John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes, for a total of 3 minutes, I would appreciate it.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts a moment ago asked--because Republicans have asked for additional tax and regulatory relief for small businesses that employ 70 percent of the American people--what it is that Republicans have against hard-working Americans because of our desire to pass not just a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, up from the $5.15 an hour. He said that this was an effort to politicize the issue. So I would have to ask the Senator, when the minimum wage affects 2.5 percent of the workforce in America, mainly teenagers and part-time workers, people entering the workforce, is this the way to address the needs of hard-working Americans? Why is it we are so focused on a minimum wage, when what we ought to be focused on is maximizing the wages of American workers primarily, I believe, through increased training, workforce initiatives, working through community colleges with the private sector to train people for good wages, much higher than minimum wage, that exist in this country but go wanting for lack of trained workers. These programs exist in our communities in my State and throughout the country, and I think we would do better to focus our efforts to try to improve the standard of living for people across America. I simply disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts, if he says by focusing on 2.5 percent of the workforce and by trying to ameliorate some of the harm to small businesses that generate 70 percent of the jobs, we are doing anything that would harm hard-working Americans. To the contrary, what we are trying to do is make sure those hard-working Americans have jobs, not that they are put out of work by well- intentioned but unsuccessful attempts for Government to mandate wages without taking into account the impact on small businesses, the primary employers in our country. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama, who was supposed to start speaking at 4 o'clock, allowing a couple of us to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes, and following that, the Senator from Alabama to speak for up to an hour.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Secure Border Crossing Card Entry Act of 2007. This bill allows certain travelers who seek to enter the U.S. temporarily and have already undergone rigorous security screening prior to entry and at the border, to enter our country and remain for up to 6 months. We all agree that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority this year--not only for the administration but also for Congress. I have stated that no effort on immigration reform can succeed without enhanced border security and worksite enforcement. We have been working hard to ramp up our border and interior enforcement efforts. Just last year, Congress dedicated approximately $1.3 billion in last years Homeland Security Appropriations bill targeted at enhanced border security. I am pleased that the President and Secretary Chertoff have made border security a top priority this year as well. Strong border security, however, must be balanced against policies that facilitate legitimate trade and travel to the U.S. The security of our Nation is always paramount. But we also must ensure that the U.S. remains an economic leader and a welcoming nation for visitors who seek to enjoy the many business and recreational benefits that the U.S. has to offer. We have in place now a program that allows visitors who possess a machine-readable border crossing card, also known as the ``laser visa,'' to enter this country for up to 30 days. The laser visa is issued by the State Department to Mexican nationals, but only after they have been screened and determined not to be a security risk or inadmissible to the U.S. Laser visa holders are screened again when they come to our borders and are inspected by an immigration inspector. Canadian visitors, on the other hand, are not required to get a laser visa from the State Department prior to seeking to enter the U.S. Canadian visitors also can remain in the U.S. for up to 6 months initially. I see no reason that we should treat citizens and nationals of our northern neighbor differently from our southern neighbor. The goal of this bill is to treat all citizens and nationals of our northern and southern neighbors seeking to temporarily visit the U.S. the same--allowing them to temporarily visit or conduct business in the U.S. for up to 6 months. And, because laser visa holders must undergo background checks before they are issued their secure travel documents, this policy change would not conflict with our country's goal of improving border security. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce the Secure Border Crossing Card Entry Act of 2007. This bill allows certain travelers who seek to enter the U.S. temporarily and have already undergone rigorous security screening prior to entry and at the border, to enter our country and remain for up to 6 months. We all agree that comprehensive immigration reform is a top priority this year--not only for the administration but also for Congress. I have stated that no effort on immigration reform can succeed without enhanced border security and worksite enforcement. We have been working hard to ramp up our border and interior enforcement efforts. Just last year, Congress dedicated approximately $1.3 billion in last years Homeland Security Appropriations bill targeted at enhanced border security. I am pleased that the President and Secretary Chertoff have made border security a top priority this year as well. Strong border security, however, must be balanced against policies that facilitate legitimate trade and travel to the U.S. The security of our Nation is always paramount. But we also must ensure that the U.S. remains an economic leader and a welcoming nation for visitors who seek to enjoy the many business and recreational benefits that the U.S. has to offer. We have in place now a program that allows visitors who possess a machine-readable border crossing card, also known as the ``laser visa,'' to enter this country for up to 30 days. The laser visa is issued by the State Department to Mexican nationals, but only after they have been screened and determined not to be a security risk or inadmissible to the U.S. Laser visa holders are screened again when they come to our borders and are inspected by an immigration inspector. Canadian visitors, on the other hand, are not required to get a laser visa from the State Department prior to seeking to enter the U.S. Canadian visitors also can remain in the U.S. for up to 6 months initially. I see no reason that we should treat citizens and nationals of our northern neighbor differently from our southern neighbor. The goal of this bill is to treat all citizens and nationals of our northern and southern neighbors seeking to temporarily visit the U.S. the same--allowing them to temporarily visit or conduct business in the U.S. for up to 6 months. And, because laser visa holders must undergo background checks before they are issued their secure travel documents, this policy change would not conflict with our country's goal of improving border security. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Reed O'Connor and Ramona McGee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the 110th Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following Senator Kennedy and Senator Kyl for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the numerous ways in which many of our colleagues have worked to improve this bill; significantly, the bipartisan work of the Finance Committee, Senators Grassley and Baucus, certainly the good work of the minority manager of the bill, Senator Enzi, and numerous others to try to improve it, to try to ameliorate some of the unintended consequences of government-mandated wages. I support the small business package which is part of what we are attempting to do to provide a better bill, one that rounds out the provisions of the bill and one that actually produces intended effects, which are not to hurt small businesses, the primary engine of our economy. The fact is, small businesses employ about 70 percent of the workers in America today. Why would this body do anything that would actually put more people out of work? Well, the provisions of the legislation that came out of the Finance Committee, as modest as they are, represent a real attempt to try to round out and improve the bill in order to reduce the unintended impact, which would be to put people out of work, and to provide some regulatory and tax relief for small businesses, the employers that employ 70 percent of the people in the American workforce. Small business expensing allows mom-and-pop shops and entrepreneurs to reinvest in their businesses and grow and, in so growing, hire more people and create jobs, not just in my State of Texas but across the country. It will help locally owned businesses and other small enterprises make much needed improvements in their infrastructure, which will help them compete and improve their productivity. I have concerns, however, that while the minimum wage increase in this legislation is permanent, the regulatory and tax relief that is part of the package is only temporary and not permanent as well. Nevertheless, these fixes are necessary. But don't take it from me. Take it from people like Jonathan Meller who e-mailed me recently. Mr. Meller is the owner of Papa Murphy's pizza restaurant in Burleson, TX. He talked about the economics of a wage increase and what it would mean for his small business. Like a majority of employees slated to earn the minimum wage, Mr. Meller's employees are, true to the statistic I mentioned a moment ago, under 20 years of age. Like many business owners, Mr. Meller operates in a free market. He believes in free enterprise. He believes in competition. Frankly, he doesn't appreciate the fact that government sticks its big finger right in the middle of his business and mandates that he pay wages that are above the market. Any government-mandated wage hike will have a dramatic impact on how he is able to do business and on the number of employees he is able to hire. Then there is William Goodman, the owner of Scooters in El Paso. Mr. Goodman has only one employee. If the minimum wage is raised, where does that leave him? Mr. Goodman says he will have no employees, if the government, rather than the market, forces him to increase the wages he pays his one employee. He says--and I take him as his word--he will not be able to absorb the additional cost that would go along with this legislation. My point is this: Raising the minimum wage and the taxes that come with it will similarly leave many employees without jobs. We need to think long and hard before we choose to impose this sort of regulation on small businesses. In the end, my hope is that we can come together with a sensible package that will enjoy bipartisan support; that will, according to the intentions of the authors, increase the minimum wage but also soften the blow on small business and thus protect the jobs of many workers who might otherwise be laid off. The important point, though, that this legislation misses is that the best way to increase the quality of life for workers in America is not just to raise the minimum wage. That puts a patch or a Band-Aid on what is a much more serious and larger problem. Education and workforce training are the best ways to increase the quality of life for America's workers instead of a wage increase that could hurt small businesses and consumers and, indeed, some of the very employees we are trying to help. We all understand--it is a given--that every American should receive a good-quality education. We must continue to pursue policies to ensure that this is not merely a dream but a reality. No one, though, should end their education just when they receive a diploma or degree. Indeed, the world has become so complex, competition has become so globalized, that we need to think of education as a lifelong learning experience. In that vein, I emphasize the importance of providing workers with the kinds of skills and talent and training they need, not only to earn the minimum wage but to earn good living wages much higher than the minimum wage and the important role our universities, community colleges, trade schools, and workforce development centers play in providing the training and education necessary for thousands and thousands of people across this great country to improve their standard of living and to achieve their dreams. I strongly believe that joint workforce-education projects are critical to our efforts as our economy continues its upswing and as competition increases on a global scale. It is imperative that we focus our efforts not only on setting a wage that may be out of sync with market forces but literally on liberating people to achieve their dreams by giving them the skills necessary to earn higher wages which will allow them to enjoy the American dream. It is imperative that we do everything we can to provide this training through our colleges and universities, working with the private sector to try to develop programs relevant to the local economy and, hence, jobs that are available in the local economy, and thus increase our competitiveness. This is not just a temporary or passing interest of mine. I have traveled across my State, as have many of my colleagues, to community colleges and have seen some of the effective partnerships that community colleges have entered into with local employers. Frankly, employers are wanting for lack of trained employees to fill job vacancies at much higher than the minimum wage. One stands out in my mind--a young woman I met at the Bell Helicopter plant in Amarillo, TX, by the name of Jeanette Hudson Gibbs. The reason I remember Ms. Gibbs is because she works on the assembly line for the V-22 tilt rotor at Bell Helicopter at their Amarillo plant. This is a young Hispanic woman, a single mother with a special needs child, who, before she went to work at Bell Helicopter on the assembly line for the V-22 tilt rotor, was a prison guard, a single mom. You can imagine the concerns her family had, not just about the fact that she was earning much lower wages but, in fact, the dangers associated with that job. Thanks to the great partnership Bell Helicopter had entered into with Amarillo Community College, Ms. Gibbs is now earning $16 an hour, and that was the last time I heard from her. It could be she is even doing better now because of the job skills she acquired through this partnership between Bell Helicopter and Amarillo Community College. This is a great success story of which I am proud. I know she must be proud of her accomplishments. And it is exactly the sort of emphasis we ought to be placing through legislation we pass on the floor. I worry that by looking at mandating minimum wages rather than focusing on workforce development and the kind of job training that is going to be able to produce more people like her, somehow we have not set our sights high enough. Last April, I hosted an event back in my home of Austin, TX. It is something we call the Texas Workforce Summit. This was a gathering of community college leaders from all across the State. The purpose of that was to learn more about Federal grant opportunities and to learn more about the successes of partnerships such as the one