John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. Mr. President, if I may clarify this, one of the amendments is a second degree to the Leahy amendment currently pending. The other is a separate, freestanding first-degree amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that each side's period of morning business be extended by an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, responding to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, I need 10 minutes, and my colleague from Colorado is asking for some time to speak as in morning business as well. If we can try to work that out----

Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senators.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber to speak on the preeminent issue facing our country today, and that is the threat of Islamic radicalism, and specifically to respond to the comments of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding the President's speech and the plans he has announced for our fighting forces in Iraq last night. As I have tried to sift through the differences of opinion--and here again, among people of good will who love their country and who are true patriots--I am forced to conclude that the division or faultline falls between those who have simply given up and do not believe the situation in Iraq is salvageable and those who believe the President's plan offers the last best hope for success in Iraq. I agree with those who say you cannot look at Iraq as if through a soda straw, as if that is the only challenge facing the United States and the Middle East, because, indeed, failure in Iraq, descension into a civil war, creation of a failed state will undoubtedly create a regional-wide conflict that will necessitate the United States and its allies reentering the conflict at some later date were Iraq unable to sustain and defend and govern itself, as the Iraq Study Group said it must. Indeed, I believe it is incumbent upon those who say the only solution is to draw down our troops in a gradual redeployment to explain what they intend to do when Iraq descends into a failed state, creating another platform, as Afghanistan did once the Soviet Union left that country, which gave rise then to the Taliban and al-Qaida. What is their plan to deal with that consequence if, in fact, that is what occurs, if the United States leaves Iraq before it is able to sustain itself, to govern itself, and defend itself? I congratulate the members of the new majority, but I must say, with the new majority comes not only the privilege of setting the Nation's agenda in the Congress but also the duty of governing. It is not acceptable to merely criticize, particularly if you are in the majority. We need to know what their alternative plan is for this unacceptable possibility of failure in Iraq if, in fact, we are to cut the legs out from under the Maliki government and simply withdraw before the Iraqis are able to sustain themselves. Mr. President, I am one of those who have not given up on Iraq and who believe that our fighting forces in Iraq are doing a lot of good. It is true, as the President said, that mistakes have been made, but it is important to recognize that the initial threat in Iraq was of a Saddam Hussein delivering weapons of mass destruction and technology about biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to terrorists to use against us, as the terrorists did on 9/11. Even a remote possibility that might happen was unacceptable. We voted with a vote of 77 Senators--on a bipartisan basis--to authorize the President to use military force to take out Saddam Hussein. I don't need to recount the failures of our intelligence community that led us to erroneously believe he actually at that time did have weapons of mass destruction. But there is no question at all that Saddam Hussein sought weapons of mass destruction, much as his neighbor now to the east, Iran, seeks nuclear weapons itself. It is simply unacceptable, in a world where there are those driven by a radical ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians, as al-Qaida and other Islamic radicals do, to allow them to get weapons of mass destruction and then to use them on innocent civilian populations, whether it is in the United States or abroad. It is true that the President has said that this is a test for the Maliki government. We are putting a lot of reliance, yet pressure, on the Maliki government to perform. When Prime Minister Maliki said he will stand up to the death squads and Shiite militias, like that of al- Sadr, we will hold him to his word. It is absolutely critical to the success of reconstruction in Iraq, to a peaceful self-determination through a democratic form of government, that the security situation in Iraq be stabilized. The only way that is going to happen is if a lawful government of Iraq obtains a monopoly on the legal use of force in that country. Right now, the people of Iraq don't trust their own Government to provide that sort of security, so they have broken down along sectarian lines and relied upon Shiite militias and other extralegal groups to try to provide that security. But what happened is that we have seen retribution killings between different ethnic groups. But the threat is that sort of sectarian violence is not going to be contained just to Iraq but will spill over into the region. Iran will use the opportunity of Shiite violence to exact ethnic cleansing on Sunni populations in Iraq. Iran will use its ability to expand its influence into Iraq, perhaps to expand its own borders. That will not go without some response by the Sunni majority nations in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, for example, has already expressed grave concern that if the Shiite militias and others continue to exact violence upon the Sunni population, they may very well find a necessity to become involved and, indeed, we know that what some people view as if through a soda straw, violence in Iraq will become a regional conflict. Is there any doubt that if, in fact, we fail in Iraq because we have given up, because we don't believe Iraq and the Middle East is worth this last best chance for success, is there any doubt that the oil and gas reserves in that region of the world will be used as an economic weapon against the United States? So not only will we have a security vulnerability using that platform of a failed state as a launching pad for future terrorist attacks, much as al-Qaida did in Afghanistan following the fall of the Soviet Union in that country, but is there any doubt that in addition to additional terrorist attacks in the United States and among our allies and around the world, that the oil and gas reserves in that region will be used as an economic weapon to wreak a body blow against the rest of the world? So with winning the election on November 7 and gaining the majority and the mandate of the American people comes responsibility. The responsibility of our Democratic colleagues is to point out what their plans are when Iraq fails if we do not even try, as the President has proposed last night, to salvage the situation there by a change of course, by working with our Iraqi allies, backing them up, stiffening their backbone, to restore the security environment there so that reconstruction and democracy and self-government can flourish. I don't know whether it will work. I don't know whether anyone can ever guarantee in a time of war that one side or the other will be successful. But the consequences of giving up and of failure are simply too horrendous to contemplate, present too great a risk to the American people and civilized people around the world, for us not to try. That, to me, is the choice we have been given--between trying, using the last best effort we can come up with through this change of course in Iraq, or simply giving up. I would like to hear from our colleagues what their plan is if Iraq does descend into that failed state, if a regional conflict occurs and it then becomes necessary at a future date not to send an additional 20,000 American troops but far more to protect America's national security interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not debate the amendments at this time. I appreciate the courtesies extended by the managers. I will come back later when it is appropriate to debate these particular amendments. