John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank and commend Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their hard work on the Defense appropriations bill. They have done a tremendous job of putting together a bill that funds programs critical to the global war on terror. I come to the floor today to talk about another aspect of our national security, and that is our border security. This amendment is a border security emergency supplemental appropriations amendment that I filed to the Defense appropriations bill. At the outset, I made clear to the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, and anyone else who was interested, this amendment does not reduce by one penny any funding for the Defense Department or our troops, nor would this amendment add to the budget deficit because it is emergency spending necessary to control our borders and improve our national security. It has now been about 2 months since the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill and over 7 months since the House of Representatives passed its bill. We are at a stalemate, I think it is fair to say, with no apparent way out. While there has been no progress over the past few months on comprehensive immigration reform and border security measures, I remain optimistic and certainly committed to sending the President a comprehensive immigration reform bill before the end of the year. The enforcement titles in the House and Senate bills are, upon inspection, people would agree, very similar. And there are several different proposals for addressing the 12 million people who are currently living here out of status, including one Senator Kyl and I introduced about a year ago. Others have offered productive and constructive ideas and concepts, and I welcome all those who share my goal of moving this process forward and addressing this subject this year. The main hurdle to a conference with the House and ultimately a bill approved by both Chambers is not a lack of common ground between the two bills. Instead, I submit it is a deep-rooted public skepticism that the Federal Government will enforce the immigration laws and fund enforcement programs that are necessary to maintain any level of integrity in our immigration system. Unfortunately, Madam President, their skepticism is warranted. In 1986, Congress promised the American people that there would be a one- time amnesty and that increased enforcement would then prevent a buildup of illegal immigration in the country. As we know, the amnesty came, but the enforcement did not. Unless and until Americans are confident that the Federal Government will control the border and enforce the law, they are unlikely to support an immigration bill that includes any temporary worker program. One way to build that confidence is for Congress and this administration to fully fund border security and immigration enforcement programs starting with those that the Congress has already authorized and that the President has indicated are necessary to control our broken immigration system. What are Americans to think when Congress authorizes additional Border Patrol agents and detention beds and claims then to have dealt with our broken borders, but when Congress turns around, it fails to fund the positions and the infrastructure that we just got through authorizing. Unfortunately, that has been the pattern too often over the last years. Last week, Senators Kyl, Isakson, Chambliss, and I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to send Congress an emergency supplemental request to fully fund those programs; again, not new programs, by and large, but programs that have already been authorized by an act of Congress, signed into law by the President but never funded, in addition to a couple of additional programs the President himself has said we need in order to deal with this problem. A request by the President would send a clear message that the time for the status quo is over, it is no longer acceptable, and that the Federal Government will fund and, yes, will enforce the immigration laws of the United States. But I am also prepared to proceed with an amendment to this Defense appropriations bill, the amendment that is before the Senate. It is my hope and desire that by funding enforcement programs that we will increase the credibility of the Federal Government when it comes to actually creating a system that will work and will facilitate a successful conference on comprehensive immigration reform between the House and the Senate. This amendment in no way eliminates the need for comprehensive immigration reform. It is not a substitute for it, and I believe that comprehensive immigration reform should and can be done in a single piece of legislation. In fact, this amendment, rather than being a substitute for that comprehensive immigration reform, is just the opposite. This amendment will allow us to find common ground on visa reform and ways to address the 12 million individuals who are currently living in the shadows and outside our laws. Absent action on this sort of credibility-restoring measure, I am afraid that we will find ourselves at a continued stalemate and do nothing. My amendment would fund an additional 500 Border Patrol agents, along with the necessary support staff, training, and education to help make our borders safe. The President called for an additional 2,500 agents, and this appropriations amendment would allow him and us to meet that goal. This amendment would also fund 1,300 additional detention beds which would allow the Department of Homeland Security to end its policy of catch and release more quickly. The Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 authorized 8,000 additional beds, but Congress and the President have only funded 6,700 additional beds. This amendment would provide $60 million to fund the US-VISIT entry- exit system. But the GAO report released today that revealed that undercover agents routinely were able to enter the country with false documents demonstrates, in as current fashion as today's news, the need to move forward with a biometric entry-exit system, and this amendment would provide the funds to do exactly that, something we have already passed and has been authorized but which we have not funded. The President has also called for an expansion of the electronic verification system that would allow employers to quickly and more reliably determine whether new hires are authorized to work legally in the United States. Unfortunately, the basic pilot program, which is a voluntary program, but it is only utilized by a handful of employers, has not been successful because it is not mandatory and it is not nationwide, and the Government today, even under this voluntary program, struggles to service the 10,000 employers who do voluntarily participate. If we were serious about expanding the verification system to all employers around the country--which means approximately 6 million companies--on the timeframes proposed by the House and Senate, Congress needs to fully fund that program. This amendment would do that. Anyone who has visited the border region knows that the infrastructure of our Coast Guard and our Border Patrol is woefully out of date. At one point, all of the P-3 surveillance aircraft along the border were grounded due to structural failures. This amendment therefore funds $973 million for Coast Guard improvements in vessels, aircraft, and equipment, and to replace air assets and engage in air fleet modernization--something that is long overdue. This funding was previously passed by the Senate in H.R. 4939, only to be stripped during the conference report. Of course, this amendment alone will not fix our broken immigration system. We need comprehensive reform. But until Congress regains the credibility it so sorely needs to be able to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform, we will remain stuck as we are now with the Senate, which has passed a bill and the House which has passed a bill failing to convene a conference and work out our differences and actually provide a solution to this problem. We do need comprehensive immigration reform. We need to create a temporary worker program for those who come to our country and want to work legally and then return to their country of origin. We need to address the 12 million individuals who are currently living in the shadows who are already present, living among us. I remain committed to comprehensive immigration reform and I will continue to advocate for a bill that provides economic and national security. But I believe that funding for our border security is a necessary and essential step in that direction and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl and Burns be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4768 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate is now taking up a very important piece of legislation that would open a huge area in the Gulf of Mexico for deepwater exploration for oil and natural gas. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation and believe it is long overdue. At the same time, I am amazed when I hear our friends on the other side of the aisle. The Democratic whip this morning said this was an interesting proposal and he hoped we would have a good debate. I agree with both of those things. What he said I disagree with is that this is not about a national energy policy. He criticized the Federal Government not having a national energy policy. This is about a national energy policy. This is about eliminating the moratoria we have created ourselves that have prevented the United States from relying more on domestic production of oil and gas and relying less on imported energy from places in trouble, regions of the world such as the Middle East. As the current occupant of the chair knows, she and the senior Senator from Alaska have been fighting for years to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for exploration and development. This is something that not only do Alaskans support but that would provide a tremendous boom to the United States in terms of our ability to develop domestic energy resources. However, time and time again, for countless years, our friends on the other side of the aisle have said no, we cannot do that because it will damage the environment, it will disturb the flora and the fauna in that region of the world. The fact is, it is possible for us to explore and develop domestic energy supplies in an environmentally sound way. Modern drilling techniques and production techniques are entirely compatible with preserving the environment and avoiding the kind of calamities that some want to scare the American people into believing would be routine. I suggest this bill is all about developing a national energy policy. It is important to reducing our dependence on imported energy. In fact, it is estimated when lease 181 is developed, it will produce 1.26 billion barrels of oil, oil that is now selling for $75 a barrel on the open market. We all know Congress can pass a lot of laws. We can repeal a lot of laws. But the one law we cannot repeal is the law of supply and demand. In a booming economy in the United States, and countries such as China growing at a rate of 10 percent, we know the demand for oil and gas has increased. The problem is, the supply has not. This would pinpoint the solution at the only way we know we can deal with this in terms of supply, and that is increase it by 1.26 billion barrels of oil and-- this is significant, too--5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Natural gas is not only important because it is relatively clean burning, but it also is feedstock in a number of critical manufacturing industries in the United States. It is critical for our farmers and ranchers, but the price of natural gas has gone through the roof-- again, because of huge demand and limited supply. So it is absolutely critical to our ability to reduce our dependence on imported energy to both improve our national security and improve the prospects for our economy that we pass this legislation. My colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Democratic whip, also said the answer is not to open places such as ANWR, it is to pass mandates from Washington on more fuel-efficient vehicles. I am all for people having the choice to buy vehicles that give them extended gas mileage, but I am against Washington, DC, mandating through some directive that says to my constituents in Texas, you can only drive a certain kind of car. I believe we ought to have the freedom of choice and that Congress should not be in the business of mandating what kind of cars we drive in my State or any State. Finally, he mentioned that big bugaboo we hear and read so much about, global warming, another scare tactic that is used often to convince people that, no, we can't develop our domestic energy supply, we can't contribute more to the production of CO2 in the atmosphere because it will exacerbate global warming. We are all worried about global warming. The fact is, there is some debate in science about what the causes of the current warming of the atmosphere are, whether they are periodic and we are seeing a spike now, a small spike now, but it will work out. The main problem with the solutions that have been offered to address global warming is that most of the proponents penalize the United States and damage the American economy by subjecting us to onerous regulations that would not apply to some of our major competitors in the world, countries such as China and India that would not be subject, for example, to the Kyoto Treaty that was overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate the last time we considered that issue. Rather than saying no, rather than blocking and blaming, what S. 3711 does is enormously positive. It has done a great job. I have to give a lot of credit to the Senator from Louisiana who has helped shepherd this bill to this point so far. This is a bipartisan bill which is the way we should do things more often, but this provides a very real solution to a very real problem. It is true we cannot rely on developing more oil and gas supply, but that is certainly what we have to do in the near term to midterm. We cannot rely solely on conservation. I am all for conserving our energy supply, avoiding waste that can be avoided. I also think we ought to look for alternative fuels such as ethanol. They make a lot of sense as part of an overall energy diversity program. I think energy diversity should be our national policy because if we rely on one type of fuel or if we rely on one policy, such as conservation, we cannot hope to get ahead of the curve when it comes to the growing demand not just in the United States of America but countries such as China that are growing at the rate of 10 percent a year, and other competitors in the world economy. So we have to look at conservation. We have to look at additional supply. We have to look at alternative forms of fuels, renewables. Texas just moved ahead of California in terms of production of wind energy. That certainly has a lot of promise. It is not the only solution, but it is a part of the overall solution. Then, of course, we have to look at developing nuclear energy in this country. France, hardly a model that I would hold up in some areas, is a model when it comes to dealing with nuclear energy. America produces about 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. France, on the other hand, produces 80 percent of their electricity using nuclear power. They have figured out that one way to address the environmental concerns but also produce the kind of energy that a growing economy needs is nuclear power. Thank goodness in the Energy bill we passed last year, we have now the prospect of nuclear energy taking over more and more of the demand for our energy supply in the United States. So I believe this is an enormously important piece of legislation. It does provide a part of the solution to our overall challenge. It will have a very direct impact on the prices that consumers pay at the gas pump because most of the cost of gasoline is related to the price of oil. We know that is not the only cause of high gas prices. Another problem is we have seen some block the development of refinery capacity, and we have had no new refineries which are what transmute the oil into gasoline. We have not had any new refineries built in this country since the early 1970s, although we have seen a recent expansion of existing refining capacity which has helped. But, here again, America is no longer the principal consumer of energy in the world. We are just one of a number of large competitors for the same scarce supply. So it is absolutely critical we undertake measures such as this as part of our national energy policy. So I would disagree respectfully with my colleague from Illinois, the distinguished Democratic whip. This is all about a national energy policy, and it is a part of what we must do if we are going to keep our commitments to the American people to try to help them keep more of the money they earn and let them spend it as they see fit and not have to spend it on rapidly escalating gasoline prices and other energy prices that not only hurt consumers but also make America less competitive in the global economy. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, just last week the Senate unanimously approved landmark legislation that will help protect American children from violent sexual predators and other such criminals who would do them harm. I proudly cosponsored and worked to strengthen that bill--The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 because the States needed, and asked for, the Federal Government's help to detect and deter violent sexual predators. The nationwide sex offender database and registration requirements are critical components that help prevent violent sexual predators from slipping underground and out of sight. Indeed, the Senate's passage of the Adam Walsh Act was a banner day for the safety of our children. And today, Mr. President, the Senate will consider another important measure to protect the health and safety of American children--in particular, female minors. I am referring, of course, to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. I am proud to join Senator Ensign and a bipartisan group of over 40 Senators that have cosponsored this legislation. This long-overdue proposal amends the Federal Criminal Code to prohibit the transportation of a minor across State lines--without parental consent or notification--in order to obtain an abortion. To date, at least 37 States have laws on the books that require a minor girl who wishes to have an abortion to notify or obtain the consent of her parents. But let's be clear: this bill neither establishes a Federal parental consent law, nor supersedes existing State laws. It merely reinforces the prerogatives of those States that have enacted parental notification and consent laws. So the question before the Senate today is a straightforward one: Should Congress safeguard the legislative choice made by those States that have chosen to preserve the role of parents and guardians in the health and medical decisions of their children--particularly, their minor daughters? I believe that we must safeguard State prerogatives by protecting parental rights. If a State has on its books a constitutionally sound parental notification or consent law, parents in that State should not have to fear that their minor daughters can legally be driven into a neighboring State to receive an abortion. This is not a hypothetical concern. The New York Times reported that ``Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia [Pennsylvania has a parental consent law] has a list of clinics, from New York to Baltimore, to which they will refer teenagers, according to the organization's executive director . . . .'' Even more disturbing, there is evidence that abortion clinics in States bordering Pennsylvania--States that don't have parental involvement laws--will advertise the lack of such requirements and use it as a selling point in their advertisements directed at minors in Pennsylvania. I also worry that interstate transportation of minors to have abortions may be used to conceal criminal activity--like statutory rape. I, for one, believe that we ought to make it a Federal crime for an adult male who impregnates a young girl to transport her out of her home State--without the knowledge and consent of her parents--in order to have an abortion. That is just common sense. Mr. President, this legislation is not about abortion rights. It is about protecting the health and safety of children and preserving the role of parents in decisions concerning their child's medical care. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators Inhofe and Coburn--my friends and neighbors from the State of Oklahoma--in support of this fine nominee to the Federal bench. Jerome Holmes is a leader in Oklahoma's legal community--and a leader in the broader community in which he lives. Mr. Holmes has demonstrated the qualifications, character, and temperament that will make him an outstanding judge. As a testament to his ability and promise, the Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move Mr. Holmes's nomination to this floor for confirmation. Jerome Holmes enjoys bipartisan support not only here in Washington, but, perhaps more telling, he enjoys bipartisan support back home in Oklahoma--where people know best this accomplished man and his good work. In fact, Oklahoma's Democrat Governor, Brad Henry, said of Mr. Holmes: ``Jerome is a highly qualified candidate, a superb lawyer with a reputation for fairness, ethics, and integrity . . . In short, I do not think you could have a candidate more highly qualified and regarded than Jerome Holmes.'' Again, Mr. President, that high praise comes from Oklahoma's Democrat Governor. Other prominent Democrats in Oklahoma praise Jerome Holmes as ``a person of unwavering integrity,'' a ``principled leader,'' and someone with a ``willingness to listen and respect differing views.'' In short, the people who know this man best--Oklahomans of competing political stripes and policy views--think Jerome Holmes will make a great judge. Those who know Jerome Holmes best know that he served with distinction as a Federal prosecutor for over a decade. They know that as an Assistant U.S. Attorney he vigorously--but fairly--prosecuted public corruption and civil rights violations--and that he served as his office's antiterrorism coordinator. In fact, Jerome Holmes worked on the prosecution team that built a case against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing. I recall vividly that dark day in 1995, the day the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed, the day that the people of Oklahoma City were terrorized. The Tenth Circuit's Chief Judge Deanell Reece Tacha pointed out that ``[i]n some ways,'' her circuit and the people of Oklahoma ``knew ahead of the rest of the nation of the horrors of terrorism.'' Those who know Jerome Holmes best know that, he--like so many others in his office--took on this difficult assignment with fairness and care and dedication to see justice done. President Bush nominated this fine man to the appellate bench for his strong qualifications but also for his demonstrated understanding of the proper, limited role of the Federal judiciary under the U.S. Constitution. Jerome Holmes himself said it best: I recognize very clearly the distinction between the role of a writer on social policy issues in their personal capacity and the role of a judge in adjudicating the rights and liberties of individual litigants. And Mr. Holmes pointed out that as a judge ``it is inappropriate for me to import my personal views on policy issues into the decision making process.'' I would submit that this statement by Mr. Holmes is exactly correct. Judges should not be seen as politicians in robes. Unfortunately, too many people still view the Federal courts as a vehicle for enacting policy choices that are too extreme to prevail at the ballot box. And, as a corollary, these same people view activist judges as a means to their policy ends. I am confident that Jerome Holmes understands the proper, limited role that this Nation's Founders assigned to the Federal judiciary. I say that because I am confident that this President understands the judicial role and continues to nominate like-minded men and women to the bench. The court to which Mr. Holmes is nominated--the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--covers a large part of the middle and western United States. The territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit includes six States: Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. And the circuit also has jurisdiction over those parts of Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho. Last week, the Senate confirmed another outstanding nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Neil Gorsuch. And when the Senate votes to confirm Jerome Holmes, as I am confident it will, he will join Judge Gorsuch and four other fine Bush nominees on the Tenth Circuit. So, in closing, I commend President Bush for submitting another fine nominee to the Senate for confirmation, and congratulate my friends from Oklahoma, their constituents, and the entire Tenth Circuit. I believe Jerome Holmes will make a fine appellate judge and will serve this Nation with honor and distinction. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I add that I share the views of my colleague from Arizona. Like he, I represent a State that is covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which is one of the sections that is being reauthorized today, hopefully. I thus paid close attention to the changes being made in that section. Like my colleague from Arizona, I supported the provision that effectively instructs the Justice Department to refuse to preclear a voting practice that is motivated by a discriminatory, unconstitutional purpose. I also agree this is all this change does. It does not authorize the Justice Department to define for itself what is a ``discriminatory purpose.'' The Constitution and the courts have already done that, and it is that constitutional definition that is being incorporated in this legislation. That standard bars discrimination against a racial group, and it does not require discrimination in favor of any racial group. Thus, it does not require those drawing electoral maps to create misshapen districts simply in order to create as many majority-minority districts as possible. Nor does it require that minority voters be placed as often as possible in districts where candidates of the party they support will prevail. The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not say all citizens are equal, but that some are more equal than others. Nor should the Voting Rights Act say that. The Voting Rights Act should not be read to require creation of so-called coalition districts that produce a Democratic or a Republican representative, as the case may be. I think that would raise serious constitutional questions if we adopted a free-flowing definition of purpose--or authorized the U.S. Department of Justice to invent one--that is untethered from the Constitution itself. I think this is sufficiently clear from the bill's incorporation of constitutional terms of art that I am confident this is how the provision will be applied by the Justice Department and by the courts.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have some additional remarks that I would like to make on this important legislation. Forty-one years ago, when signing the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law, Lyndon Johnson, the President of the United States, a former member of the Senate whose seat I am privileged to hold, described the act's passage as ``a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield.'' President Johnson's words captured the importance of the act's passage. It was a hard-fought victory at a tense time in American history. It is no secret why the Voting Rights Act was necessary. It was adopted at the height of the civil rights movement, when numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States had intentionally, systematically disenfranchised Blacks and other minorities from the electoral process. As a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee noted, a Senate report from 1965 found that in every voting discrimination suit brought against Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, both the district court and the Court of Appeals found ``discriminatory use of tests and devices''--devices such as literacy, knowledge, and moral character tests. The Senate concluded that these were not ``isolated deviations from the norm'' but, instead, ``had been pursuant to a pattern or a practice of racial discrimination.'' Such practices had driven down to 29.3 percent the average registration rate for Black citizens in these States--29.3 percent. Worse yet, violence and brutality were common. In 1961, a Black voter registration drive worker in McComb, MS was beaten by a cousin of the sheriff; a worker was ordered out of the registrar's office at gunpoint and then hit with a pistol; a Black sympathizer was murdered by a State representative; another Black who asked for Justice Department protection to testify at the inquest was beaten and killed 3 years later; a White activist's eye was gouged out; and, finally, 12 student nonviolent coordinating committee workers and local supporters were fined and sentenced to substantial terms in jail. And those were just some of the many terrible incidents that occurred. This type of bigotry and hatred at the polls, coupled with escalating violence and even the murder of activists, is the backdrop against which the Voting Rights Act was adopted--permanently enshrining into law the long-unfulfilled promise of citizenship and democratic participation for all Americans as guaranteed by the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The permanence of the Voting Rights Act is something that I am afraid is sometimes misunderstood or misstated in the popular press. The act's core provision found that section 2 prohibits the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color. That provision is permanent. That provision will never expire, and we are not addressing this permanent provision by the reauthorization that we will vote on today. Instead, we are addressing what at the time was a temporary, 5-year period where provisions were adopted to subject certain jurisdictions to Federal oversight of the voting laws and procedures until the intent of the Voting Rights Act was accomplished. This provision, section 5, along with later-added provisions designed to protect voters from discrimination based upon limited English proficiency, has been renewed several times since it was originally passed and will expire in the summer of 2007. Those are the provisions which we are addressing here today and which this vote today will reauthorize. Today, we are considering the renewal of these provisions at a time when we can look back with some pride as a country and say that the Voting Rights Act has fulfilled its promise. It worked. Today, we live in a different--albeit still imperfect--world. Today, no one can claim that the kind of systemic, invidious practices that plagued our election systems 40 years ago still exist in America. Today, the voter registration rates among Blacks, for example, in the covered jurisdictions is over 68.1 percent, as this chart indicates, higher than the 62.2 percent found in noncovered jurisdictions. Let me repeat that, Mr. President, because I think it is important. Earlier, you heard me say that as a result of the violence and the discrimination against Black voters in three Southern States before the Voting Rights Act was passed, voter registration rates for African Americans was about 29 percent. But today, 40 years later, as a result of the fact that the Voting Rights Act has accomplished its purpose, we now see voting registration rates nationwide at 62.2 percent. Perhaps the most amazing thing is that the rate of voter registration in those areas that were covered by section 5, because they had a history of discrimination and violation of the voting rights of minority voters, is