John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. This last provision provides the right of the American Government to protect families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. For example, this provision would increase the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime. I think we would all agree that a hoax about the death of a U.S. soldier is a serious offense that should be made a crime and can result in devastating consequences to the family that is the subject of a hoax. In one such incident involving a soldier from Flagstaff, AZ, who was serving in Iraq, the Army sent the soldier a satellite phone so he could call home from Iraq to reassure them that he was, in fact, alive and uninjured. Unfortunately, another soldier was killed in the process of trying to deliver the satellite phone to the soldier so he could reassure his own family, and the message did not get through on a timely basis. I think we would all agree this is simply unacceptable. Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day for our freedom and our families who support them. One of the most important things we can do is make sure they are protected against those who would perpetrate these kinds of cruel hoaxes on them and take advantage of their concerns and natural anxiety for the welfare of their loved ones serving us abroad. So I hope our colleagues will vote for cloture on this important package of amendments, and we will have that opportunity tomorrow, if not sooner. Mr. President, I know I have other colleagues, my two colleagues from Georgia, who are here to speak in our portion of morning business, and I will yield the floor at this time to them.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Child Support Protection Act of 2007 so State child support enforcement agencies may continue the extraordinary progress and cost-effectiveness they have developed in child support collections in recent years. This legislation is necessary to avoid a reversal in the dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade. Without it, many families may be forced back into the welfare caseload. Child support enforcement reduces reliance on Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other social service programs. Effective enforcement enables former welfare families, and working families with modest incomes, to receive this important source of supplemental income and gain the self-sufficiency to avoid having to draw on government resources through public assistance programs. In fact, over 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through the child support program in 2002. In 2004, collections nationwide totaled $21.9 billion, while total program costs were $5.3 billion. For every $1 spent in child support enforcement, $4.38 is collected for children who need it. Because of this rate of return, the President's budget continually rates the program as ``one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide. This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long term performance measures.'' In particular, the Texas child support program has made significant strides over the past seven years in collections, performance, and efficiency, all of which will be seriously undermined without this vital legislation. I speak with authority on this matter. During my tenure as Attorney General of Texas, the Child Support Division made dramatic increases in collections from deadbeat parents, and the office continues to bring in record collections each year. Texas now ranks second in the Nation in total collections--with collections in Fiscal Year 2006 surpassing $2 billion--a figure that has doubled since Fiscal Year 2000. This outstanding performance has earned the program the second highest Federal performance incentive award for the past 3 years. Because the Texas program has achieved that level of performance, the prohibition on using incentive payments to draw down matching Federal funds for program expenditures will have a much greater impact on Texas than on the 48 other States ranked below it. The loss of the match on incentive payments effectively punishes Texas's success. Unless we pass this legislation, the Child Support Division in the Office of the Texas Attorney General will face a dramatic reduction in federal financial participation and may be forced to close many offices throughout the State. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association supporting this legislation. I look forward to this bill's consideration in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In response, I would point out that these amendments, which are now consolidated in this modification, actually have been pending now for some time but we have been unsuccessful in persuading the majority to give us an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on them. The bill we are debating is entitled ``A Bill to Make the United States More Secure By Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission to Fight the War on Terror More Effectively, to Improve Homeland Security, and for other purposes.'' I can't think of any amendment that would be more appropriate to accomplishing the stated goal of this particular legislation than the one I have pending now. The distinguished Republican leader has summarized, I think very well, what is contained in this modification. But just so none of my colleagues are confused, these are not new matters. This modification simply represents a consolidation of several amendments that are pending on the floor and have been pending for some time, but which have been refused an opportunity to have a full and fair debate followed by an up-or-down vote by the majority. We all know it has been more than 5 years since September 11. And, there remains some unfinished business that needs to be addressed by this legislation, and my amendment will do just that. One of the things left to do is to target terrorist recruiting. The FBI and other agencies have made it clear that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are intent on attacking our country again and are busy recruiting those who wish to join them. We know al-Qaida is a patient enemy, waiting years to attack--sometimes embedding into society and appearing to be a part of the regular population until, but at a time of their choosing, rising out of their sleeper cells to attack innocent civilians to accomplish their goals. According to congressional testimony, terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are actively in the process of recruiting terrorists within the United States. So we are not just talking about a wholly foreign enemy that would attack us from abroad; we are talking about people being recruited to carry out terrorist attacks here in the United States. Of course their goal is to find individuals who do not fit the traditional terrorist model, who can operate freely in our country, and who are willing to engage in these heinous acts. Recruiting these type of individuals, those who blend easily into our society, provides al-Qaida an operational advantage. This is not an academic discussion. Let me just use one example to demonstrate this reality. Intelligence materials related to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 plot, show that he was running terrorist cells within the United States. These documents show that al-Qaida's goal was to recruit U.S. citizens and other westerners so they could move freely within our country, so they would be unlikely to be identified and stopped at our border's edge or in our airports or land-based ports before they carry out their attacks. These terrorist recruiters have targeted mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United States where they could identify and recruit people who might be sympathetic to their jihadist message and then persuade these individuals to join their organization. Unbelievably, we currently have no statute in place that is designed to punish those who recruit people to commit terrorist acts. This amendment includes a provision that would remedy this serious gap in our law. It simply provides that it is against the law to recruit or, in the words of the amendment, ``to employ, solicit, induce, command or cause'' any person to commit an act of domestic terrorism, international terrorism, or a Federal crime of terrorism, and any person convicted of this would face serious punishment. This amendment also provides that anyone committing this crime should be punished for up to 10 years in the Federal penitentiary. If a death results in connection with this crime, he or she can be punished by death or a term of years or for life; if serious bodily injury to any individual results, then a punishment of no less than 10 years or more