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand now might be a convenient time for the Senate to consider some debate on the amendments I have just offered, Nos. 26 and 27. I think the preeminent value, when we talk about ethics debate, that we ought to be focusing on is transparency. It has been said time and time again that the old saying is ``sunlight is perhaps the best disinfectant of all.'' The fact is, the more Congress does on behalf of the American people that is transparent and can be reported and can be considered by average Americans in how they determine and evaluate our performance here, the better, as far as I am concerned. I am proud to be a strong advocate for open government and greater transparency. Senator Pat Leahy, now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I have been cosponsors of significant reform of our open government laws. We only had modest success last Congress. We were able to get a bill voted out of the Judiciary Committee. But it is my hope, given the sort of bipartisan spirit in which we are starting the 110th Congress and given Senator Leahy's strong commitment to open government, as well as my own, that we will be able to make good progress there. This amendment No. 27 is all about greater transparency that is healthy for our democracy and essential if we are to govern with accountability and good faith. I offer this amendment with the goal of shining a little bit more light on the legislative process in this body and actually giving all Members of the Senate an ability to do their job better. Specifically, this amendment would require that before the Senate proceeds to any matter, that each Senator receive a minimum of 3 days' notice and that, more importantly, the full text of what we will consider will be made available to the public before we actually begin our work on it. What happens now is that in the waning hours of any Congress, we have a procedure--known well to the Members here but unknown to the public, perhaps--known as hotlining bills. In other words, presumably noncontroversial matters can be so-called hotlined, and that is placed on the Senate's calendar and voted out essentially by unanimous consent. The problem is this mechanism, which is designed to facilitate the Senate's work and move relatively noncontroversial matters, is increasingly the subject of abuse. For example, in the 109th Congress, there were 4,122 bills introduced in the Senate. In the House there were 6,436 bills. Of course, many of these bills run hundreds of pages in length. The problem is, as I alluded to a moment ago, in the final weeks of the 109th Congress, I was told there were 125 matters called up before the Senate for consideration, many of which included costs to the taxpayers of millions of dollars, including an astonishing 64 bills in the final day and into the wee hours of Saturday morning before we adjourned. In fact, as the chart I have here demonstrates, in the last 5 days of the 109th Congress, there was a total of 125 bills hotlined. As I mentioned, some of these are relatively noncontroversial matters, but some of them spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I would think that at a very minimum Senators would want an opportunity to do due diligence when it comes to looking at the contents of this legislation and determining whether, in fact, it is noncontroversial and in the public interest or whether, on the contrary, someone is literally trying to slip something through in the waning hours of the Congress in a way that avoids the kind of public scrutiny that is important to passing good legislation and making good policy. Mr. President, I have in my hands a letter in support of this amendment from an organization called ReadtheBill.org, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know this perhaps seems like a small thing, but small things can have dramatic consequences. Let me give an example. Senator X introduces a bill called the Clean Water Access Act sometime this year. For whatever reason, this bill doesn't get a hearing or the hearing is held perhaps with just a modest number of Members actually attending--in other words, it doesn't get a lot of attention. The bill is one of the thousands of bills introduced. And let's say my staff or your staff, Mr. President, or other Members' staff don't really have this bill on the list of priorities, of things to do; it is not one of the most urgent priorities because it looks as though perhaps there is not a lot of interest in the legislation. The bill never gets a vote in committee or on the floor, so Senator X decides: I have an idea. I will hotline the bill at the end of the year, at the very end of the Congress in the last few hours. What this amendment would do would be to impose a very commonsense requirement-- let's give adequate notice that this is legislation which Senator X intends to move--so that the appropriate scrutiny and consideration may be given to the bill. Of course, a notice goes out under the current rule, and the Senator's staff alerts the Senator to some concern that unless that happens, it passes by default. That is right, this is essentially an opt-out system. If the Senator does not object within an hour or two, the bill goes out by unanimous agreement. My proposal is that there be simply a modest notice period before the Senate proceeds to a measure for Senators and their staff to review the legislation and so the American people and various groups that may have an interest in it could scrutinize it before we actually consider it and pass it in the waning hours, perhaps, of a Congress. I don't know who could really have a legitimate objection to such a requirement. I look forward to hearing from any of my colleagues who have some concerns about it, and perhaps I can address those concerns and we can work together to pass this important, although simple and straightforward, amendment. I believe this amendment is certainly common sense and a good government and open government approach, which is conducive to allowing us to do our job better. So I ask my colleagues for their enthusiastic support, and maybe if not their enthusiastic support, at least their vote in support of this amendment at the appropriate time. Amendment No. 26 Mr. President, I have also offered Senate amendment No. 26. This is another amendment designed to offer greater sunshine and this time on the earmark process. This is an amendment which I have offered in the spirit that Senator DeMint, the junior Senator from South Carolina, has offered but with a little bit of additional twist that I would like to explain. The current bill requires that all future legislation include a list of earmarks and the names of the Senators who requested them. Again, I know we talk in terms of legislative-ese and, of course, an earmark is something not otherwise provided for within the Federal appropriations bills but is specifically requested by a Member of Congress--a Senator or a Congressman--to be included. Frankly, there are some earmarks that are very positive and very much in the public interest, but there are others that have been the subject of abuse, and I don't need to go into that in any great detail. It is a fact that the American people have grown very concerned about the abuse of earmarks here, again, primarily because there is not adequate scrutiny, adequate sunshine on this process, causing them grave concerns about the integrity of the entire appropriations process. My amendment would add a requirement that the budgetary impact for each earmark be included, as well as a requirement that the total number of earmarks and their total budgetary impact be identified and disclosed. The goal is that when we are considering legislation, we will have a summary document that details the number of earmarks, the total cost of those earmarks, and a list of the earmarks, along with their principal sponsor. I believe this will allow us, again, to do our job more diligently and with greater ease. We will also create a fixed baseline from which we can proceed in the future and will further allow