actually higher than the rest of the country--68.1 percent--as opposed to 62.2 percent for the noncovered jurisdictions. A review of the voter registration data since the act's original passage shows that the covered jurisdictions have demonstrated equal or higher voter registration rates among Black voters as noncovered jurisdictions since the mid-1970s. I realize, though, this is not the only measure of the performance of the act. Another important indicator of its success is the continual decline--almost to the point of statistically negligible numbers--of objections issued by the Department of Justice to plans submitted under section 5 for pre clearance. You can see on this chart that I have demonstrated here, going back to 1982, to 2005--and again, this is for the nine covered jurisdictions--this is what we are focusing on with this reauthorization. In those nine covered jurisdictions that were required under section 5 to submit their election changes for preclearance, you see that in 1982, for 2,848 submissions, there were 67 objections to those changes or a rate of roughly 2.32 percent. But if you jump down to 2005--let's go to 1995--it shows that this is really a bipartisan success under both Republican and Democrat Presidential administrations. In 1995, you can see that out of 3,999 submissions, requests for pre clearance under section 5, there were only 19 objections as required through the required procedures. So you see actually the number of objections dropping from 2.32 percent to, in 1995, under one-half of 1 percent. And the good news is, it just keeps getting better. In 2005, there were 3,811 submissions, and only 1 objection for preclearance of a change in voting practices or procedures in the covered jurisdictions. So I would submit that both the voter registration rates for African American voters in the covered jurisdictions, and the plummeting, really, of objections sustained to submissions requesting preclearance under section 5, are strong and compelling evidence that, in fact, the Voting Rights Act has achieved--largely achieved--the purposes that Congress had hoped for and that no doubt millions of people who had previously been disenfranchised had prayed for. The evidence demonstrates the continued improvement of access to office for minorities. The statistics in the House record indicate that hundreds of minorities are now serving--not just getting to vote, they are actually serving in elected office, accomplishing again one of the important purposes of the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, in Georgia, minorities are elected at rates proportionate to or higher than the numbers proportionate to the general population would otherwise indicate. While Georgia's population is 28.7 percent African American, 30.7 percent of its delegation to the United States House of Representatives, and 26.5 percent of the officials elected statewide are African American, a remarkable accomplishment. Black candidates in Mississippi have achieved similar success. The State's population is 36.3 percent African American, and 29.5 percent of its representatives in the State House, and 25 percent of its delegation in the United States House of Representatives are African American. In light of this strong indication that the act has largely achieved the purposes that Congress had intended, of course, the logical question before us is whether these provisions under section 5 should be reauthorized. The Judiciary Committee hearings were enlightening on this point, and I want to congratulate Chairman Specter for readily ceding to requests that were made to have a complete record so that not only Congress but the courts that may later examine this record can see what the facts are. Senator Specter worked hard to hold a sufficient number of fair and balanced hearings, but given our busy schedule on the Senate floor, that was not always easy to accomplish. However, I think it might have been beneficial for the long-term viability and success of the Voting Rights Act had we engaged in serious, reasoned deliberation over some of the suggested possible improvements, some suggested by our witnesses--improvements that would underscore the act's original purpose. It would modernize it to reflect today's reality. It would possibly expand the coverage of section 5 to jurisdictions where recent abuses have taken place or, perhaps, have improved the so-called bailout procedures for those jurisdictions that had a successful record of remedying, indeed eliminating, discrimination when it comes to voting rights. One idea that was offered was to update the coverage formula. I don't know if that is a good idea, but I would like to know. Some suggest that such an update would gut the act. I, for one, certainly don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see the act gutted. But I am skeptical that this would be the result. The amendment that was voted on in the House, for example, would have updated the coverage trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections from the current point, or trigger, of 1964, 1968, and 1972 elections. As I understand it, the map, after an update to cover the most recent three Presidential elections, would look something like this. In other words, rather than the nine covered jurisdictions, you would see jurisdictions around the country, both at the State and local level-- primarily at the local level--that would focus on the places where the problems really do exist and where the record demonstrates with some justification for the assertion of Federal power and intrusion into the local and State electoral processes. If this is an accurate reflection of the effects of updating the trigger to the most recent three Presidential elections, it certainly changes the map. But I suggest, just looking at this, it hardly guts it. It would have also been beneficial for us to have had a full discussion of ways to improve the act to ensure its important provisions were applied in a congruent and proportional way, something the Supreme Court will take into consideration when it considers the renewed act. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly to extend the expiring provisions of the act and adopt several substantial revisions included by the House, so I think it is important to comment on the House revisions to the act. In other words, we are not just reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act as it existed previously, there have been changes made. So I think it is important for us to identify those changes and reflect on them for a moment. There has been some debate about the meaning of these provisions. My understanding is that the purpose of these provisions is fairly straightforward, and I think the House legislative history reflects this; that is, the purpose is to ensure minorities are not prevented from holding elected offices in bodies such as Congress and ensure that no intentional, unconstitutional discrimination is allowed to proceed. It is important that our understanding about these provisions be clear so that their application will be likewise clear. I think the colloquy that we had on the Senate floor just a few moments ago helps to make that as clear as we possibly can. In short, the Voting Rights Act is simply the most important and most effective civil rights legislation ever passed, bar none. The extension of the expiring provisions is important for the continued protection of voting rights, even though it would have been preferable and even possibly constitutionally advisable for us to review the application of the act's preclearance and other provisions. Unfortunately, the act's language was a bit of a foregone conclusion, prohibiting the kind of debate and discussion and perhaps amendment process that might have been helpful to protect the act against future legal challenges. Few issues are as fundamental to our system of democracy and the promise of equal justice under law as the Voting Rights Act. I support reauthorization of the expiring provisions because the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is genuine, its goals are noble, and its success, as I hope to have demonstrated, is unparalleled. But I do want to say in conclusion that I share the concerns expressed by Chief Justice Roberts in the most recent redistricting case that has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope the day will come when we will no longer, to use his words, be ``divvying us up by race.'' It is my sincere hope that we will move beyond distinctions based on race in our policymaking, lest we, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, make ``the offensive and demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race, because of their race, think alike, share the same political interests, and will prefer the same candidates at the polls. The question in the end is, Is this bill that we will vote on today the very best possible product? I would have to say the answer to that is, apparently not. In response to the question, is this the very best that we can do at this time?'' I would have to conclude, yes, it is. And I support it for that reason. I see my distinguished colleague from New York on the Senate floor. I yield the floor to her and anyone else who seeks an opportunity to speak.