than 25 years is available to the judge. This is a commonsense measure, designed to fill a serious gap in our Criminal Code that, frankly, should not continue to exist more than 5 years after September 11. This fits exactly with the stated purpose of this legislation, and I hope our colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. Two other provisions in this amendment that again represent amendments that have been previously filed and are pending but which I have now included in this consolidated amendment. One includes a remedy to a problem created by a Supreme Court decision in 2001, the Zadvydas case, which held that dangerous criminal aliens must be released after an expiration of 6 months if there is no likelihood that their home country would take them back in the near future, even if their home country will not take them. This means that they have to be released into the general population of the United States, free to re-commit serious crimes. In other words, what the Supreme Court said is that Congress had not specifically authorized the Department of Homeland Security to hold dangerous criminal aliens whose home country will not take them back for longer than 6 months pending their deportation or repatriation to their home country. This amendment remedies that decision. In fact, the Supreme Court invited the Congress to revisit this decision, since it is purely a statutory holding. Specifically, this amendment would allow DHS to protect the American people from dangerous criminal aliens until their removal proceedings are completed. It allows the Department of Homeland Security to detain criminal aliens after a final order of removal and beyond the 90-day removal period if removal is likely to occur in the foreseeable future or for national security and public safety grounds. It preserves the right of the alien to seek review of continued detention through habeas proceedings after exhaustion of administrative remedies. And to be clear, my amendment does preserve the right of the affected alien to seek administrative and judicial review of these decisions. But, the amendment makes clear that it is intended to fill an important gap by authorizing DHS to protect the American people from the willy-nilly release of dangerous criminal aliens after 6 months. This situation has occurred and will continue to occur and it is important for Congress to step up and to fix this problem created by the interpretation of this statute in 2001 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The last element of this consolidated amendment that I want to mention has to do with material support for suicide bombers and other terrorists. We hear too often the difficulty in identifying and stopping suicide bombers before they can carry out their deadly attacks. One incentive to those who decide to carry out these attacks is financial rewards promised to the families of suicide bombers who are assured that their families will be paid and cared for after they commit their heinous acts. This provision would ban the payment of financial rewards or other material support to the families of suicide bombers such as Assad, a known terrorist who has enticed people to engage in these attacks, with a promise to pay their families up to $25,000, if my memory serves me correctly, as a reward. This provision would ban the payment of these types of financial rewards and dry up a real incentive used to induce or facilitate carrying out of a terrorist attack and send to prison those who do so. I would add that this amendment also increases the punishments for those convicted of providing material support. The Department of Justice has told us that the material support statute is one of the most important anti-terror tools in their tool box, and it is only right and appropriate that we use this opportunity to strengthen the 9/ 11 bill with this important improvement to such an effective statute. In conclusion, this amendment provides real anti-terror and anti- crime tools to the 9/11 bill and will ensure, as the preface of this bill states, that it will finish the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission and of the Nation, making us more secure, 5 years-plus since the dastardly attacks of 9/11. I yield the floor. Change of Vote

Mr. CORNYN. Is the Senator from Colorado aware there are those who will purchase bogus documents on the black market--basically for purposes of evading and breaking our immigration laws so they can purport to be someone whom they are not--and whether this, in his opinion, represents a security risk to the United States.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Colorado whether he is aware that the Federal Trade Commission has identified the top 10 States where identity theft is the biggest problem and that they have ranked Arizona as No. 1; and Nevada, the State represented by the majority leader; California; and Texas, No.4; and then Colorado at No. 5. Is the Senator aware that the Federal Trade Commission has ranked those States as the top five States where identity theft is the biggest problem.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 65, I voted ``nay,'' but it was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator, and I support his amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Would the Senator from Colorado tell us what portion of the population is sort of disproportionately affected by this identity theft, particularly when it involves Social Security numbers?

Mr. CORNYN. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator whether this isn't exactly the kind of stovepipe or wall that the 9/11 Commission talked about when it comes to information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Isn't this exactly the same kind of information sharing they found so important to protecting the security of our Nation?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Child Support Protection Act of 2007 so State child support enforcement agencies may continue the extraordinary progress and cost-effectiveness they have developed in child support collections in recent years. This legislation is necessary to avoid a reversal in the dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade. Without it, many families may be forced back into the welfare caseload. Child support enforcement reduces reliance on Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other social service programs. Effective enforcement enables former welfare families, and working families with modest incomes, to receive this important source of supplemental income and gain the self-sufficiency to avoid having to draw on government resources through public assistance programs. In fact, over 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through the child support program in 2002. In 2004, collections nationwide totaled $21.9 billion, while total program costs were $5.3 billion. For every $1 spent in child support enforcement, $4.38 is collected for children who need it. Because of this rate of return, the President's budget continually rates the program as ``one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide. This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long term performance measures.'' In particular, the Texas child support program has made significant strides over the past seven years in collections, performance, and efficiency, all of which will be seriously undermined without this vital legislation. I speak with authority on this matter. During my tenure as Attorney General of Texas, the Child Support Division made dramatic increases in collections from deadbeat parents, and the office continues to bring in record collections each year. Texas now ranks second in the Nation in total collections--with collections in Fiscal Year 2006 surpassing $2 billion--a figure that has doubled since Fiscal Year 2000. This outstanding performance has earned the program the second highest Federal performance incentive award for the past 3 years. Because the Texas program has achieved that level of performance, the prohibition on using incentive payments to draw down matching Federal funds for program expenditures will have a much greater impact on Texas than on the 48 other States ranked below it. The loss of the match on incentive payments effectively punishes Texas's success. Unless we pass this legislation, the Child Support Division in the Office of the Texas Attorney General will face a dramatic reduction in federal financial participation and may be forced to close many offices throughout the State. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association supporting this legislation. I look forward to this bill's consideration in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. I will yield back time if I don't need all of that. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb be recognized following my remarks.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time remains in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to speak briefly on four different amendments that are pending to the 9/11 bill that is on the Senate floor. First of all, I want to talk about the issue of homeland security grant funding. Today, I will join with my colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, and several other colleagues and ask that this amendment be accepted. It stands on the principle that the limited funds that are available from the taxpayers' pockets to pay for homeland security be prioritized based on security concerns and not divvied up based on porkbarrel politics. I realize the first instinct, perhaps, of a body that represents as diverse a nation as ours, with 50 States, is to take whatever amount of money there might be for any particular project and figure a way to divide it up 50 ways. We know our security risks are not based on that sort of structure or approach, and it is important that we do try to take the limited resources we have available for homeland security grant funding and allocate them on a risk-based approach. This approach is pretty simple. It is so simple and so commonsense, it strikes me as unusual that it has not already been embraced by the Congress. It is simply a system that will protect our most vulnerable assets and populations, one that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the most vulnerable places in the country that we need to protect, and that these funds be distributed in an efficient and timely manner. The principle upon which this risk-based funding is premised has three main criteria: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. That is, what is the greatest threat to our country? What is the greatest vulnerability in terms of if there was a successful attack against our Nation's infrastructure, what infrastructure would be the most vulnerable and have the greatest negative consequence on our country? It requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to areas where they are most needed as well and provides greater flexibility using these funds and that they be done consistent with federally established capability standards. This amendment would allow States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties to States that do not pass funds on to local governments within 45 days. If a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may, under this amendment, petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive those funds directly. This is an attempt to respond to one of the concerns I hear in my State from local governments and local authorities that are dependent on the State government to actually pass the funds through. In fact, despite the good work this body did on issues such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita relief, we find that a lot of the funds that have been appropriated by Congress are simply bogged down in the bureaucratic structure when it moves from the Federal Government to the State government on to local governments. So this amendment, which I hope our colleagues will support and which will actually result in a net increase in funds to 70 percent of the States, is based on two fundamental premises. One is that we ought to allocate those limited funds based on risk, vulnerability, and consequence, and that we ought to then try to get the money to the local officials and the local persons who need it most and to break it out of this bureaucratic structure that too often delays funds getting to the people who need it most quickly. I also have offered an amendment separately, amendment No. 312, about which I wish to speak briefly. This is a terrorism recruiting prohibition and penalty that is lacking under our current law. We know it has been more than 5 years since we were attacked on September 11. It is important, as time works to ease the pain on that terrible day, that we in Congress ensure we are providing every possible tool to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. We have made significant progress in updating our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, enabling them to better protect us at home and abroad, but there is still a lot we need to do. One area we must address and is addressed by this amendment is the issue of terrorist recruiting. The FBI and other agencies of the Federal Government have made it clear that al-Qaida and other terrorists are intent on striking us again. We know from the 9/11 report that al-Qaida is patient and willing to wait years to take advantage of an opportunity to attack us, and in the meanwhile, they carefully formulate how they will carry out their plan. According to congressional testimony, terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are seeking to recruit people within the United States. Of course, their goal is to find individuals who do not fit the traditional terrorist model who are willing to engage in terrorism. Recruiting these individuals who blend easily into our society provides al-Qaida and other terrorists an operational advantage. This is not, however, an academic discussion. Let me use one example of why I believe this amendment should be adopted. Intelligence documents regarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--the so- called mastermind behind 9/11--reveal that he was running terrorist cells in the United States. These documents also show that it was al- Qaida's goal to recruit U.S. citizens and other westerners who could move freely in the United States. They targeted mosques, prisons, and universities throughout the United States where they could identify and recruit people who they thought might be sympathetic to their cause and then persuade these individuals to join their terrorist organization. Currently--and this is a shocking fact--we have no statutes specifically designed to punish those who recruit people to commit terrorist acts. The amendment I am offering would remedy this serious gap in our law. My amendment simply provides that it is against the law to recruit or, in the words of the amendment, ``to employ, solicit, induce, command, or cause'' any person to commit an act of domestic terrorism, international terrorism, or Federal crime of terrorism, and any person convicted of doing so would face severe punishment. This amendment would also provide that anyone committing this crime would be punished for up to 10 years in Federal prison. If death of an individual results, he or she would be punished, on a finding and conviction of guilt, to death or any term of years or for life. If serious bodily injury to any individual results, the punishment would be no less than 10 years or for no more than 25 years. I believe this is a commonsense amendment designed to fill a serious gap in our Criminal Code that should not exist any longer, certainly not this long after 9/11. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I have also offered amendment No. 311, which is one that is not unfamiliar to Members of this body. I offered this amendment during our immigration debates last year. It is one supported by the Department of Homeland Security because this amendment, which received bipartisan support last year, will remove current litigation barriers impeding the ability of the Secretary of Homeland Security to do his job; that is, enforce the immigration laws, especially as they are related to apprehension, detention, and expedited removals of illegal aliens. We know one of the most obvious symbols of the Federal Government's failure to deal with our immigration problem and our broken borders is the now repudiated catch-and-release program where, because of lack of adequate facilities to detain individuals, particularly coming from countries other than Mexico, they were often caught and then simply released on their own recognizance and asked to return for a deportation hearing at a later time. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of these individuals did not appear for their deportation hearing but merely melted into the landscape. In this particular instance, this amendment is designed to address a particular court-ordered permanent injunction issued in an immigration case 19 years ago. This is the Orantes case. This Orantes injunction has hindered the Department of Homeland Security to promptly remove, immediately after apprehension, Salvadoran illegal aliens. While Secretary Chertoff has made great strides in increasing the number of illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico detained for removal along the southwest border and recently ended catch-and-release at the border, the limitations contained in this injunction still impede the enforcement efforts of the Department of Homeland Security. Similarly, other longstanding injunctions have not only impeded the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce our immigration laws but have also consumed vast amounts of resources and, in some cases, are now inconsistent with intervening changes in the law. This amendment does not eliminate injunctive relief but only requires that injunctions be drawn narrowly and not unnecessarily impede the enforcement of our immigration laws. Congress enacted comparable legislation narrowing the basis for injunctive relief in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and that legislation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment would simply require that courts narrowly tailor injunctive relief orders against the Government in immigration cases. Courts must limit relief to the minimum necessary to remedy the violation; adopt the least intrusive means to remedy violations; minimize the adverse impact on national security, border security, immigration administration and enforcement, and public safety; and finally, provide an expiration date for injunctive relief. This amendment would provide that preliminary injunctive relief would expire in 90 days from issuance of an order unless the court makes findings that permanent relief is required or makes the order final before the 90-day period. This amendment would also require courts to rule promptly on all Government motions to eliminate injunctions in immigration cases. If we are serious about creating an immigration law that will actually work, then we have to eliminate 19-year-old impediments, such as the Orantes injunction, to our ability to end once and for all the failed policy of catch-and-release when it comes to illegal immigration. I hope my colleagues will vote favorably for amendment No. 311, which will end this particular impediment, now 19 years old in the Orantes case. The last amendment I have is amendment No. 310, known as the Zadvydas amendment because this amendment will strengthen the Government's ability to detain criminal aliens, including murderers, rapists, and child molesters, until they can actually be removed. This amendment arises out of a decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court--it is not a constitutional decision; it is merely based upon a statute, one which Congress can fix and which my amendment will fix. But this decision in June of 2001 simply provided that unless there is a reasonable likelihood that a criminal alien who is being held by the Government will actually be repatriated to their government within a given period of time, failing that, they must be simply released and cannot be held any longer by the U.S. Government. Although the Government has authority to detain suspected terrorists, under this decision, it has only limited authority to detain criminal aliens who have been ordered removed. Under the Zadvydas decision, the Federal Government has had to release hundreds of dangerous illegal aliens into the American population. Among them is Carlos Rojas Fritze, who sodomized, raped, beat, and robbed a stranger in a public restroom and called it ``an act of love.'' Tuan Thai, who repeatedly raped, tortured, and terrorized women and vowed to repeat his crimes and who also threatened to kill his immigration judge and prosecutor, was likewise released because under this decision he could not be held pending repatriation to his country of origin. Guillermo Perez Aguilar, who repeatedly committed sex crimes against children and was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, is also an example of an individual who had to be released into the American population because he could no longer be held under our immigration laws pending repatriation because of the Zadvydas decision. The list of criminal offenders such as these is long, and it is simply unacceptable that these individuals can roam freely in American society because of the way our current laws are interpreted. Zadvydas and Suarez Martinez, which is another case following the Zadvydas case, were simply statutory holdings, not constitutional holdings. As I mentioned a moment ago, Congress has the power--and, I would argue, the duty--to address these perils to our security by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Indeed, in the Zadvydas opinion, the Court invited Congress to revisit the statute. Another anomaly created by a recent decision out of the Ninth Circuit is a view that the Department of Homeland Security cannot even detain aliens during removal proceedings. Neither the Zadvydas nor the Suarez Martinez decision made any pronouncements on the Department of Homeland Security's authority to detain an alien prior to removal proceedings being completed and a removal order issued. My amendment, which will essentially cure the defect found by the Supreme Court in the Zadvydas case, will clarify that an illegal criminal alien can be detained while removal proceedings are ongoing. Finally, it will provide that judicial review of ongoing detention, as with post-order detention, remains available in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia via habeas corpus proceedings. In other words, there will be periodic administrative review of the detentions and an opportunity for judicial review via habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which should address any constitutional concerns about indefinite detentions. It is simply unacceptable that we should stand by and fail to act on this serious threat to public safety in this country, and this sort of inaction, when it comes to immigration, I think seriously undermines American confidence in their Government. What government would stand by and allow these dangerous criminal aliens to simply be released into the American heartland when their country of origin has refused or perhaps only delayed the repatriation of these individuals back to their country of origin? We can fix this mistake and this great danger to America's national security by adopting this amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am aware of two speakers during our period, the minority period of 30 minutes in morning business. As a result, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes out of that 30-minute period of time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to express my concerns about the growing politicalization of the debate over the war in Iraq. The reason I am concerned is because I think the revolving door of resolutions we have seen emanating from Washington, DC, has caused confusion. Now, I would be happy if the confusion were limited to our enemies. But, unfortunately, I think that confusion extends to our allies and perhaps even to the troops who are now serving in that war-torn country. I do not believe that confusion is called for; rather, clarity is what we ought to be producing here. But this revolving door of resolutions being produced by those primarily on the other side of the aisle has seemed to contribute to our inability to speak with one voice on the one subject where we ought to be speaking with one voice; that is, our Nation's security. We ought not to be playing politics of any kind when talking about the lives of our troops or the resolutions which might have the unintended consequence of undermining their morale or causing our friends and allies confusion as to whether we are willing to stay the course in this battle of wills. This is a battle of wills. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel so strongly--as some of them clearly do--about the conflict in Iraq, then I believe they have an obligation to cut off funding. We have at least two Senators who have offered those kinds of resolutions--Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold. I would put it this way: If my colleagues really believe all is lost in Iraq and there is no possible way to succeed, then I think Senators could justly reach the conclusion that the only moral decision would be to deny funding to send them into harm's way. But instead what we see is an uncontrollable desire to tinker with our military operations, deciding in some cases what individual Members of Congress think should be done on the ground and then on the other hand what kind of decisions ought to be left to commanders. I suggest to my colleagues that strategy will lead us nowhere. Congress should not be involved in micromanaging the day-to-day tactics of military commanders on the ground. Our Constitution provides for a single Commander in Chief, not 535 chieftains who can make tactical decisions about something as sensitive and challenging as war operations in Iraq. We have heard there are between 5,000 and 6,000 members of al-Qaida in Iraq, primarily in Anbar Province. It makes no sense to me for us to pull out our troops until we have defeated those terrorists. Certainly, I disagree with those who say we ought to pull out our troops before we are able to stabilize Iraq in a way that it can sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself because I think we know what will happen if Iraq becomes just another failed state in the Middle East, particularly with those 5,000 to 6,000 members of al-Qaida present in Iraq: It will become another Afghanistan. As we all know, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, Afghanistan became a failed state, giving rise to the Taliban and al-Qaida in Iraq, the likes of Osama bin Laden among them. Of course, it was because they had a safe haven in Afghanistan that they could then plot and plan and train and recruit and finance their terrorist operations, and it allows them the safety and convenience to plan an attack against the United States, which they did on September 11, 2001. Of course, we know, because they have told us, that one of al-Qaida's major goals in Iraq is to increase sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shias. Al-Qaida cannot defeat us on the battlefield; we know that and they know that. The only way they can prevail is if we give up, if we pull our combat troops out of Iraq until al-Qaida is no longer a threat there. We know that Sunni extremists, including al- Qaida, want to create a civil war that will tear the country apart. The only way al-Qaida will be successful in doing that is if we allow them to do so. We need to let our military do the job in Iraq. We can't pretend to be able to make the best decisions from here in Washington, DC, about what kinds of tactics are likely or reasonably calculated to be successful several thousand miles away. As recently as Sunday, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appeared on a weekend talk show. I would like to read a little bit of the questions and answers which were produced from that interaction because I think it demonstrates exactly the kind of confusion I am talking about that I think ill-serves our troops and ill-serves our Nation during a time of war. The question was this: Will you set a goal for withdrawing combat troops? Senator Levin says: We would. We would follow basically the pattern that was set or proposed by the Iraq Study Group, which was to set a goal for the removal of combat troops, as you put it correctly, by March of next year. Mr. Russert: So how many troops would that be by March of next year would be taken out? Mr. Levin said: We don't have a specific number, nor did the study group, but it would be most. There would be a limited number of troops that would be left. Mr. Russert said: So out of 150,000, we would take out how many? Mr. Levin: I would say most. Mr. Russert: What would be left behind? Senator Levin said: It would be a limited number, which would-- Mr. Russert said: Ten thousand, 20,000? Senator Levin said: I don't want to put a specific number on it because that really should be left to the commanders to decide how many would be needed to carry out these limited functions. I think this brief Q-and-A demonstrates the kind of confusion that occurs when Members of the Senate, notwithstanding their best intentions, tinker with tactical decisions made with fighting a war several thousand miles away. We know the power Congress has under our Constitution, and if, in fact, there are those, as I said earlier, who believe that all is lost, then I believe the only appropriate action to take would be for those people who hold that belief to try to bring a resolution to the floor that would cut off funding for this ill-fated, in their view, conflict. But my colleagues can't have it both ways. On the one hand, they can't say we should leave it to our commanders in the field to determine the number of troops, and yet when General Petraeus says he needs 21,500 troops to fight the terrorists in Iraq, these same individuals would tell him: No, you can't have them. This is a question and answer from the nomination hearing for GEN David Petraeus. Senator McCain asked him: Suppose we send you over there to your new job, General, only we tell you that you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done? General Petraeus said: No, sir. The kind of confusion I think we have seen emanating from Capitol Hill is directly related to the revolving door of resolutions we have seen since the beginning of the year. First, there was the Biden resolution. Senator Reid, the distinguished majority leader, said, ``Tomorrow the Senate will proceed to S. Con. Res. 2, the bipartisan Iraq resolution.'' He said that on January 31, 2007. Then Senator Reid said later the same day, ``There will be a bipartisan group of Senators who believe the more appropriate matter is the Warner resolution.'' So first we had the Biden resolution, then we had the Warner resolution, and then there was the Levin resolution. Senator Reid said, on January 31, 2007, ``In my caucus there was near unanimity for the Levin resolution.'' Then--I mentioned this a moment ago--there are those such as Senator Feingold who said: ``I oppose the weak Warner- Levin resolution as currently written because it misunderstands the situation in Iraq and shortchanges our national security interests.'' He said that on February 1. Then there was the Reid-Pelosi resolution. This was the one on which the majority leader said, ``I think it is so much more direct. We support the troops. We are opposed to the surge. Perfect.'' He was asked this question: I was asking you why you prefer the House resolution to move forward. This is the press asking the majority leader. He said, ``I think it is so much more direct. We support the troops. We are opposed to the surge. Perfect.'' That is the majority leader on February 13, 2007. Then one of the Democratic candidates for President, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, made this observation, and I happen to think he is exactly right. He said: ``We have a sense of Senate resolution on asparagus. They don't mean a whole lot.'' Well, I have heard a lot from my constituents back in Texas who just wonder what in the world are we doing here in Washington debating a series of nonbinding resolutions. Senator Dodd has it exactly right. To show the dignity of these nonbinding resolutions, we even have a Senate resolution on asparagus. It is demeaning and inappropriate, in my view, for us to be talking in those kinds of terms when it comes to something as serious as Iraq. Then there was the Murtha plan, named after Representative Jack Murtha, the Democrat from Pennsylvania. This is Representative Murtha's plan. He said: They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. This is his plan. They won't have the equipment, they won't have the training, and they won't be able to do the work. There is no question in my mind. We have analyzed this and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be done. So this is what the Democrats in the House have had to offer in terms of resolutions: Let's not vote to cut off funding, but let's tie our troops in so much redtape and deny them the ability to be successful with the new plan the President has proposed in Iraq. That was on February 15. Representative Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee, I think tagged it right, tagged Representative Murtha's plan correctly. He said on Murtha's clumsy strategy: Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning these funds. That was what Representative Jim Cooper said on February 23 in the Washington Post. Congressman Chet Edwards from my State of Texas, another Democrat, said: If you strictly limit a commander's ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk. He said that on February 23 in the Washington Post. The latest resolution, the Biden-Levin proposal, was described by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, another Democrat candidate for President: ``And that resolution can be simply entitled: Revoke the authorization.'' What he is talking about is revoking the authorization of the use of military force that Congress passed in 2001. He is talking about, in 2007, going back to 2001 and revoking the original authorization for use of military force that has resulted in 130,000 American troops currently in Iraq. Senator Biden said this: The next best step is to revoke the authorization the United States Congress gave to the President to go to war in the first place. He said that in Des Moines, IA, on February 17. Senator Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Democrat of Michigan, said: We should limit the mission. One thought is that we should limit the mission to a support mission. In other words, an anti-terrorist mission to go after al-Qaida in Iraq, to support and train the Iraqi Army, to protect our own diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq. So Senator Levin's proposal would be to limit the mission, to put conditions on our troops and on the rules of engagement that would deny them the ability to be successful, if they were otherwise able to be successful. He said that on September 19. Representative Chet Edwards, again of Texas, a Democrat, I think nailed it. He said: I think Congress begins to skate on thin ice when we start to micromanage troop deployment and rotation. He said that on February 23, 2007. Then there are other resolutions by other candidates for President. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, on his resolution said: The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open- ended commitment must come to a close. The need to bring this war to an end is here, and that is why today I am introducing the Iraq War Deescalation Act of 2007. That was on January 30, 2007. He wanted to cap troops who could be deployed into Iraq and opposed the President's plan. Then Senator Clinton, on her proposal, said: I don't want to defund our troops, I am against that, but I want to defund Iraqi troops. Just remember, a moment ago Senator Levin in his resolution said he wanted to train and equip the Iraqis, and now Senator Clinton says she wants to defund the Iraqi troops. She said: I want to defund the private security going for the Iraqi government if they don't meet these certain requirements. She said that on FOX News, a special report with Brit Hume on January 18, 2007. I could go on and on. I know the Senator from Florida is here and wants to speak on the same topic. But the plethora of resolutions that seem to be emanating from the other side of the aisle can't do anything but engender confusion about our aims in Iraq and in the Middle East, not only for our troops who put themselves in harm's way but for Iraqis who have allied themselves with us, who have helped us. I would think that out of the new majority, at least there ought to be a consensus on what it is we ought to be doing there, that we ought not to be leaving our troops with any doubt in their minds about our commitment to support them. We ought not to be leaving any of our friends in Iraq, who have allied themselves with us by helping us, to doubt, wondering whether we would pull our troops out precipitously and leave them exposed to a huge humanitarian crisis and a huge ethnic cleansing by the violence that would ensue. My hope is we will give this new plan a chance. As the Iraq Study Group said, they believe they could support a surge, under appropriate conditions, on page 73 in that report--a bipartisan report of a group who have been given great weight in Congress. They have studied the issue and made recommendations to the President. The President has consulted broadly with a large number of people, military experts, people on both sides of the aisle, and has come up with not only a new commander but a new plan, and we have a new Secretary of Defense. I fail to understand, and I cannot understand, why it is there are so many people who are determined to see that plan be unsuccessful by not providing the troops, by not providing the funding, and by tying our troops' hands with redtape, in terms of the rules of engagement and the conditions under which they fight. Mr. President, I ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us and come up with some plan that can have the support of the Members of Congress. As I said, it used to be that differences between political parties stopped at the water's edge, particularly on a matter so important as our national security. A confusing message is sent by these revolving-door resolutions that are mutually contradictory and inconsistent and do nothing to help us win the war there, to stabilize Iraq, and to bring our troops home as fast as we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and several of our distinguished colleagues in introducing The Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007. Senator Feinstein, myself, and other Senators have been working now for several years on changing how our homeland security dollars are distributed throughout the country. Some have been talking about the need for a risk-based allocation of assistance as long as the Department of Homeland Security has been in existence. Throughout these debates, Senator Feinstein has been a tireless advocate in this effort, and I would like to thank her for her fine leadership and collaboration in crafting this legislation. The attacks on our country on September 11, 2001 were unprecedented in our history, and they brought with them the need for similarly unprecedented security measures. Our Nation needed to respond quickly to the devastation that day delivered to our country, so the Federal Government created a system that worked to raise overall national emergency preparedness to ensure we could better guard against another such terrorist attack. And so, we embarked on the task of shoring up our airline, transportation, border, and port security. We worked to protect our critical infrastructure, to protect our cyber security, our agriculture and food-supply systems. But taxpayer dollars are not limitless, and Congress must work to ensure every penny be directed where it will do the most good. It is imperative that we guard the places across our Nation where terrorists are most likely to strike, and where such strikes could do the most damage to our people, our government, and our national economy. We believe this is the most responsible way to prepare for any future attack. We need to have a system that will protect our most vulnerable assets and populations--one that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. I am reminded of this often when I travel around my home State of Texas. Recently, I met with officials and business leaders from Houston and Southeast Texas and discussed their homeland security needs. Their needs are enormous considering the vast amount of critical infrastructure and energy facilities in and among large population centers. The potential consequences of a terrorist attack on any of these facilities would be devastating, not only to the local communities, but to the economic engine of the whole country. Unfortunately, we got a small taste of effects of a disaster along America's energy coast during the storms of 2005--hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I are proposing would require that Federal Homeland Security funds be allocated to States according to a risk-based assessment. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the vulnerable places in the country we most need to protect, and that that these funds are distributed in an efficient and timely manner. Since we began this effort, I am pleased that there has been progress made. The considerations of threat, vulnerability, and consequence have been incorporated into more homeland security programs. But I'm concerned that we haven't done enough. And I'm concerned that our homeland security dollars are being treated as a pie in which all States get to claim a piece, regardless of risk. This approach is inconsistent if we truly evaluate the 9/11 Commission recommendations. They clearly call for allocation of money based on an assessment of risks. Our legislation provides for a distribution formula for homeland security grants based on risk, which considers three main criteria: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. It requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to areas where they are most needed. It provides greater flexibility in using the funds, allowing a State to use them for other hazards consistent with federally established capability standards. And it allows States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties for states that do not pass funds to local governments within 45 days, and if a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive the funds directly. It is our hope and intent that, by introducing this bill, we can positively contribute and enrich the public discourse on this critical issue, and help move the Nation toward a more rational and effective distribution of our homeland security resources. Continuing to spread Homeland Security funds throughout the Nation-- irrespective of the actual risk to particular states and communities-- would be to ignore much of what we have learned as part of our effort to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of September 11. So I would urge that we swiftly work to pass this legislation, to better ensure the safety of our citizens.