the American public, as well as our own staff, to be able to analyze the impact of these earmarks on the budgeting process. Consider that the Congressional Research Service studies earmarks each year and identifies earmarks in each appropriations bill. Through that study, one can see both the total number of earmarks and the total dollar value of those earmarks have grown significantly over the last decade. The total number of earmarks, for example, doubled from 1994 to 2005, and the number appears to likely go up in 2006 as well. The problem is that getting this data after voting on the legislation is not particularly helpful after the fact. By requiring that all legislation contain a list of each earmark, the cost of each earmark, and the total number and cost of earmarks in the legislation as a whole, we empower our staffs and, more importantly, the American people, and ourselves to make better decisions. As I said, this is not a broadside attack against all earmarks. Some earmarks are good government, but not all earmarks are good government. What this would do is give us the information we need to evaluate them, to have some empirical baseline we can use to evaluate how this impacts Federal spending and the integrity of the appropriations process. There is one other little element of this amendment I would like to highlight. This amendment would also require an explanation of the essential governmental purpose for the earmark or a targeted tax benefit or targeted tax tariff benefit, including how the earmark targeted tax benefit or targeted tariff benefit advances the general welfare of the United States of America. This requirement--again, something I think most people would assume would be part of the analysis and deliberative process Congress would undertake anyway--is an important reform for the Congress, and it is certainly appropriate on the subject of ethics reform. Take, for example, these situations: In the fiscal year 2004 budget, there was a $725,000 earmark for something called the Please Touch Museum; $200,000 of Federal taxpayers' money was appropriated by an earmark for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Even those who like rock and roll may question the appropriateness of taxpayers' money being spent to subsidize the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Mr. President, $100,000 was spent for the International Storytelling Center. In 2005, $250,000 was spent in an earmark for the Country Music Hall of Fame. I myself am partial to country music. I like country music, but I think many might question whether it is appropriate that Federal taxpayers' dollars be spent by an earmark, here again largely anonymous because it is not required to be disclosed who the Senator is under current law, who has requested it, but a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent for that purpose. Another example: $150,000 for the Grammy Foundation and $150,000 for the Coca-Cola Space Science Center. These are just a couple of quick examples, but I think they help make the point; that is, under the status quo, there is simply not enough information, not enough sunshine shining on the appropriations process and particularly the earmark process which has been the subject of so much controversy, and yes, including some scandal leading up to this last election on November 7. If there is one certain message I think all of us got on November 7, it is that the American people want their Government to work for them and not for special interests. One of the best things we can do, rather than passing new rules, is to shine more sunlight on the process. With more sunlight comes greater accountability, and I think in many ways it provides a self-correcting mechanism. In other words, people are not going to be doing things they think they can sneak through in secret out in the open. So it has the added benefit of sort of a self-policing or self-correcting mechanism as well. So I would commend both of these amendments for the Senate's consideration. At the appropriate time, I will ask for a vote, working, of course, with the floor managers on this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 ReadtheBill.org, Washington, DC, January 11, 2007. Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Cornyn: ReadtheBill.org Education Fund commends you for your leadership in proposing an amendment to S. 1 that would prohibit floor consideration of legislation and conference reports before senators and the public had more time to read them. If implemented in Senate rules, this Cornyn amendment would be a significant improvement over current Senate rules, and over Senate practice during the 109th Congress. ReadtheBill.org respects the openness of the sponsors of S. 1 to additional improvements on the floor. As proposed, S. 1 would amend Senate rule XXVIII to prohibit consideration of conference reports before they have been publicly available online for 48 hours. S. 1 would improve on current Senate rules. However, S. 1 would NOT cover legislative measures or matters on their first consideration by the Senate (as opposed to final conference reports). This is a major failing of S. 1. It's crucial to find and fix questionable provisions early in the legislative process. By the time a bill emerges from conference committee in its final form, it can be too late to fix even its worst provisions. Yes, the conference report can be posted online. But a conference report can gather the political momentum of a runaway train. Posting the manifest for each train car may reveal a sinister or illicit cargo. But it's too late to do more than wave an arm before the train is long gone. That is why it is so important to take time to read bills early in the legislative process, before their first floor consideration by the Senate. The Cornyn amendment would cover ALL measures or matters (but no amendments), prohibiting their consideration until they had been printed in the Congressional Record for three calendar days and posted publicly online for two calendar days. ReadtheBill.org endorses the substance of the Cornyn amendment. The Cornyn amendment would be a vital step toward ReadtheBill.org's ultimate goal of amending the standing rules of the Senate and House to require legislation and conference reports to be posted online for 72 hours before floor debate. As work on this bill continues, ReadtheBill.org looks forward to working closely with you to craft the most practical, enforceable amendment that moves toward this goal. Non-partisan and focused only on process, ReadtheBill.org is the leading national organization promoting open floor deliberations in Congress. Sincerely, Rafael DeGennaro, Founder & President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, while both of my distinguished colleagues from Arkansas are on the Senate floor, let me tell them how much I appreciate their leadership in dealing with this last item of business relative to this Congress and which is particularly important in my home State of Texas, as it is in other timber-growing regions of the United States. As we find ourselves in global competition for jobs and work, there are certain things we need to keep our eyes on to help make America more competitive and to make sure we continue to create the jobs and opportunities which have always been the key to our prosperity. Of course, the present occupant of the chair knows that having a qualified workforce is one of the key elements of our ability to compete in a global economy, as is our tax policy and our health care system, which is a factor in the ability of American businesses to be competitive, our regulatory environment, and our civil justice or litigation system. I wish to focus specifically on our tax policy. The fact is that in many industries our tax policy in this country makes certain aspects of our economy less than competitive. Certainly that is true when it applies to the timber tax issue. The timber tax provision I am speaking about would lower the capital gains tax for owners of timberland, both individuals and corporate owners, but mainly it is small business community members and farmers. The great thing about this is we are not talking about a tax increase on anybody; we are talking