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would simply add to the comments of the assistant majority leader that I, too, am glad that we have eliminated any risk in Georgia v. Ashcroft, and section 5 would be applied to require preservation of anything other than districts that allow naturally occurring minority-group majorities to elect minority candidates. Locking into place so-called coalition or influence districts would wreak havoc with the redistricting process and would stretch the Voting Rights Act beyond the scope of the Congress's authority under the 14th amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a law clerk on my staff, Brian Hill, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this debate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I too rise to support the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This act represents landmark, bipartisan legislation to protect the most vulnerable among us: our children. Over the last several months, the House and the Senate met, negotiated, and finally reached agreement on this important measure. I want to note and, in doing so, commend the tremendous leadership Chairman Specter and Senator Hatch, our immediate past chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and their respective staffs, as well as the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner and his staff, for all their tireless dedication to this legislation. Many people have devoted time and effort to see this bill through, ensuring that we do everything within our power to protect our children. The crimes of child abuse and child exploitation are astounding but, unfortunately, all too prevalent. The recent wave of child abductions in this country demonstrates the need for this type of response from the Congress. There is only one way to deal with those who prey on children: They must be caught sooner, punished longer, and watched closer than they are today. Before I came to the Senate, I was honored to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Texas as Texas attorney general. There, I instituted a new specialized unit known as the Texas Internet Bureau which was designed to coordinate and direct efforts to fight Internet crimes such as fraud, child pornography, and address privacy concerns, among others. As others here have noted, the Internet is a remarkable tool which has revolutionized the way we live, the way we communicate, and the way we receive information. The problem is, though, there is a dark underbelly to the Internet, and the Texas Internet Bureau was designed to specifically identify Internet predators who were then caught, prosecuted, convicted, and taken off the streets. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues in the Senate to help continue on this important initiative and to make it available to more and more of our children and, thus, to make America a safer place for our children to grow up. I want to take a moment to highlight another very important participant in these negotiations who has been noted and praised for his efforts, but I think we can't say enough to recognize his contribution. John Walsh has a long-standing commitment to fighting for child victims and measures to protect children across this country. As has been recounted, his son Adam Walsh was kidnapped from a mall in Florida and murdered in 1981. Since that day, John Walsh has dedicated his life to helping victims of crime, and he has been enormously successful and influential in doing so. It is only appropriate that this bill honors the inspiration he has given to us all in the life of his son Adam Walsh in the process. As many of you know, John Walsh is the host of ``America's Most Wanted'' and has spent a lot of time and effort working on this bill. This is not the first time he has invested his efforts and expertise in helping Congress address child crime legislation. In the previous Congress, we passed legislation that included the Code Adam Act, which required Federal buildings to establish procedures for locating a child who is missing in Federal buildings. The title of this current bill appropriately honors Mr. Walsh's efforts, and I am told the President will sign the bill, if we pass it, on July 27, marking the 25th year since the day Adam was abducted. I do not pretend to understand the pain and trauma the Walsh family or others have had to endure as a result of these terrible crimes against children. But I am eternally grateful for the way John Walsh has used this pain and this trauma to improve the lives of other people and to ensure we take every step within our power to protect our children against like crimes committed against Adam Walsh. I wish to take a second to highlight other important measures contained in the bill which will enhance existing laws, enhance investigative tools, criminal penalties, and child crime resources in a variety of ways. This bill requires sex offenders to register and, in the case of the most serious offenders, to do so for up to the length of their entire lives. It requires them to report in person at least once each year to update personal information and to take a new photograph. It requires public posting for public access on the Internet of information about sex offenders so it is widely available, and so parents can take steps necessary to protect their children. It forces States to comply with this program or, I should say, persuades them to comply with the program by linking participation to Byrne grant funding, and it punishes with imprisonment up to 10 years those who fail to register, and if they commit a violent crime while unregistered, they can be punished for up to 30 years consecutive to any underlying conviction. It requires the Attorney General of the United States to create Project Safe Childhood, which will integrate Federal, State, and local efforts to prosecute the crime of child exploitation. It increases punishments for any crime of violence against a child, and authorizes grants to States to implement these important programs, and provides them grants to do so. It also includes many of the provisions of the Internet Safety Act which I cosponsored with Senator Jon Kyl and others which, among other things, creates a new crime outlawing child exploitation enterprises, and would imprison for a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years those who act in concert to commit at least three separate violations of Federal child pornography, sex trafficking, or sexual abuse laws against multiple child victims. It also enacts various other important provisions, including making the failure to register as a sex offender a deportable offense for aliens and preventing sex offenders from taking advantage of our immigration laws. This is one of those fine times in the U.S. Congress where we have come together on a bipartisan basis to do something that rises above partisanship and is enormously significant in terms of improving our quality of life and protecting those who are most vulnerable among us. This Congress continues to act on measures that benefit our Nation and protect our children. It has long been said that societies are ultimately judged on how they treat their elderly and their young. This bill is an important step toward improving the safety of those who are our youngest and most vulnerable. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to specifically express my gratitude to the many dedicated staff who worked tirelessly on this bill for some time, including Matthew Johnson and Lynden Melmed from my own staff. Additionally, I would like to thank the following staff: Allen Hicks, Mike O'Neill, Matt Miner, Todd Braunstein, Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Bruce Artim, Ken Valentine, Tom Jipping, Dave Turk, Bradley Hayes, Joe Matal, Nicole Gustafson, James Galyean, Amy Blankenship, Jane Treat, Sharon Beth Kristal, Julie Katzman, Noah Bookbinder, Christine Leonard, Lara Flint, Marianne Upton, Preet Baharara, Melanie Looney, Anna Mitchell, Gabriel Adler, Alea Brown, Bradley Schreiber, Mike Volkov, Sean McLaughlin, Bobby Vassar, and Greg Barnes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my outrage at the terrorist actions of Hezbollah that we have seen in recent days. As my colleagues are aware, this terrorist group conducted raids across Israel's border, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, and also killed eight other Israeli soldiers. The stability in the region has been significantly compromised because of these terrorist actions. These attacks on the sovereign nation of Israel are reprehensible, they are unacceptable, and they are not going unanswered. Israel has said it will not negotiate with terror organizations, and has demanded the release of its soldiers. The United States must stand by Israel as it defends itself against such cowardly attacks. Israel has not only the right, but the responsibility to defend its citizens. And there is certainly no doubt that Syria and Iran support the terrorist actions of Hezbollah. In fact, the latest State Department report on terrorism identifies Iran and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. We will continue to wage the global war on terror, to do our best to rid the world of terrorists and those who support them. But when acts of terrorism are perpetrated against sovereign nations, the international community must recognize that such nations will protect themselves and their citizens, as it is their right to do. I extend my sympathy to the families of the Israeli soldiers who have been killed in these attacks and pray for the safe return of those captured.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 198, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since the outcome will not be affected.

Mr. CORNYN. Specifically what this amendment would do is deal with El Salvadoran immigrants who are the subject of the so-called Orantes injunction. This was issued by the Federal court in Los Angeles in 1988, and still exists today, which inhibits the Department's ability to use expedited removal when it comes to Salvadorans. It is clear when you compare the track record for the Salvadoran population as opposed to those from other countries that expedited removal works. But for this injunction, which impedes the ability of the Department to use the expedited removal, I believe we would see a tremendous level of deterrence which would help, in connection with everything else we are doing, to discourage illegal immigration into our country. The only reason I stand here today and am talking about this amendment and I am not able to ask for an up-or-down vote on this amendment and to implement this request from the Department of Homeland Security which will help us fix our broken border security system, which will allow us to use expedited removal, is because the Democratic leader sought, by use of a procedural motion last night about 6 o'clock, to make a set of circumstances where we could not have a vote on that amendment. I think this is another test, a test of our will, a test of our national resolve to fix our broken immigration system and to secure our borders. Unfortunately, due to the action of the Democratic leader yesterday, I believe that is a further indication that we are failing that test. The American people want us to act decisively to fix this problem. They recognize this is a Federal issue, that only the Federal Government can deal with our international borders and provide the kind of security that will allow us to know who is coming into our country and why individuals are getting here. We know many of them want to come here to work, to seek a greater opportunity. We all understand that on a very human level. But the same porous borders that allow workers to come across allow gang members, allow common criminals, narcotraffickers, and, yes, even terrorists to enter our country without our knowing it only to do their mischief at a later time. I believed it was incumbent upon me to come to the Chamber to explain my deep disappointment in this procedural move that was engaged in by the Democratic leader yesterday, which has denied us an opportunity to have a vote on this important amendment, one endorsed by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and one which I believe is absolutely essential to our restoring credibility to our border security efforts by enabling our Border Patrol to use this well- recognized mechanism of expedited removal and deterrence. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, March 27, 2006. Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Cornyn: Thank you for your support of critical injunction reform legislation, which will significantly enhance our ability to end ``catch and release'' of non- Mexican illegal aliens apprehended on the Southwest border. We urgently need Congress to pass this legislation so that we can ensure that long-outdated court decisions do not frustrate our efforts to secure the border. We have made great strides in increasing the number of non- Mexican illegal aliens detained for removal along the Southwest border. Indeed, most individuals from Central and South America, other than Salvadorans and family groups, are now detained for prompt removal upon apprehension at the Southwest border. But we are stymied in making further progress because of a 1988 court order that has impeded our ability to quickly remove Salvadorans caught after they illegally cross our borders. This 1988 court decision was issued at a time when El Salvador was in the midst of a civil war and when immigration was governed by very different statutes, yet it continues to dictate our handling of Salvadorans. On November 17, 2005, we fully explained to the district court the dramatic changes in the facts and law that have occurred since the entry of its perpetual injunction in 1988. We asked the district court to lift its order in November, but we have no firm date for when this process will reach its conclusion in the district court or on appeal. Other longstanding civil injunctions, including one that was issued 30 years ago, likewise impede our ability to effectively enforce the immigration laws. These district court decisions have created onerous operating procedures requiring the commitment of vast amounts of government resources. They detrimentally impact immigration enforcement on a daily basis and often frustrate our efforts. One such other order has resulted in the creation of extra procedures requiring substantial additional resources for routine visa processing. Another injunction has resulted in certain Freedom of Information Act requests being given priority over other pressing work. Invasive court-ordered requirements, for all practical purposes, hamstring the authority of the President and the Congress over the borders. Yet the conditions which gave rise to such requirements may have changed. Under current law and court procedures, it can be extremely time-consuming and difficult to end these injunctions. With this legislation, Congress will be taking significant steps to ensure that we are no longer hostage to these old, out-of- date, court orders. Because of the urgent need, I strongly encourage you to attempt to move this legislation both as free-standing legislation and as an amendment to the pending immigration bill. Without such legislation, we simply cannot end the ``catch and release'' policy for illegal immigration. Thank you again for your support of our efforts to end ``catch and release,'' so that we can take a major step toward complete control over our borders. Sincerely, Michael Chertoff, Secretary.