I just mentioned between Amarillo Community College and Bell Helicopter. Because of this initiative, Del Mar College in Corpus Christi applied for and received a grant of nearly $2 million to improve employment opportunities for technical employees in the aerospace industry. This is an even better story because Del Mar College has the same kind of workforce training partnership that I described a moment ago in Amarillo but this time in Corpus Christi. This is a workforce development program which Del Mar has entered into at the Corpus Christi Depot. The Corpus Christi Depot, for those who don't know, is the place where the military refurbishes and refits the military helicopters that are damaged through use in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have a wonderful training program there through the same kind of partnership I mentioned a moment ago, which is creating a better way of life and a better opportunity for many workers there--and also, in a patriotic fashion, supporting our effort in the global war on terror. As you can tell, I have been a long advocate of these initiatives. I have taken the opportunity to visit these community colleges all across my State, in cities such as Austin, Houston, Pasadena, Laredo, Beaumont, Sherman, El Paso, Lubbock, and Victoria, to highlight the very thing I am talking about here on the floor of the Senate today. So I hope that as we move forward, we will not forget about the great promises community colleges hold in terms of workforce training and look to maybe setting our sights a little bit higher than we have been last week and this week in talking about minimum wage, when we ought to talk about how we can prepare people to earn much higher wages and, frankly, wages and jobs that go wanting for lack of a trained workforce. Just this last week, the National Journal highlighted community colleges as a true American success story. They have offered occupational skills training for decades and will continue to lead the effort to stimulate industry and job growth. This article says: Bridging the gaps between high schools and four-year institutions and between employers and workers, two-year community colleges will help determine how America fares in the global economic competition. So I say it again, Mr. President: We should aspire to much more for the workforce in America, for the American worker, than just the minimum wage. Education and workforce training are the way forward to both increase the quality of life for more workers and provide a way for them to achieve their dreams. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Raising Questions many employers unsure about possible rise in minimum wage (By Matt Whittaker) Brownsville.--Restaurant owner Belinda Campirano is torn when asked to weigh in on what Congress should do about raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15, where it has been for a decade. She has only one $6-an-hour employee at Media Luna, the Brownsville eatery I she and her sister own. Still, a mandated wage increase would put a dent in her budget, she said. But she empathizes with those supporting their families on service industry wages. Her employee, who has a child and is married to a waitress, sometimes works an extra job at another restaurant to help make ends meet. ``I'm kind of sitting on the fence on it,'' Campirano said of the minimum wage. ``I do believe we need to up it, but it is going to impact small businesses. As an employer, it would be tough for me if I had more employees.'' Of 5.5 million hourly workers in Texas, 176,000 earned at or below $5.15 an hour in 2005, according to Labor Department data. The liberal Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank in favor of increasing the nation's base pay, estimates 863,000 Texas workers would be directly affected by a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour. More workers would be affected in the Rio Grande Valley than in other parts of the country because the area has lower wages, said Jose A. Pagan, a labor economist at the University of Texas-Pan American in Edinburg. In the second quarter of 2006, Cameron County had the lowest average weekly wages in the nation, at $484. Hidalgo County followed at $494 a week. On Jan. 10, the U.S. House passed a measure that would increase the minimum wage to $7.25 in three stages over more than two years. Passage of a companion bill introduced in the Senate could hinge on tax breaks for businesses. The bill is expected to be brought up in the Senate this week, and U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Texas Republicans, support an increase if it is coupled with tax help for small businesses. Proponents of the increase say it is a long overdue raise for U.S. workers. A memorandum from the Economic Policy Institute said business owners have received tax cuts since 1997 (when the last minimum wage increase took effect), ``while minimum wage workers have been kept waiting at the back of the line.'' Opponents of a minimum wage increase say it would hurt small businesses and the working poor alike and increase unemployment. ``It's a bad thing for any area,'' said Jill Jenkins, chief economist at the conservative Employment Policies Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank that opposes a minimum wage increase.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation for my colleagues' efforts to do what, in their view, would help promote a better quality of life for the people of this great country. We are here to debate specifically a proposal to increase the minimum wage, but, in my view, we should aspire to more than a minimum wage for the workers across this country. Instead, we should work to provide the training and educational opportunities that will allow individuals across this great Nation to enter the workforce at perhaps minimum wage but, more importantly, to then move up the economic ladder. When we put ourselves in the position of Government rather than the market dictating wages, we will most certainly see some unintended effects of less opportunity for some of the very American workers whom we are attempting to help. Let's put this proposal in perspective. Research reveals that the negative effects of raising the minimum wage would, in fact, fall most heavily on the shoulders of the most vulnerable workers. Let me say that again. Research shows that the effects of raising the minimum wage--that is, of the Federal Government rather than the market dictating the wages at which employers must pay workers--that the burden would actually fall most heavily on the most vulnerable workers. When employers are forced to raise their costs in order to comply with a government mandate, they are most likely going to reduce the hours their workers can work or perhaps even lay people off in order to meet their bottom line. Of course, they will also choose, if costs go up because government has increased the wages which an employer must pay, to retain their most skilled and experienced and productive employees, not the less skilled or lower wage earners. That is important because teenagers and those who are working on a part-time basis or who are just entering the workforce are the ones who predominantly receive the minimum wage under the status quo. So why in the world would government decide to put people out of work, presumably the very people whom this amendment is designed to help? We need to ask ourselves that question and come up with a better answer than I have heard so far. I saw a cartoon, which was really not funny, distributed a couple of days ago where an employer is talking to an employee. He says: I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the minimum wage has been increased, so you are going to get a pay raise. The