about reducing the tax on this element of our economy, of our workforce, mainly small business owners and farmers, to help make them more competitive in a global economy. It was my sincere hope that this provision would be included with the so-called tax extenders package that I hope is ultimately passed by the Senate today or tomorrow, but, as the Senators from Arkansas have already pointed out, I know we are all disappointed that it has not been included. I think that is a shame. My hope is that, having left this work undone, Congress, when we return in January, will take up this issue again and attempt to pass it. The U.S. forestry industry and its workers are at the heart of a vibrant economy that has produced the highest living standards in the world. As the jobs report released just today indicates, job creation continues apace across this big economy here at home. But there are sectors of the economy that are struggling because of the disadvantages they have, particularly with regard to our tax policy. The forest products industry and its workers, including those in Texas and across America, are facing significant challenges which, if not overcome, will lead to reduced economic growth, lost jobs, and ultimately the decline of living standards for future generations. Although job growth continues here at home, as we saw by today's report, it is important to highlight that American paper mills and wood product mills are permanently closing their doors, resulting in a loss of those good-paying jobs. At the same time, our foreign competitors, facing generally lower taxes, are expanding their capacity. As has already been pointed out by the senior Senator from Arkansas, the Price Waterhouse Coopers & Lybrand report in April of 2005 examined the effect of the U.S. tax system and found that our tax rules consistently disadvantage U.S. companies and workers relative to the tax rules in most nations with which we have to compete. By reducing the cost disadvantage faced by practicing sustainable forestry here in United States, this proposal can help reverse the trend of decreasing U.S. competitiveness in the forest products industry and maintain those manufacturing jobs of U.S. workers. Simply put, this proposal is about creating more good-paying jobs here at home, not by conferring any additional benefits on our American employers and job creators but by reducing the impediments and the obstacles that Government puts in the way to job creation and competition in the global economy. I wish to especially express my appreciation to Senator Lincoln, the senior Senator from Arkansas, for her strong advocacy for this issue. I look forward to working with her in our next Congress to try to do everything we can to remedy this wrong and to help make America and particularly the forest products industry more competitive in a global economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak on the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense. It is my honor to serve under Chairman John Warner on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We are particularly proud of the fact that 1 out of every 10 persons in uniform in this country, or serving around the world, calls Texas home. So we are very proud of the military. We are pro-military. We believe in doing everything we can to support our men and women in uniform and particularly their families. So it is with great joy that I say the President has chosen someone who currently serves as President of Texas A&M University to be the next Secretary of Defense. Even though Bob Gates is from Kansas originally, he has most recently become a Texan--at least we claim him because he has been living in College Station as President of Texas A&M these last few years. I particularly commend the President for his selection and Mr. Gates for answering the call, once again, to public service. He is not a new face in this town. Having served as Director of the CIA, having served on the National Security Council, he has a distinguished record of public service. He has written extensively on military intelligence and matters of diplomacy. My meetings with Dr. Gates, preliminary to the hearings we had this week on the Armed Services Committee, gave me great confidence that he is of the temperament and ability to lead the Department of Defense in what has to be the second most difficult job in Washington, DC; that is, to deal with an agency with the budget of about a half-trillion dollars a year and to perform what is the most important priority of the Federal Government: provide safety and security to the American people. That is a responsibility not only here at home, obviously, but literally all around the world. On the matter of Iraq, which was the subject matter of most of the questions and comments of the committee during Dr. Gates' confirmation hearing, I think he understands the challenges that face us in Iraq and why it is that we must succeed. As he told me, and as he testified at the hearing, a failure in Iraq would lead to increased activity by al- Qaida, as well as regional instability in the Middle East. It could even lead to a regional--I think he used the term ``conflagration,'' where additional States that are not currently involved in the conflict in Iraq could find their interests at stake and could resort to military force. First, dealing with al-Qaida, and the result of a failed state in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left there in 1989, ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and gave Osama bin Laden a place to plot, plan, train, and then export terrorist attacks around the world, including in Washington, DC, and New York City on September 11. Beyond the terrorist threat, it is also clear that Iran has aspirations that will very much put the future of Iraq in jeopardy and our own safety in America as well. As is widely known, Iran is primarily a Shia majority population. Iraq is composed of roughly three ethnic divisions--Kurds, Shia, and Sunni--and, clearly, Iran is taking advantage of the instability in Iraq to consolidate its position with the Shia in the south, which happens to be an oil-rich region of that nation. But, in effect, if our precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would leave a failed state and leave opportunities for Iranian hegemony, it would create further de facto partitions of Iraq which could perhaps cause the Saudis, as some leaders have suggested, to have to go into Iraq to defend the Sunni minority against ethnic cleansing by the Shia majority, perhaps in combination with Iran, and it would create an opportunity, perhaps, for the Kurds to create, in effect, a separate state in northern Iraq which would cause Turkey a lot of concerns, as has been frequently expressed. I am pleased that Dr. Gates understands the seriousness of this challenge that confronts our Nation. This is one that is certainly bigger than any election or any political party because, as I said at the outset, it represents the single most solemn responsibility those of us who serve in the Federal Government have, and that is to provide for the safety and security of our own people at home. Today, as everyone knows, the Iraq Study Group issued its report, and I am hopeful we can work together in this body with a new course in Iraq, working with the White House. Clearly, this is a job for the Commander in Chief. He has expressed a willingness to work with this bipartisan Iraq Study Group and work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to achieve victory in Iraq. I hope Robert Gates' confirmation, his manner and temperament, one that earned him the support of a unanimous vote on the Armed Services Committee, will serve him well as he works on behalf of the President and the executive branch to deal with what is certainly the most significant challenge of our time. I do want to, however, point out a couple of items in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report because, obviously, there is a lot of public interest in it. This volume is 142 pages, and not many people have read every single page in it. So we have a number of people highlighting different portions of this 142-page document, perhaps a point they want