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and several of our distinguished colleagues in introducing The Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007. Senator Feinstein, myself, and other Senators have been working now for several years on changing how our homeland security dollars are distributed throughout the country. Some have been talking about the need for a risk-based allocation of assistance as long as the Department of Homeland Security has been in existence. Throughout these debates, Senator Feinstein has been a tireless advocate in this effort, and I would like to thank her for her fine leadership and collaboration in crafting this legislation. The attacks on our country on September 11, 2001 were unprecedented in our history, and they brought with them the need for similarly unprecedented security measures. Our Nation needed to respond quickly to the devastation that day delivered to our country, so the Federal Government created a system that worked to raise overall national emergency preparedness to ensure we could better guard against another such terrorist attack. And so, we embarked on the task of shoring up our airline, transportation, border, and port security. We worked to protect our critical infrastructure, to protect our cyber security, our agriculture and food-supply systems. But taxpayer dollars are not limitless, and Congress must work to ensure every penny be directed where it will do the most good. It is imperative that we guard the places across our Nation where terrorists are most likely to strike, and where such strikes could do the most damage to our people, our government, and our national economy. We believe this is the most responsible way to prepare for any future attack. We need to have a system that will protect our most vulnerable assets and populations--one that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. I am reminded of this often when I travel around my home State of Texas. Recently, I met with officials and business leaders from Houston and Southeast Texas and discussed their homeland security needs. Their needs are enormous considering the vast amount of critical infrastructure and energy facilities in and among large population centers. The potential consequences of a terrorist attack on any of these facilities would be devastating, not only to the local communities, but to the economic engine of the whole country. Unfortunately, we got a small taste of effects of a disaster along America's energy coast during the storms of 2005--hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I are proposing would require that Federal Homeland Security funds be allocated to States according to a risk-based assessment. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the vulnerable places in the country we most need to protect, and that that these funds are distributed in an efficient and timely manner. Since we began this effort, I am pleased that there has been progress made. The considerations of threat, vulnerability, and consequence have been incorporated into more homeland security programs. But I'm concerned that we haven't done enough. And I'm concerned that our homeland security dollars are being treated as a pie in which all States get to claim a piece, regardless of risk. This approach is inconsistent if we truly evaluate the 9/11 Commission recommendations. They clearly call for allocation of money based on an assessment of risks. Our legislation provides for a distribution formula for homeland security grants based on risk, which considers three main criteria: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. It requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to areas where they are most needed. It provides greater flexibility in using the funds, allowing a State to use them for other hazards consistent with federally established capability standards. And it allows States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties for states that do not pass funds to local governments within 45 days, and if a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive the funds directly. It is our hope and intent that, by introducing this bill, we can positively contribute and enrich the public discourse on this critical issue, and help move the Nation toward a more rational and effective distribution of our homeland security resources. Continuing to spread Homeland Security funds throughout the Nation-- irrespective of the actual risk to particular states and communities-- would be to ignore much of what we have learned as part of our effort to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of September 11. So I would urge that we swiftly work to pass this legislation, to better ensure the safety of our citizens.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on Monday the distinguished majority leader took to the floor and bemoaned the state of our economy, calling our economic future bleak. As surprised as I was by those comments, I thought it was even more important to come down to the floor and to respond and to provide, I think, a much different picture than that depicted by the distinguished majority leader. It is ironic the same date those comments were made, the Associated Press reported a story that leads with this paragraph: The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections. The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began October 1 was down 57.2 percent from the same period a year ago. That same article goes on to say: The continued strong growth in revenues reflects the record profits corporations have been recording in recent years and the low levels of unemployment, which means more Americans are working and paying taxes. If this is ``bleak'' economic news, I would love to see what good economic news might look like. I have a few charts that provide a more accurate picture of exactly where we stand in terms of the American economy today. This first chart demonstrates for 21 consecutive quarters we have seen the U.S. economy grow, including the latest quarter where the economy grew by 3.5 percent. We have seen since August 2003, employment has expanded over 41 consecutive months--creating 7.4 million new jobs in America. This timeframe is not accidental. In 2003, we passed some of the tax relief which is largely responsible for giving the American worker greater incentive to work hard and to save their money and invest it in their small business, thus creating jobs and opportunity for all Americans. This has created the sort of freedom that is always demonstrated in the strength of our burgeoning economy. It is as a result of not Government action per se but, rather, the freedom we have given the economy and the hard-working American taxpayer to keep more of what they earn and creating an incentive for them to work hard and be able to earn more to support their family and their way of life. The third chart demonstrates the economic picture is not as the distinguished majority leader said, ``bleak'' but demonstrates that revenue to the Federal Treasury has exceeded all historical precedent. Indeed, this last projection is that in 2007 we will see it increase by 18.5 percent, and you can see above the line on this chart that represents historical averages. Each of the following years leading up to 2012 will exceed that historical average. Again, the economy is stronger than ever and continues to grow because of our current low tax and progrowth policies. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that Washington sometimes forgets because when given the opportunity, the instinct of Washington is to increase Federal revenue by increasing taxes. I don't think you need to know much about human nature to know that high taxes decrease the incentive we all have to work hard. What that does is actually have a wet-blanket effect on the economy and on the ability of small businesses and employers to create jobs which create the kind of economic growth and the kind of revenue our tax system generates as a result of strong economic activity. I am worried that even with the current continuing resolution that is in the Senate now that cuts $3.1 billion from defense spending at a time when we are trying to bring our troops home from Europe and Asia and to provide them a place to come home to, that the solution offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is ``Don't worry, we will add that money back in when we get to the supplemental appropriations bill.'' The problem with that is the $3.1 billion that has been spent out of the current continuing resolution or Omnibus appropriations bill on things other than our military, that money has now been spent on other programs that are favored by the new majority. What they are saying is, instead of spending $3.1 billion, we will spend $6.2 billion--the $3.1 on things other than defense, but we will come back later and make the defense budget whole but in a way that aggravates the budget deficit. Of course, the consequence of that kind of spending policy which has a tendency to aggravate the deficit lays the groundwork for our colleagues on the other side to say, the American people are not taxed enough. We need to actually raise taxes in order to generate more revenue to pay for this additional spending. This is exactly the kind of response we do not need. As demonstrated by the charts, as demonstrated by the booming economy, we have, as a result of the low tax policy and the progrowth policies of the last 6 years, the American economy could not be stronger or better. I hope we will all be edified by this factual data demonstrated on the charts and that the misimpression that the distinguished majority leader was under when he called the economy bleak will be now disabused. I hope he will see from the charts and from my comments--not because I said it but because this is what the facts demonstrate--the low tax and progrowth policies we have had over the last 6 years have served the American people very well and that 7.4 million new jobs have been created in America since August 2003. That, indeed, should be what we are all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, be recognized following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, inquiry: Can you advise me how much time remains in morning business on both sides?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his courtesy. Mr. President, I would like to speak for no more than the next 10 minutes. If the Chair will advise me after the expiration of that time, then I will yield to the senior Senator from Texas. The House passed a continuing resolution that is before the Senate. In fact, it is a $464 billion omnibus spending bill that makes major policy changes and shifts billions of dollars away from important national priorities. The omnibus, I believe, is a flawed proposal and should be fixed before it becomes law, which means that amendments should be offered and voted on by the Senate. Unfortunately, the majority leader has decided not to allow the usual process for amendments to be offered and voted on to occur and, in fact, has blocked those amendments, and it is unlikely we will have an opportunity to improve this Omnibus appropriations bill before it is voted on. We have several amendments we are prepared to offer on this omnibus bill, if allowed to do so, which I do believe would measurably improve it. While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pledged, as we have, to support our troops, this bill will delay the return of many U.S. troops from overseas. We are prepared to offer a budget- neutral amendment to restore more than $3 billion in funding for the U.S. military. More than 12,000 American troops serving overseas will be unable to come home if the plan on the floor now becomes law without any amendments. The barracks necessary to house these returning troops will not be funded in this spending plan. To have the majority not allow the Senate to vote on the proposed amendment which would restore this funding and support our troops and to prevent our troops from coming home to the facilities they need in order to accommodate them, to me, is simply a bad way to do business and is difficult for me to explain to my colleagues and my constituents back home. The majority promised not to change policy through a spending bill but now have eliminated a bipartisan baby AIDS prevention program. We have an amendment by Senator Coburn that will ensure that more than $30 million dedicated to this lifesaving baby AIDS program is not blocked by this omnibus. We were also told by the majority they believe in earmark reform, special projects that are funded through an earmark in the budget process, but they are in this Omnibus appropriations bill allowing what I would call back-door earmarking. We have an amendment we are prepared to offer that would protect taxpayers' funds by guaranteeing that the omnibus is truly earmark free and by preventing back-room deals to fund wasteful programs after this bill is passed. Finally, in a general sense, talking about the kinds of amendments that need to be offered and voted on on this bill, the majority promised to be sensitive to those who are in the most need of assistance, but this Omnibus appropriations bill takes money from crime victims, $1.2 billion, and spends it on other Government programs. This is simply, I believe, a bad way to do business and I think is inconsistent with the spirit of bipartisanship with which this Congress started with the work we have been able to do on lobby and ethics reform, on minimum wage, and small business tax and regulatory relief. I also have two other amendments I would like to call up to this bill that I wish to mention briefly, but unfortunately, as I already mentioned, the majority leader has seen fit to deny any Senator the opportunity, in this the world's greatest deliberative body, to even offer any additional amendments. Nevertheless, I wish to take a moment to highlight them. The first amendment would restore funding to the Department of Energy's FutureGen Program and do so without busting the budget. FutureGen, as my colleagues know, is a demonstration project launched by President Bush in 2003 to test new technology in refining coal in generating electricity. If successful, FutureGen technologies could help lower energy costs, increase domestic energy resources, and eliminate harmful air pollutants. On the Senate floor, we talk a lot about ending our reliance on foreign sources of energy, as well as our need to produce energy in the cheapest way possible. The Omnibus appropriations bill that is on the floor, to which we are being denied an opportunity to offer amendments, pulls the carpet from under the FutureGen Program which seeks to address both of those needs. Solutions to our energy future must be made by utilizing a variety of technologies, both traditional and new, innovative technology. We cannot turn our back on our most abundant domestic resource, coal, but we can make sure that the kind of innovation and research that this FutureGen project is designed to do can make sure we can use that domestic energy resource in a way that is entirely consistent with our universal desire to have a clean environment. One other amendment I would offer would restore the cuts that the omnibus bill makes from the U.S. Marshals Service. This amendment also does not bust the budget. The Omnibus appropriations bill shortchanges the men and women in the U.S. Marshals Service who are on the frontlines protecting the safety of our Federal judges and our court personnel. Every day the Marshals Service protects more than 2,000 sitting Federal judges, as well as other court officials, at more than 400 courthouses and facilities across the Nation. The protection of our Federal judges by the U.S. Marshals Service is one of the most important and perhaps least-recognized assignments in law enforcement. But a disturbing trend is afoot. Increasingly, judges, witnesses, courthouse personnel, and law enforcement personnel who support them are the subject of violence simply for carrying out their duties. We can all agree that the safety of our men and women who serve in these important law enforcement capacities deserve the proper funding necessary for them to do their job. Mr. President, I regret, more with a sense of disappointment than anger, the fact that the majority leader has denied us an opportunity to offer amendments on any of these priorities, matters which I think we can all agree deserve our consideration and close scrutiny. But given the fact that, rather than the bipartisan cooperation we were promised at the outset of this Congress, we are seeing basically a my- way-or-the-highway approach to this Omnibus appropriations bill, not only are our troops not going to get the $3.1 billion that is necessary to provide housing and assets for them to return home, but we know clean coal-burning technology and research is going to be denied and put off, pushed down the road with harm to our Nation and, finally, we know the U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting our Federal judiciary, is going to be denied the resources they need to do their job. This is simply not the right way to do business, certainly not in the bipartisan spirit which we were promised at the outset of this Congress. I hope that the majority leader will reconsider and allow us to offer amendments and have an up-or-down vote on each of these amendments. I yield the floor.