bad news is you are fired. The point of the cartoon is--as I said, it is really not funny--that if fixed costs of employers go up, something has to give. And where that give actually impacts the workers is going to be, I am afraid, on the most vulnerable workers, the less educated, the less trained, and unfortunately, more often, on minorities and women, the very groups the advocates of this bill have said they want to help. Consider this statistic: Of the 75.6 million Americans who are paid by the hour, 1.9 million workers earn wages at or below the minimum wage. In other words, that is 2.5 percent of all hourly paid workers. So the debate we are having this week--and, presumably, will carry over to next week--will affect 2.5 percent of all hourly paid workers. The largest share of minimum wage earners include teenagers and young adults who have only entered the workforce. Based on the most recent data available, approximately one-fourth of minimum wage earners are teenagers between the ages of 16 and 19, and about one-half are between the ages of 16 and 24. Over the past few weeks, in anticipation of this debate, there have been a number of articles in national and State publications addressing this topic. Many of them have been very thoughtful and informative. One article that demonstrates the complexity of this issue, that there is actually more than meets the eye on this topic, was published by the Valley Morning Star in Brownsville, TX, a story about Belinda Campirano. Ms. Campirano, along with her sister, is an owner of Media Luna, a small restaurant in Brownsville, TX. Ms. Campirano has only one employee, whom she pays $6 an hour. And while she understands, from the standpoint of simple human compassion, the difficulty of getting by on $5.15 an hour, she also realizes that a government-mandated wage increase would put a significant dent into her operating budget, literally in her ability to keep the doors open and keep this individual, her single employee, on the payroll. There was also another great series of articles in the Washington Post, one on January 10 entitled ``Life at $7.25 an Hour, As House Prepares to Vote on Minimum Wage Increase, Issue is Complex for Those Who Earn or Pay That Amount.'' That article does an excellent job of cutting through the rhetoric and exposing the reality of what it is we are debating. I ask unanimous consent that both articles be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I see the floor manager from our side, Senator Gregg, on the floor. I talked to him about yielding me 10 minutes from our time. I ask if that is still acceptable.

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 101 Mr. President, I want to talk specifically about the second-look-at- wasteful-spending amendment which is pending and that we will vote on here in a few moments. I hope to come back later today, perhaps, and talk more generally about the minimum wage bill that is pending, the underlying bill, and talk about how I hope our goal would be to train and educate American workers to fill good, high-paying jobs that currently go wanting for lack of a trained workforce. I would hope we would spend at least as much of our efforts on training them, providing them the alternatives to earn those higher, good wages as we spend focusing on the 2.5 percent of the workforce who actually earn the minimum wage--generally people who are starting into the workforce: teenagers, part-time workers, and the like--and how, notwithstanding our best of intentions, some of our actions here, by Government actually setting a minimum wage, may actually put some of them out of work. But I would focus on the second-look-at-wasteful-spending amendment and challenge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in a good way. Since we have come back after the election, and we have this new 110th Congress, we have heard a lot of very appropriate commentary on both sides of the aisle about the importance of our working together in order to solve some of the Nation's most serious problems. The President talked about that last night. One of the areas the President spoke about last night in his State of the Union Message--and I hear an awful lot about from my constituents--is concern about wasteful spending. Indeed, a lot of what we did on a bipartisan basis this last week on lobbying and ethics reform was to turn the bright light of public scrutiny on the earmark process--special appropriations stuck in bills that frequently benefit individuals and groups--to turn the bright light on those, offer greater transparency, so the public can know how their tax dollars are being spent and, hopefully, people understanding that whatever they do will be exposed to public scrutiny, they will make sure their conduct in doing so conforms with the highest ethical standards they have a right to expect from us. But the fact is that Presidents on both sides of the aisle--President Clinton, when he was President; now President Bush--have sought the authority of the line-item veto or, in this instance, what we are talking about is the so-called enhanced rescission. It is a process where the President, once an appropriations bill is sent over to him, highlights a concern he or she has about an appropriations bill, and sends it back over to the Congress to reconsider. This is a way to provide the kind of laser-like focus we need to have on wasteful spending projects that occasionally--some might say more than occasionally--creep into our Federal appropriations process. In the spirit of bipartisanism that I think the American people would like to see when confronting some of our biggest challenges, my hope would be that Members of this Congress--Members of this Senate--on a bipartisan basis, would support the very kind of bill this represents, and that they were advocating for when Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, offered and sponsored with the support of at least 21 Democrats when President Clinton was in office. I hold up a chart. I showed this yesterday, but I think it is worth looking at again. This chart is a comparison of the Daschle and Gregg expedited rescission amendments. You can see in all respects the Daschle amendment--here, again, Tom Daschle, the Senator from South Dakota, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, offered an amendment which in all respects, except two--I will talk about that in a minute-- is the same as Senator Gregg is proposing, the so-called second-look- at-wasteful-spending amendment. The only two ways they differ is that the Gregg amendment does permit rescission of new mandatory spending. If you look at the places where money is being spent fastest in the Federal budget, it is in mandatory or entitlement programs, which are going up at the rate of 8 percent or more a year, on autopilot. I applaud Senator Gregg for including a provision that permits rescission of new mandatory spending programs. But that and permitting four rescission packages annually, those are the two areas where the Gregg amendment differs, albeit in a relatively minor way, from what Senator Daschle proposed in 1995. You will see on this next chart, here is a list of the current Senate Democrats who supported the Daschle amendment in 1995. My hope would be, with this little refresher for our colleagues who actually supported this good policy back in 1995, that they would see fit to vote to close off debate and to actually have an up-or-down vote on the Gregg amendment. As I said, if it was good policy in 1995, supported by these good Democratic colleagues, I think they would agree--I would hope they would agree--it is a good policy in 2007 or, if it is not, I would hope they would come to the floor and explain their change of heart because I think it