to emphasize. I have a couple of points I want to emphasize because I think they are entirely consistent with what Dr. Gates has said during his confirmation hearing, and these points should be made clear. On page 66 of the Iraq Study Group report--sometimes called the Baker-Hamilton commission report--the study group says this: The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is a key topic of interest in a national reconciliation dialog. And this is the point I want to emphasize. They go on to say: The point is not for the United States to set timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose . . . I think it is important to make the point that the Baker-Hamilton study group, the Iraq Study Group, opposes timetables or deadlines for withdrawal. They go on to say: The point is for the United States and Iraq to make clear their shared interest in the orderly departure of U.S. forces. As Iraqi forces take on the security mission, a successful national reconciliation dialog will advance that departure date. I think what the Baker-Hamilton commission is saying is that withdrawals ought not to be based upon an arbitrary timetable, in effect, based on domestic political considerations but, rather, ought to be based upon security considerations--how can we best provide for the Iraqi people to be able to stand on their own to defend themselves and to allow the political process in Iraq to go forward where people can trade ballots and votes for bombs and bullets. One other point I wish to raise. I am glad to see the Senator from South Carolina on the floor because there is a point that I know he agrees with and certainly one I think Senator McCain and others have advocated which I happen to believe is an option the President ought to consider at the top of his list in terms of the course forward in Iraq. We have heard the study by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, at the Pentagon summarized into three options. I believe this was done by a newspaper or perhaps within the Pentagon itself. They summarized for the course forward to go big, go long, or go home. Clearly, one can tell from my comments that I believe we all want our troops to come home. We are unified and of a single mind on that point. The question is, based on what criteria? Is it based on politics in the Congress or is it based on security, our long-term security, not just the Iraqis' but our security at home, lest Iraq become a failed state and a launching pad for future terrorist attacks. The alternative ``go long,'' I believe, was explained as reducing the size of our forces in Iraq but basically making a multiyear commitment, a long-term commitment to have our troops there; frankly, an alternative that I don't think holds out much hope for success. The American people are clearly anxious to see the situation in Iraq be stabilized, to see some improvement, and I think that brings us to the last choice that has been mentioned as a result of these Pentagon discussions: Go big. Let me explain what I mean. I mean we need to surge American troops into the capital city of Baghdad for a temporary period of time--not a long-term or open-ended engagement--to provide the ability to back up the Iraqis to do what we need to do to clear, to hold, and then to build on that effort in Baghdad, to demonstrate not only that we can provide the security backing up the Iraqi forces, but also to create the basic security conditions that are necessary for the Iraqis to have that national reconciliation process to work out their differences the best they can, and then to provide for their own defense so we can bring our troops home. But I want to make sure--because this is an important point--some, I believe, have represented this Iraq Study Group Report as an endorsement of a withdrawal of troops not based on security conditions, and I say this report does not endorse that approach, as I indicated. With regard to the surging of troops in Baghdad on a temporary basis, as advocated by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Arizona, and one that I find is the only really viable alternative we have in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group says this on page 73: We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. My hope is the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, having this worthwhile report which makes clear that every option has been looked at without regard to ideology or partisan politics, that the report of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consulting with the leadership at the Pentagon, together with even Secretary Rumsfeld's memo that was recently printed, a classified memo of all the alternatives that was recently printed in the newspaper, that the President has all of these various options available to him to go forward in Iraq. I think Secretary-to-be Gates was correct yesterday when he said there are not any secret options. Basically, we know what the choices are with this report and the other reports that have come out. Simply stated, there is going to be a time for choosing. That choice and the consequences of that choice are very important because, clearly, what we are doing now is not working in Iraq and, clearly, there are dangers in terms of terrorist activity, in terms of Iranian ambitions, a country that is attempting to build, in defiance of the civilized world, a nuclear weapon. There are tremendous risks and consequences of not getting this done right, and the American people deserve to know not only what the risk is, what the threat is, and the consequences of failing to live up to this challenge, but that we are doing everything we can in a bipartisan fashion as a nation, looking to the best minds and the best experience this Nation has to offer, to come up with a plan or an assortment of choices and then to give the President the opportunity to make the very best decision he can as Commander in Chief, a position conferred upon him by the Constitution, to lead this course change in Iraq so we do not have a failed state which would further endanger not only that region, but would endanger us at home. In conclusion, those who think America can simply pull the covers over its head and the problem will go away or they simply think we can withdraw our troops--even in a precipitous fashion--and there will be no consequence to it, I cite the comments of GEN John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, who acknowledged that, yes, we could bring our troops home before security is established in Iraq, but the enemy would follow us here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to go on the record regarding H.R. 1285, the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005, a bill that I support as it moves through the Senate today. This legislation extends for 3 years the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 which provides nonimmigrant visas for nurses in areas where there is a shortage of health professionals. Many hospitals across the Nation and, particularly in my home State of Texas, have been experiencing great difficulties over the last several years in attracting nurses. This shortage has been especially severe in both inner-city neighborhoods and in rural isolated areas. It was for this reason that in 1999 Congress passed the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act. This legislation created a new H-1C temporary worker program with 500 visas available per year for registered nurses. In order to be eligible to petition for an alien nurse, a hospital must be located in a health professional shortage area as designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the hospital must have at least 190 acute care beds, and it must have a certain percentage of Medicare and Medicaid patients. The legislation also included strong protections for American nurses by requiring that any H-1C nurses be paid the prevailing wage and mandating that hospitals take steps to recruit American nurses. Furthermore H-1C nurses may not comprise more than 33 percent of a hospital's registered nurses, and these hospitals may not contract out any H-1C nurses to other hospitals. The legislation before us, H.R. 1285, will reauthorize the H-1C nurse program for 3 more years. The H-1C visa category is vital to Texas hospitals like McAllen Medical Center and Mercy Health System, located in Laredo, TX. The United States is facing a critical nursing shortage in the coming years, and this small but significant program is essential to our efforts to recruit more nurses to the United States. I believe this legislation strikes a balance between the critical need for nurses in certain shortage areas while protecting the wages and working conditions of U.S. citizen nurses. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. I particularly express my gratitude to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Lugar, for his outstanding work on this bipartisan piece of legislation that advances our strategic relationship with India while also bringing India into the mainstream of international nonproliferation efforts. I am delighted to be the cochair, along with Senator Hillary Clinton, of the United States-India caucus in the Senate, actually something we resurrected just a couple short years ago that had fallen by the wayside. After my own visit to India and in consultation with a number of Indian-American constituents who live in Texas--about 200,000 live in my State alone--I became absolutely convinced that a closer relationship with the great nation of India and its people was essential to our security interests and essential to our economic interests. As our colleagues know and as has been mentioned by a number of our Members, Prime Minister Singh visited Washington last summer and President Bush paid a visit to India this spring. These events mark a critical milestone in our improving relationship. Passage of this legislation will mark another significant step and I daresay cement what is a very important relationship to both nations. President Bush made a fundamental foreign policy objective to move the United States-India relationship to a new level. As Secretary Rice has said, our relationship with India is one of the most important partnerships the United States can have in the 21st century. As has been often noted, India is the world's largest democracy, while we are the world's oldest democracy, and our two great nations share so many common values and common beliefs. It is only appropriate that the United States and India become true strategic partners as we move into the 21st century. Fortunately, the days of the Cold War, when India was more aligned with the Soviet Union than with the United States, are in the long past. The United States and India share a common vision for our future. It is a peaceful vision where we battle terrorism together, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS, and a host of other challenges that face our world today. While it is true that the agreement on Civil Nuclear Cooperation is a significant departure from previous U.S. policy, I strongly believe this legislation represents a positive step as we grow our strategic relationship. For more than 30 years, the United States and India have disagreed over India's decision not to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such, the United States has not cooperated with the Nation of India on any civilian nuclear technology to speak of. In short, we have been at a stalemate which has neither served our nonproliferation goals, nor helped India's vast needs for energy resources. Fortunately, this carefully crafted legislation will allow us to move forward in a responsible manner. The agreement, in fact, enhances our nonproliferation efforts. It is correct to say that India is not a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty. They have decided for their own national security reasons that they will not become a party to the treaty, and no amount of international pressure is likely to change that conclusion. This is the reality we face, and the status quo for another 30 years is simply not acceptable. Recognizing this reality, we must ask ourselves, What can we do to promote nonproliferation efforts with India and bring them into the international nonproliferation regime? This legislation provides that answer. Despite not signing the nonproliferation treaty, India, for the record, has an excellent nonproliferation record. They understand, perhaps as well as anyone, the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is why India has agreed to adhere to key international nonproliferation efforts on top of their own stringent export control regime. This is a significant step forward which has been welcomed by the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who understands India will not come into the nonproliferation treaty by traditional means but can be accommodated through this route. I conclude by noting that the United States is fortunate, indeed, to have many Indian Americans who have helped bring our two nations closer together. As I have noted, many of them live in my State, as they do around this great country, contributing to our brainpower, to our economy. Frankly, this community is one of the hardest working, most accomplished communities in our Nation today. There are about 200,000 of them living in Texas, and nearly 80,000 Indian students are studying at our Nation's colleges and universities. Their contributions to our Nation and the United States-India relationship have been remarkably positive. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, to advance our strategic relationship with India while also bringing India into the mainstream of international nonproliferation efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for being here so we can discuss briefly a bill that has just by unanimous consent been passed. The reason we are here is to help clarify some concerns which I know he has with the legislation. I appreciate his willingness to work with Senator Hutchison and myself in expediting this passage. This bill will ultimately repeal the Wright amendment, a law designed to reflect the compromise with respects to flights coming into and out of Love Field in Dallas, TX and, therefore, operating just a few miles down the road from Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport but which has proved a hindrance to competition among airlines; and has resulted in increased fares to those who travel through DFW Airport. The legislation before us recognizes that the city of Dallas is the entity responsible for operating Love Field, and will reduce the gates there to 20 and will allocate those gates with existing commitments and obligations, including commitments to accommodate potential new entrants. I point out that doing so will allow the city of Dallas to maintain an appropriate number of gates to address the critically important considerations of local noise, air pollution, congestion, and safety. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. CORNYN. I know the Senior Senator from Vermont has genuine concerns about the legislation. And while I do not take a position about the creation of an antitrust exemption, implicit or otherwise, share his view that this is a unique situation. I join him in saying that the solution is not perfect. We do not agree on many issues, but on some important ones--including intellectual property legislation--we share a commitment to promoting free market principles--and the goal of any arrangement such as this should be to maximize those principles. The legislation contemplated here should not be a model for any future arrangement. In no way can I imagine a situation arising with a set of facts remotely similar to that created in Dallas by the passage of the Wright amendment. It is entirely unique and is precisely the reason for this legislation--legislation that moves the ball forward considerably with respect to increasing competition in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. In addition, the proposed legislation reflects a Congressional sanction for the city of Dallas to manage Love Field in a manner that it deems in the best interests of its citizens, and in accordance with a hard fought local compromise, a sanction made necessary only by the existence of the Wright amendment itself. By doing so, while not perfect by any means, I am hopeful that we will afford literally millions of citizens in north Texas and elsewhere the enormous benefits of enhanced airline competition that they have long been denied because of the Wright amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on this side there is an objection.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I first compliment the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senator from Virginia, for being the calm and steady hand on the rudder during the course of the discussions and debates involving this important piece of legislation. His work and demeanor have always been constructive and civil, and any disagreements we have had are befitting of the great traditions of this institution. I thank him for that.

