amendment some Senators seem to take the attitude that our presence in Iraq is merely optional, that we can choose to do whatever we want to do without regard to the consequences. I think of those consequences, as 94 Senators indicated yesterday by their vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that said we would do no act that would make it more likely that Iraq would end up in a failed state because the danger that poses to our national security. I don't believe our presence in Iraq is merely optional. I do not agree with our colleagues who seem to say that, well, the only thing missing is enough pressure on the Iraqi political leadership to get their act together, and if they would do what the American Congress wants them to do on the timetable the American Congress thinks is appropriate, then we are going to pull the plug, we are going to leave Iraq, and leave Iraqis to themselves, as if the consequences of that action would be borne only by the Iraqis. In fact, I believe the consequences of that action would be disastrous to American national security, as well as to the region in the Middle East. So I do not believe it is merely a matter of putting more pressure on the Iraqis. As a matter of fact, I marvel at the irony of Members of the Senate saying after decades of living under a brutal dictator and the literal genocide that had resulted from the murders he carried out and the suppression of the Shiite majority by the Sunni minority under the Baath party, that somehow this new democracy can spring to life as our democracy has after 231 years and solve these problems. Such as, why can't they pass a law that says we will share the oil revenue, while we have been unsuccessful in solving the insolvency of our Social Security system. They suggest there needs to be reconciliation overnight between the Shiites and Sunnis when it took us well over 100 years and a civil war in which 600,000 Americans died for the civil rights movement to take root and to overcome the scourge of slavery. I think some of my colleagues are taking an unrealistic approach when it comes to how fast we expect this new democracy to take the political steps to solve some of these problems. And, of course, they cannot do it unless basic security is provided--security for them and security for us. That is why it is important that we not listen to the armchair generals here in Washington, DC, with very little military experience in fighting and winning wars. It is one reason why we need to listen to the generals on the ground, people such as GEN David Petraeus and others who have stated very clearly what the consequences of failure will be to the United States. I also marvel at the short memories of some of my colleagues who said we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place after 77 Senators in this body voted to authorize the President to do that. Do they forget the fact that Saddam Hussein defied, I think it was 16 or 17 United Nations resolutions to open up his country to weapons inspectors from the United Nations, and the concern, of course, post-9/11 that Saddam was developing chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons and that he would share that technology with terrorists such as al-Qaida? And the idea that al-Qaida has sprung up in Iraq overnight, not because of the conditions created under Saddam or postwar Iraq, but because of something we did, to me is an amazing allegation. So it is America that is to blame for al-Qaida being in Iraq. That, I suppose, is the allegation. I am glad to see at least our colleagues do acknowledge that al-Qaida is in Iraq, and, of course, we are met today with the news that the top al-Qaida figure in Iraq was captured. Adding information from him indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the country of Iraq. I don't see how colleagues can vote in favor of the Levin-Reed amendment, which calls for a rapid withdrawal of forces before the Iraqis are able to stabilize their own country and are able to defend themselves and at the same time vote for the amendment we voted on yesterday, which was adopted 94 to 3, saying we are not going to take any action which makes it more likely that Iraq will become a failed state because as the National Intelligence Estimate and the Iraq Study Group indicated, a failed state in Iraq means a free hand for al-Qaida. A free hand for al-Qaida in Iraq makes Iraq less safe, but it also makes America less safe because, as we all know, war is an interactive affair. We can quit fighting, but it doesn't mean our enemy will. Of course, were we to bring our troops home, as all of us want to do, the only question is whether we are going to do it based on an arbitrary timetable with the risk of a failed state or whether we are going to do it based on conditions on the ground and with the objective of leaving Iraq with the capability to govern and defend itself. The question is, are we going to bring our troops home at a time and in such a manner as it increases the likelihood that Iraq will descend into a failed state with, of course, the opportunity for al-Qaida to regroup, to recruit, to train, and then export further terrorist attacks to the United States? This is the reality. Were we to leave Iraq before it has the capability to defend and govern itself, our enemies would simply follow us here. It is almost as if some of our colleagues want to pull the covers over their head and pretend if they do so, if we ignore the threat, it will go away. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. Nor is the threat illusory, as some of our colleagues indicate. So it is important that the Levin-Reed amendment be defeated, that we not set an arbitrary timetable to tie the hands of GEN David Petraeus with this new strategy that has recently been completed--that is, the surge of troops and the operational surge underway--and with the kind of success we have seen turning Anbar Province around, a place that previously no one could go because al-Qaida basically ruled the roost. Now we are starting to see some signs of success there and hopefully begin to let the counterinsurgency strategy that General Petraeus was sent over to execute, one that will allow our troops and the Iraqis to clear the threat, to then hold the area, and then to allow the political operatives in Iraq the space in which to do the important reconciliation that we all know is essential to the long-term success and stabilization of that country. This is a historic vote we will be having in a few minutes, and I hope our colleagues will vote in the interest of American national security, will vote in the interest of doing nothing that would increase the likelihood of a failed state and providing al-Qaida an additional foothold and operating space within Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I do not intend to object, but merely point out that it is my understanding I have 15 minutes, from now until 10:20 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Dr. Norman Borlaug of Dallas, TX. Today, Dr. Borlaug receives the Congressional Gold Medal--the Nation's highest civilian decoration. Dr. Borlaug's service to the world's hungry was cultivated on his boyhood farm in Iowa where he learned the value of hard work. He sharpened his knowledge of agriculture and science at the University of Minnesota and later applied his farm and classroom experiences to researching and developing high-yield wheat varieties in Mexico that thrived in arid conditions. Under his leadership, these innovative crops were introduced into India, Pakistan, and later Africa, having since fed the hungry in astonishing numbers. Never allowing himself to become satisfied with the status quo, Dr. Borlaug continued his humanitarian efforts, paving the way for other scientists to fight hunger and to feed the world's increasing population. Dr. Borlaug created the annual World Food Prize to recognize and reward those who advance human development by improving the quality, quantity, and availability of food in the world. Each fall semester, Dr. Borlaug returns to Texas A&M University to teach those who would follow in his footsteps and continue to innovate. In his role as distinguished professor of international agriculture in the Department of Soil & Crop Sciences, aspiring Aggie students have the opportunity to witness hard-working benevolence and learn from one of mankind's greatest and most humble benefactors. There are many lessons we can learn from Dr. Borlaug's service. This man saw a need and applied his education to the realities of poverty and hunger. He chose to put his hands in the soil and work to make a vision become reality. Dr. Borlaug reminds us that a single individual with the knowledge and courage to make a difference can indeed change the world. The Congressional Gold Medal is the most recent addition to a long list of accolades that Dr. Borlaug has earned throughout his lifetime, including the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his innovative work in agriculture. It has been suggested that Dr. Borlaug's humanitarian efforts have saved the lives of perhaps one billion of the world's hungry, and through his ongoing legacy of leadership his work will feed many more. We join in gratitude for his consistent dedication in applying the agricultural sciences to benefit so many. I am honored to have been able to cosponsor this award for Dr. Borlaug.