would represent a change in position. So this amendment goes to the heart of what I hear people express their concerns about most as I travel back in my State and as I read and listen to people's concerns, as expressed through the media, that Federal spending and our failure to be good trustees of the Federal tax dollar is one of their biggest concerns, along, obviously, with national security issues such as the war in Iraq. The other issue I hear a lot about--the President talked about it last night--is immigration reform. Mr. President, I see the budget chairman on the floor, and I know he and Senator Gregg have committed to work on a bipartisan basis to try to deal with not just these issues, such as earmarks that abuse the public trust, and which somehow slip into our appropriations process, but to look at the larger picture and try to figure out how we can sustain some of the most important programs the American people have come to rely upon, things such as Social Security and Medicare, and that we not continue to spend in a way that imposes a financial burden for those programs on our children and grandchildren. That raises a profound moral issue that I believe we must confront. So I do appreciate the efforts that are being made to try to deal with some of our hardest problems. I think there is a great opportunity provided here. Some might find this a little surprising for me to say being a Republican, but I think divided Government provides an opportunity for this body to do some very big and important and significant things. I do not think politics has to be a zero-sum game where Democrats win and Republicans lose, or Republicans win and Democrats lose in the public policymaking process. I think we can all win, and in so doing the American people can win, if we will simply come together in a commonsense, result-oriented sort of way and try to solve some of these problems. I think Senator Gregg's amendment picks up on the wisdom of Senator Daschle's amendment back in 1995. And I frankly would be perplexed if we were unable to get the kind of bipartisan support to close off debate, to have an up-or-down vote on the floor, and demonstrate to the American people that, you know what, we heard the message on November 7, and you know what, we get it. We understand what you were telling us. You wanted us to work together, and we are working together to try to solve some of our Nation's biggest problems. We reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment pending on the floor, the second look at wasteful spending amendment, otherwise known as the Gregg amendment, after the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. The truth is, we might call this really the Daschle amendment or the Byrd amendment or the Levin amendment or Murray or Dodd, other Senators who have supported virtually this same proposal on previous occasions. I will explain that more in just a moment. If we look at this amendment, compared with one offered by the former majority leader, Senator Tom Daschle, when the Democrats were, again, in leadership, we can see how the Gregg amendment corresponds virtually, precisely with the proposal made by then-Democratic majority leader Tom Daschle. It established a fast-track congressional process for consideration of Presidential rescissions. It required congressional affirmation of rescissions. It allowed the President to suspend funds for a maximum of 45 days. It does not permit the President to resubmit rescissions once rejected by the Congress. It allowed rescissions of discretionary funding and targeted tax benefits. It did not allow rescissions of new mandatory programs. That is one area where this differs from the Daschle amendment. The Gregg amendment would permit rescission of new mandatory spending. I interject, if we are going to get a handle on runaway Federal spending, it is not going to be in discretionary spending alone. We have actually--contrary, perhaps, to popular perception--done a pretty good job limiting nondefense, nonhomeland security discretionary spending. But to paraphrase, that is not where the money is. Where the money is actually in mandatory spending--in entitlement spending, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. So the Gregg amendment quite appropriately addresses rescission of new, not existing, new mandatory spending programs. We can see here that in virtually every respect except two--the one I just mentioned and that only four rescission packages would be permitted annually under the Gregg amendment--there is virtual identity between these two amendments. Why is this so important? I have to tell my colleagues that as I travel around my State of Texas, there are issues people talk to me about, as with other Members. They are concerned about our lack of border security. They are concerned, obviously, about the war on terror and the way forward in Iraq. But one of the really top three issues that my constituents talk to me about is Federal spending. They worry about the deficit. They worry about the long-term obligation under Social Security and Medicare, a bill that is going to be paid by our children and grandchildren, about the morality of basically putting this burden on their backs in the future. So what this amendment does, this second look at wasteful spending, it allows us to cut out some of the pork, cut out some of the waste in a way that I think responds to this very realistic concern by the American people. You will note that in 1995, when Senator Daschle offered this amendment, this was, of course, during the Clinton administration--I want to note that--we had 21 Democratic Senators--virtually all of whom, I guess, are still in the Senate--who supported that Daschle amendment. My hope is they would vote for cloture so we can have an up- or-down vote on this Gregg amendment, which, as I showed a moment ago, is virtually identical. Let's look at some of the quotes back then by distinguished Members of the Senate in support of the Daschle amendment. My hope would be that Senators would remember, perhaps have their recollection refreshed by this exercise in a way that would encourage them to have at least an open mind and possibly even embrace the Gregg amendment today as they did the Daschle amendment back in 1995. Senator Byrd, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, someone who respects congressional prerogative and understands the separation of powers perhaps better than anybody else in this body, said: I have no problem with giving the President another opportunity to select from appropriations bills certain items which he feels for his political or for whatever reasons, I have no problem with his sending them to the two Houses and our giving him a vote. That was on March 22, 1995. Then there is this comment by Senator Feinstein, the distinguished Senator from California. She said: Really, what a line-item veto is all about is deterrence, and that deterrence is aimed at the porkbarrel. I sincerely believe that a line-item veto will work. What we are talking about, this so-called rescission provision, is in essence a version of the line-item veto, something Presidents have called for in the past on both sides of the aisle and something I believe, obviously, there has existed bipartisan support for in the Senate. Then there is Senator Dorgan, who has said: Fully 43 Governors have the line-item veto, which suggests to me that it is a power that the President can safely wield . . . That is why I voted for it, and why I am pleased it is now the law of the land. This was back on April 25, 1996. Of course, we know what happened to the line-item veto. It ultimately was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. That is why we have had to come back with this modification of