Mr. CORNYN. First of all, Madam President, I would like to point out there are many myths about this legislation. We need to get to the facts and get to the truth so people can understand what the choices are. Our distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, in my view, also perpetrated another myth by saying this war is all about Iraq, when, in fact, the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, succeeding al-Zarqawi, just reported in an Associated Press story that 4,000 al-Qaida foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq due to the war effort there. But this is a global war, and it requires a uniformed treatment of the terrorists in a way that reflects our values but also the fact that we are at war. I think our colleagues need to be reminded of legislation which we passed in December of 2005, known as the Detainee Treatment Act. When people come here and suggest that we are stripping all legal rights from terrorists who are detained at Guantanamo Bay, they are simply flying in the face of the Detainee Treatment Act that we passed in December 2005, which provides not only a review through a combatant status review tribunal, with elaborate procedures to make sure there is a fair hearing, but then a right to appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, not only to make sure that the right standards were applied--that is, whether the military applied the right rules to the facts--but also to attack the constitutionality of the system should they choose to do so. So those who claim we are simply stripping habeas corpus rights are simply flying in the face of the facts as laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act. Now, the question may be: Are we going to provide what the law requires? Are we going to provide additional rights and privileges that some would like to confer upon these high-value detainees located at Guantanamo Bay? But the fact is, to do what the proponents of this amendment propose would be to divert our soldiers from the battlefield and to tie their hands in ways with frivolous litigation and appeals. And the last thing that I would think any of us would want to do would be to provide an easy means for terrorists to sue U.S. troops in U.S. courts, particularly when it is not required by the Constitution, laws of the United States, not mandated by the Supreme Court, and we have provided an adequate substitute remedy, which I believe is entirely consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in this area. We have provided an avenue or a process by which these detainees can have their rights protected, such rights as they have being unlawful combatants attacking innocent civilians. America is conferring rights upon them that we do not have to confer, but we are conferring them because we believe there ought to be a fair process and we ought to be consistent with our Constitution and with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The last thing I would think any of us would want to do would be to tie the hands of our soldiers to permit terrorists to sue U.S. troops in Federal court at will.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes from our time.

Mr. CORNYN. My thanks to the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, not everyone who has been engaging in this debate has been as constructive. We have heard some outlandish statements that bear correction, some suggesting this bill would actually permit the use of torture. Nothing--nothing--could be further from the truth. In fact, what this bill does is make sure that the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act, which were passed in December of 2005 in this same Senate, that ban torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, that we comply with those laws which reflect upon our international treaty obligations as well as our domestic laws and which reflect our American values. We are a nation at war. But there is no equivalency with the way this war is fought and prosecuted by the United States and our allies, no equivalency with the manner in which the war is prosecuted by our enemies. We have learned that our enemies have been at war against us for much longer than just September 11, 2001, and date back many years before we even realized America was under attack. We know that this enemy, represented by Islamic extremism, justifies the use of murder against innocent civilians in order to accomplish its goals. America complies with all of its international treaty obligations and domestic laws. What this bill is about is to try to provide our intelligence authorities the clear direction they need so they know how to comply with those laws and, at the same time, preserve an absolutely critical means of collecting intelligence through the interrogation of high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay. But no civilian employee of the U.S. Government working at the CIA or elsewhere is going to risk their career, their reputation, and their assets using some sort of cloudy law or gray law that does not make clear what is permitted and what is not permitted. This bill we are prepared to pass in a few minutes provides that kind of clear direction. What it says is that we in the U.S. Congress are stepping up to take the responsibility ourselves to provide that kind of clarity that will allow our intelligence authorities to gain this important intelligence while at the same time be secure in the knowledge that what they are doing fully complies with our law, including our international treaty obligations. We know the aggressive interrogation techniques that are legal under the provisions of the McCain amendment in the Detainee Treatment Act have provided much valuable intelligence that has saved American lives. We know the CIA's high-value terrorist detainee program works. For example, detainees have provided the names of approximately 86 individuals whom al-Qaida deemed suitable for Western operations. Half of these individuals have now been removed from the battlefield and are no longer a threat to the United States of America or our allies. This program is effective and has saved American lives and must be preserved. Yet there are people who would go so far as to intimate that we are torturing people. But we are not torturing people. But we are using legal, aggressive interrogations consistent with the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and our treaty obligations. In doing so, we are keeping faith with the American people that the Federal Government will use every legal means available to us to keep the American people safe. Now, we may disagree--and we do disagree on the Senate floor--with the level of rights that an accused terrorist should have. I happen to believe these individuals, who are high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, do not deserve the same panoply of rights preserved for American citizens in our legal system. But I would hope that we would all agree that the CIA interrogation program must continue. We must not allow the brave patriots who conduct these interrogations to be at risk unnecessarily by providing a gray zone as opposed to absolute clarity insofar as it is within our power to give it so that we may interrogate these captured terrorists to the fullest extent of the law. To suggest that we are somehow torturing individuals or violating our own laws that we passed just last year in the Detainee Treatment Act under the McCain amendment banning torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, is absolutely untrue and irresponsible. The American people have a right to believe we will use every legal tool available to us to help keep them safe against this new and different type of enemy. Let me just say a word about who that enemy is. We have heard we are engaged in a global war on terror, and that is absolutely true. But it does not necessarily tell us who that enemy is. Unfortunately, it is an enemy that has hijacked one of the world's great religions, Islam, in pursuit of their extremist goals that justifies the murder of innocent civilians in order to accomplish those goals. Some on the Senate floor have said this debate is all about Iraq. It is not just about Iraq. If it were just about Iraq, how would those critics explain the attempted terrorist plot that was broken up at Heathrow Airport just a few short weeks ago, or the attacks in Madrid or Beslan in Russia or Bali or elsewhere or, for that matter, New York and Washington, DC? The fact is, we have prevented another terrorist attack on our own soil by using this interrogation program to allow us to detect and deter and disrupt terrorist activity, and the fact we have also taken the fight on the offensive where the terrorists plot, plan, train, and try to export their terrorist attacks to the United States and elsewhere. If we would do what some would apparently want us to do and simply pull the covers over our head and wish the bad people would go away, America would be less safe and we would not be able to stand here and say that due to the vigilance of the American people, due to the vigilance of the U.S. Congress and the executive branch of Government, we have been successful, thank goodness, in preventing another terrorist attack on our own soil, after 5 years from September 11, 2001. So, Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will vote against these ill- advised amendments to this bill and will send a clean bill to be reconciled with the House version and sent to the President right away so that before too long we can see that some of the war criminals who sit detained at Guantanamo Bay may be brought to justice, people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of the 9/11 plot that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, once the Military Commissions Act, MCA, is signed into law and section 7 is effective, Congress will finally accomplish what it sought to do through the Detainee Treatment Act-- DTA--last year. It will finally get the lawyers out of Guantanamo Bay. It will substitute the blizzard of litigation instigated by Rasul v. Bush with a narrow DC Circuit -only review of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal--CSRT--hearings. Perhaps even more important than the narrow standards of review created by the DTA is the fact that that review is exclusive to the court of appeals. This is by design. Courts of appeals do not hold evidentiary hearings or otherwise take in evidence outside of the administrative record. The DC Circuit will operate no differently under the CSRT review provisions of the DTA. The circuit court will review the administrative record of the CSRTs to make sure that the right standards were applied, the standards that the military itself set for CSRTs. And it will determine whether the CSRT system as a whole is consistent with the Constitution and with Federal statutes. There is no invitation in the DTA or MCA to reconsider the sufficiency of the evidence. Weighing of the evidence is a function for the military when the question is whether someone is an enemy combatant. Courts simply lack the competence--the knowledge of the battlefield and the nature of our foreign enemies--to judge whether particular facts show that someone is an enemy combatant. By making review exclusive to the DC Circuit, the DTA helps to ensure that the narrow review standards it sets do not somehow grow into something akin to Federal courts' habeas corpus review of State criminal convictions. The court's role under the DTA is to simply ensure that the military applied the right rules to the facts. It is not the court's role to interpret those facts and decide what they mean. Because review under the DTA and MCA will be limited to the administrative record, there is no need for any lawyer to ever again go to Guantanamo to represent an enemy combatant challenging his detention. The military, I am certain, will make the paper record available inside the United States. This is one of the major benefits of enacting the MCA. As I and others have noted previously, the hundreds of lawyer visits to Guantanamo sparked by Rasul have seriously disrupted the operation of the Naval facility there. They have forced reconfiguration of the facility and consumed enormous resources, and have led to leaks of information that have made it harder for our troops there to do their job, to keep order at Guantanamo. Some of these detainee lawyers have even bragged about what a burden their activities have been on the military, and how they have disrupted interrogations at Guantanamo. Putting an end to that was the major purpose of the DTA. Today, with the MCA, we see to it that this goal is effectuated. Another major improvement that the MCA makes to the DTA is that it tightens the bar on nonhabeas lawsuits contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(e)(2). That paragraph, as enacted by the DTA, barred postrelease conditions-of-confinement lawsuits, but only if the detainee had been found to be properly detained as an enemy combatant by the U.S. Court of Appeals on review of a CSRT hearing. Although nothing in the DTA or MCA directly requires the military to conduct CSRTs, this limitation on the bar to non-habeas actions effectively did compel the military to hold CSRTs--and to somehow get the detainee to appeal to the DC Circuit. The alternative would have been to allow the detainee to sue U.S. troops at Guantanamo after his release. The MCA revises section 2241(e)(2) by, among other things, adopting a much narrower exception to the bar on post-release lawsuits. Under the MCA, 2242(e)(2) will bar nonhabeas lawsuits so long as the detainee ``has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'' This new language does several things. First, it eliminates the requirement that the DC Circuit review a CSRT, or that a CSRT even be held, before nonhabeas actions are barred. This is important because many detainees were released before CSRTs were even instituted. We do not want those who were properly detained as enemy combatants to be able to sue the U.S. military. And we do not want to force the military to hold CSRT hearings forever, or in all future wars. Instead, under the new language, the determination that is the precondition to the litigation bar is purely an executive determination. It is only what the United States has decided that will matter. In addition, the language of (e)(2) focuses on the propriety of the initial detention. There inevitably will be detainees who are captured by U.S. troops, or who are handed over to us by third parties, who initially appear to be enemy combatants but who, upon further inquiry, are found to be unconnected to the armed conflict. The U.S. military should not be punished with litigation for the fact that they initially detained such a person. As long as the individual was at least initially properly detained as an enemy combatant, the nonhabeas litigation is now barred, even if the U.S. later decides that the person was not an enemy combatant or no longer poses any threat. The inquiry created here is not unlike that for reviewing, in the civilian criminal justice context, the propriety of an arrest. An arrest might be entirely legal, might be based on sufficient probable cause, even if the arrestee is later conclusively found to be innocent of committing any crime. The arresting officer cannot be sued and held liable for making that initial arrest, so long as the arrest itself was supported by probable cause, simply because the suspect was not later convicted of a crime. Similarly, under 2241 (e)(2), detainees will not be able to sue their captors and custodians if the United States determines that it was the right decision to take the individual into custody.