this rescission package in order to address the Court's concerns and to ensure its constitutionality. Then there is the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Joe Biden, who said: Mr. President, I have long supported an experiment with the line-item veto power for the President. That was Senator Biden on March 27, 1996. Then there is Senator Dodd who has said: I support the substitute offered by Senator Daschle. That is the Daschle amendment. I believe it is a reasonable line-item veto alternative. It requires both Houses of Congress to vote on a President's rescission list and sets up a fast-track procedure to ensure that a vote occurs in a prompt and timely manner. There are just a couple of more. Mr. Feingold, the Senator from Wisconsin, said this: The line-item veto is about getting rid of those items after the President has them on his desk. I think this will prove to be a useful tool in eliminating some of the things that have happened in Congress that have been held up to public ridicule. That obviously goes with the pork spending, the embarrassing earmarks that we have heard so much about from our constituents, particularly leading up to this last election. Senator Murray said: I want to give the President the ability to line-item veto all those portions of the appropriations bills that have not been through the hearing and authorization process. All those pork items contribute to our deficit. I think we have one more from Senator Dorgan, but we have already heard from him. There is one last one from Mr. Levin, the distinguished Senator from Michigan. He said: That so-called expedited rescission process, it seems to me, is constitutional and is something which we can in good conscience, at least I in good conscience, support. My point is obvious, perhaps, but let me, at the risk of beating a dead horse, say it again. If this was good policy back in 1995 and 1996, what has changed in 2007? I submit the only thing that has changed is that our deficit has increased for many years, part of which is porkbarrel spending which can be eliminated with the kind of cooperation that this particular amendment would allow. I suggest to our Democratic colleagues--in the spirit of bipartisanship in which we have started this new Congress with the overwhelming bipartisan passage of an ethics and lobby reform bill and consideration of this minimum wage bill with appropriate relief for small businesses when it comes to regulations and tax relief that will attenuate some of the blow--this is an appropriate amendment for us to consider and pass. I hope the spirit of bipartisanship does not end so early on in this session of the Senate. I know there are many cynics who believe it will die an early death. I am not one of them. I remain hopeful and optimistic that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace this opportunity to do the right thing for the people of this great country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a number of our colleagues running for President of the United States in 2008, and notwithstanding the fact that obviously we have Senators of different party affiliation, Republican and Democrat, isn't a matter of national security exactly the kind of issue that should rise above partisan divisions and upon which we should work to find common ground so we can protect the national security of the United States? I ask the Senator whether he believes that perhaps we have let our guard down and let this discourse become too political in nature rather than solution oriented?

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for one final question.

Mr. CORNYN. I agree with the argument the Senator from New Hampshire has made about the importance of our prosecuting the war against terror and particularly what has been called by the terrorists themselves ``the central front in the war on terror'' in Iraq. Some of our colleagues have introduced a resolution, which the Senator has spoken to, which is a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I heard others this morning talk about imposing caps on the number of troops we might deploy there. I ask the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, if it is so important that we not fail in Iraq and that the region not descend into either a failed state or a launching pad for future terrorist attacks or a regional conflict ensue, does he not believe it would be important for those who criticize the President's announced plan to offer a constructive alternative of their own, if they believe that the President's chosen plan is not the best course of action?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me mention one other subject while I am up, and that has to do with the comments of the distinguished Senator from Oregon about Medicare prescription drugs and the success of the Part D Medicare prescription drug program. I don't know of many governmental programs that have met with more success than this prescription drug program, in terms of the acceptance of America's seniors and the way it has allowed them to get access to prescription drugs at a reasonable cost that they were never able to access before. But I do have grave concerns about those who would attempt to basically interfere with that successful program by imposing Federal controls on the price for which these pharmaceuticals may be charged under the guise of some negotiation. When the Federal Government negotiates with a private entity, there is no real negotiation; it is a take-it-or- leave-it proposition. I pose as exhibit A to support that the current VA health care system, which is held out as a model by which this kind of negotiation could go forward. The fact is, the VA system is pointed to as a model by which this Government negotiation could occur, and today that system does not supply nearly the variety of pharmaceuticals to its beneficiaries the Medicare system does. I have read in various places that the number ranges from 19 percent--I have heard as high as 30 percent--of the drugs that are available to Medicare beneficiaries are available to veterans under the VA system because of this feature. So when you impose price controls, which is what is being advocated by those who want to change the current successful system of Medicare prescription drugs, basically, what we are going to find is a rationing effect. I would think that would be the last thing any of us would want to do--to ration the prescription drugs available to our seniors under the enormously successful Medicare Part D reform we passed in 2003. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I would prefer if the Senator wait until after I am through talking rather than interrupt my comments. I have no objection if he would like to be added to the end of the current unanimous consent request to be recognized after the Senator from Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

Mr. CORNYN. I don't know what the interruption is for.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, with regard to his concerns about the public debate in this body on the progress of the war against terrorism and, specifically, the role of the conflict in Iraq. I have to express some deep concern that on an issue so important to our national security, on the type of matter where we have historically said partisan differences should not extend beyond our shorelines, that we ought to try to work harder to find some solution to this problem for our country. I couldn't agree more with the Senator from New Hampshire: This is a matter of America's national interest and America's national security. That is our No. 1 responsibility. That ought to be our focus. We ought to focus on that like a laser and not be distracted by anything else. I have heard, in addition to nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions being offered, expressing disapproval of the President's proposed plan, suggestions this morning by the Senator from Illinois that he wants to put a cap on the number of troops that can be deployed in the battlefield. Perhaps there will be other efforts that come forward to try to one-up the other proposal, to micromanage the conduct of this very grave and serious matter which so directly affects our national security. While I disagree fundamentally that we ought to have any suggestion to our troops and to those who are in harm's way that we are going to undermine their efforts by cutting off funds to support our troops during a time of war or whether we are going to send nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions in a way that will only encourage our enemies and undermine our war effort, or whether we are going to try to micromanage the conduct of the war rather than to rely upon the senior military leadership who has advised the President and been so much a part of the proposal that the President has made, I think this is all extraordinarily premature. I hope if there is one thing we can all agree on, it is that we have a chance to be successful in Iraq. I know there are those who differ on what success would mean. The President has talked in impressive terms about his vision of establishing a democratic beachhead in Iraq in an area with too few democracies, because the fact is, democracies don't wage war against other democracies. It would be helpful to the long- term stability of the Middle East if that were successful. But I hear people giving up on that vision and saying: Well, the most we can hope for is what the Iraq Study Group said, which is to provide an Iraq that can be sustained, governed, and defended by the Iraqi people. I would be satisfied at this time if we were able to accomplish that goal. I would hope that would be a goal we could all embrace. But I know there are two ways to fail in achieving that goal. One would be to give up and to have a precipitous withdrawal of our troops or to cut off funds to support our troops now or to try to micromanage from Washington, DC, how many troops are in the field or under what circumstances, what the rules of engagement might be. The other way is to actually try to see whether the President's proposal demonstrates any improvement or progress in Iraq, which I would think we would all welcome, if, in fact, that happens. But of course, we can't guarantee that. No one knows whether that plan will be successful for sure. I do believe the President has attempted to get advice from the very best military minds available--people such as GEN David Petraeus, who hopefully will be confirmed here shortly to serve as the head of coalition forces in Iraq; people such as Admiral Fallon, who will take over as CENTCOM commander--while continuing to rely on the advice of people such as GEN George Casey and GEN John Abizaid, whom those two gentlemen will be succeeding. It strikes me as odd to say we are going to give up on this new plan, which many have clamored for months and maybe even years, before we have even had a chance to implement it. Indeed, the fact is we have had as many as 160,000 troops in Iraq at any given time, where now we have approximately 130,000. And even this so-called surge will not bring us up to the maximum number of troops we have had in Iraq at any given period of time. I think we ought to take a moment and think about what is being proposed here in terms of nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, attempts to micromanage the conduct of the war and the battlefield, because I truly believe if we are to allow Iraq to descend into a failed state, that it will, like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union left, serve as a launching pad for terrorist organizations to train, recruit, and launch terrorist attacks to other parts of the world, including the United States, and that more American civilians will die as a result. Of course, there is also the issue of a regional conflict. We have already heard from people such as the Saudis that if, in fact, the Iranians take advantage of the Shiites' momentum in Iraq in that there is ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Iraq, that likely the Saudis will come in in an effort to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, and there will certainly be other countries drawn into what will be a regional conflict. It is not only responsible for the critics of the President's plan to say what they would do differently, but also to explain how they are going to deal with the consequences of a regional conflict in Iraq, should that happen. I do believe that is likely to happen unless we try to see whether the President's plan, in consultation with bipartisan groups such as the Iraq Study Group and in consultation with the very best military minds in the world, has a chance of success. I don't know of any American who would not support an effort to win and to stabilize Iraq, to provide a means for it to govern itself and defend itself if, in fact, that is in the best interest of the United States, which I believe it is.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Michigan for 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I will not belabor the point. But I think you get my flavor. I am not going to even talk much about the $50 million for an indoor rain forest that was the subject of a Federal earmark. And then again, there are examples anybody can find on the Internet, published by Citizens Against Government Waste, examples from what they call the ``Congressional Pig Book.'' I do not have to tell you why they call it that. But the point is, things have gotten terribly out of whack here in Washington when we, as elected representatives of our constituents, of the American people, take it upon ourselves to spend their money on inappropriate subjects, or maybe you say there is some justification for these topics. But I think it is easy to see why it is inappropriate that we spend the Federal taxpayer dollar on some of these topics. Here again, my amendment does not limit these earmarks because I believe there will be a self-corrective mechanism through greater transparency and the accountability that comes with it. That is why I so strongly support the efforts that have been undertaken here on a bipartisan basis to bring greater transparency to the earmark process, because I think it is a problem that can literally fix itself. When people begin to ask the kinds of questions I am asking, when the public begins to shine the bright light of day on some of these special interest earmarks, which have been literally hidden from Members of the Congress until after they have voted on them and published only later by the Congressional Research Service, after they have done a survey of the burgeoning number of earmarks for these kinds of interests, I think this is a problem that can correct itself. So, Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of the bill managers and the opportunity to speak once again on this important topic. I think getting this information to Members of Congress early before we vote would be very helpful and provide a baseline of the number of earmarks that can be analyzed so we can go forward and explain why that number should go up if, in fact, we think it should go up, or if you are like me, if you think the number should go down, establish what the facts are so we have a baseline of information with which to explain our position. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I was proud to join my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, in offering an amendment that would simply place in the Senate bill the very sensible language regarding earmarks that the House of Representatives has already included. Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are rightly proud of the very clear definition of earmarks they have included in that legislation that will help to identify spending measures and highlight them so we can have the kind of debate and sort of public scrutiny we should expect and, indeed, welcome, into the appropriations and legislative process. I was a little bit surprised, however, to find the resistance that was voiced last week, but I understand now that has all been worked out and that a second-degree amendment will be offered by Senator Durbin as a collaborative effort and a demonstration of bipartisan cooperation on something where there ought to be bipartisan cooperation, certainly on the matter of ethics, that will provide for greater transparency and increases public availability of earmark-related information. This is good news for all who wish to see greater fiscal responsibility and accountability. Increased transparency for earmarks is something we ought to embrace and it ought to create in us the ability to discern much better than we have been what kind of spending is in the general welfare of the American people and why that kind of spending is absolutely necessary. Of course, there are those--and I am one of them--who think the Federal Government spends way too much taxpayer money. Our Government was founded as a limited Government with delegated powers. But over the last 220 or so years of our Nation's history, it has been a history of the Federal Government gradually ``filling the field'' to the detriment of State and local government and of the individual freedom by taxpayers, voters, and citizens. While I applaud amendment No. 26, I think we need to do even more. We can add greater sunshine and clarity on the earmark process by adopting an amendment which I offered last week as well. The current bill requires that all future legislation include a list of earmarks as well as the names of the Senators who have requested them. My amendment would add what may seem like a minor addition but one that would require that the budgetary impact for each earmark also be included, as well as a requirement that the total number of earmarks and their total budgetary impact be identified and disclosed. What happens now is that it takes some time for the staff of this body to compile the information contained in bills, and literally we are passing appropriations bills chock-full of earmarks, and we do not have a clue, because we will not have had a chance to read it and consider it in advance, what the total sum of those earmarks is and how they impact the budget. Perhaps the top line itself is disclosed but not how that money is actually broken down and spent. Oftentimes, bills are hundreds of pages long, with earmarks buried in them. It is not uncommon for appropriations, particularly Omnibus appropriations bills, to go into the thousands-of-pages or more in number. Of course, often this is at the end of a legislative period, and there are hours, maybe, or even only minutes to review them. The goal of my amendment is that when we consider legislation, we have a summary document showing the details, including the costs, of earmarks in legislation--and this is the novelty--before we consider the legislation, before we actually vote on it, not after we have already voted and it is too late to do anything about it but before. It serves the very important purpose of added transparency and, indeed, the accountability that goes along with it. I would assume those who have asked for earmarks to be included are proud of them. They feel like they are meritorious. They feel like they can be defended. Well, unfortunately, the very process by which those earmarks are added defeats that kind of transparency and accountability, which is why I believe we need this additional step. Furthermore, if we create, by adoption of this amendment, a fixed baseline from which we can proceed in the future to allow the American public, as well as our staff, to analyze more thoroughly these earmarks, I think we would have created at least a knowledge base that will allow us to make better decisions going forward. Consider that the Congressional Research Service each year conducts a study to identify the earmarks in each bill. Through that study, one can see that both the total number of earmarks and the total dollar value of those earmarks--surprise, surprise--have grown significantly over the last decade. For example, the total number of earmarks increased almost fourfold from 1994 to 2005. Furthermore, the total cost of those earmarks increased by a factor of 100 percent. And the numbers appear to be even higher for 2006. Let me list some of the earmarks that have been included. And we will start with 2007, to give you a flavor of what I am talking about, and the reason why there ought to be greater transparency. Now, I am not suggesting we limit earmarks. I am considering we ought to make them transparent and obvious. And then I think the benefits of open Government and the kind of scrutiny that will follow will have the beneficial impact I think we would all hope for and certainly my constituents would hope for, when they worry that we are spending money for inappropriate purposes and in too large amounts, to their detriment. For example, in January 2007--excuse me. This must have been in last year's appropriations bill--an earmark for $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum. I am not sure what the Please Touch Museum is, but I think it would be beneficial for the sponsor of that earmark to be identified, and it would be beneficial for it to be described how that promotes the general welfare of the American people and why it is justified, taking that $725,000 out of the pockets of taxpayers and putting it in the treasury of the Please Touch Museum. Then there is the $250,000 appropriations for the Country Music Hall of Fame. I happen to be a country music fan, but even I would wonder how that promotes the general welfare, to take money out of the taxpayer's pocket and put it in the treasury of the Country Music Hall of Fame. I think it bears some scrutiny, some explanation. Maybe there is an explanation, but I have to be honest, I cannot think of one now that would justify transferring the money from the taxpayer's pocket and justifying a Federal appropriation for the Country Music Hall of Fame. And just so the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is not left out, there is a $200,000 earmark for that; then the Aviation Hall of Fame, $200,000; the Grammy Foundation, $150,000; the Coca-Cola Space Science Center for $150,000; $150,000 for a single traffic light in Briarcliff Manor, NY. I am not sure why that is a Federal responsibility. In fact, I would think by its description it is not; it is a local responsibility. That cost ought to be borne by the local taxpayer, not the Federal taxpayer through the earmark process--here again, something that cries out for greater accountability through greater transparency. Then there is the $100,000 earmark for the International Storytelling Center. I am not sure why the Federal taxpayer should have to pay for that. It may be a meritorious expenditure, but maybe through private charity. Maybe corporations would like to contribute some money to support this worthwhile local initiative. Maybe local taxpayers could justify the expenditure, maybe State taxpayers, but why should the Federal taxpayer, why should my constituents in Texas have to pay a $100,000 earmark for the International Storytelling Center in some other State? Then there is $500,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.