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I offered a commonsense amendment that would help secure our broken immigration system, at least in part. This is an amendment which would have helped the Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol execute what is known as catch and return--or expedited return--rather than the current catch and release program that the Department has been engaged in when it comes to people who come illegally into our country from places other than Mexico. Last year, 1.1 million people were detained coming across our southern border, and 250,000 of those--about a quarter--came from countries other than Mexico. The fact is that South America, Central America, and Mexico itself have become a land bridge for people from around the world seeking to come through our southern border into the United States. The only way we are going to be able to begin to deal with this is to create a real deterrence that convinces people that if they attempt to immigrate illegally across our southern border, they will not only be detained but they will be returned to their country of origin without any delay. Because of a lack of personnel and because of inadequate policies, we have had what has literally come to be known as a catch and release policy. In other words, people who come from Mexico can be returned literally the same day. But if you come from countries other than Mexico, it takes on average about 2 months to return those individuals to their country of origin because of the need to process the paperwork, get permission of that country to return the foreign national to that country, and the like. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has specifically said that this is a key to the success of our expedited removal program, which will finally allow us to create some deterrence when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system and border security controls. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Chertoff's letter of March 27, 2006, endorsing this amendment's approach be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to end a decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunction designed to impede the Department of Homeland Security's use of expedited removal and enforcement of our immigration laws. In 1988, a Federal court in Los Angeles issued a permanent, nationwide injunction that requires immigration authorities to afford detained Salvadorans a host of substantive and proposal rights--rights afforded to literally no other immigrant group. Largely as a result of this 1988 Orantes injunction, Salvadorans have now become the single largest component of what is known as OTMs or ``other than Mexican'' immigrants. Both the border tunnel amendment that Senator Feinstein has offered and my immigration injunction second-degree amendment deal with illegal immigration and are designed to deal with criminal activity. They go together well because they both close border vulnerabilities that are being exploited by gangs and smugglers. The injunction amendment passed as an amendment in committee, and there has been little opposition. It is currently in the compromise bill endorsed by a majority of Senate Democrats. The amendment requires courts to narrowly tailor injunctive relief orders against the Government in immigration cases and to take into account national security, border security, public safety, and immigration enforcement concerns. Decades-old, obsolete Federal court injunctions continue to impede the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to enforce our immigration laws. For example, if you look at June of 2005 through February of 2006, you can see why this specific injunction, which impedes the use of expedited removal when it comes to immigrants from El Salvador, is such a problem and why this amendment is necessary. For example, in June of 2005 there were some 4,181 Brazilians subject to apprehension. At the same time, there were roughly the same number of El Salvadorans: 4,011. But because of the improvements in expedited removal and immigration law enforcement inso far as it relates to Brazilians--not subject to the Orantes injunction that impedes the use of this important procedure--we saw the number of Brazilians drop from 4,181 in June of 2005 to 72 in February of 2006. During the same time period, because of the impediment created by the Orantes injunction, which prohibited the use of expedited removal when it came to Salvadorans who illegally immigrated into the United States, we saw, in June of 2005, 4,011 Salvadorans; and in February of 2006, that number has virtually not changed at all, to 3,906. So, clearly, the impediment created by this Orantes injunction, that would be overturned and remedied by this amendment, creates an impediment for the Department of Homeland Security when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. This amendment, it is important to note, would not eliminate injunctive relief but would require that any injunction granted be narrowly tailored and to not unnecessarily impede on enforcement of our immigration laws. Specifically, it would provide that injunctions must be narrowly tailored to precisely address the actual harm identified. It would require that injunctions do not extend forever and must end on a date certain. It provides that an injunction is suspended unless a court acts within 30 days of the date when the Government moves to vacate an injunction. And for any injunction in which the Government has already filed a motion to vacate--and which remains pending 10 days after enactment of this bill--that injunction is automatically stayed on that 10th day. Mr. President, I conclude by saying, in my conversations with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, he regards this amendment as important to providing the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs in order to enforce our immigration laws and to make sure the use of expedited removal, which is so important in terms of the deterrence that it provides, be uniform across populations that would be affected. So, as he told me, if this amendment passes, he would be able to end catch-and-release, which is a de facto policy of this Government, within a matter of months. I would think this is an issue we can all support, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Feinstein amendment the pending business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation-- previously introduced in the 108th Congress--which I believe is important to the long-term competitiveness of North America. And I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Coleman, for his support and recognition of the value of this legislation. He is an original co-sponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him and others to ensure its success. Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the United States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap. As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Mexico will elect a new President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and the transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful process takes place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and I look forward to working with the new Administration and the new Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries. Considered in the context of history, Mexico has--particularly within the past decade--made significant strides related to its system of government and its trade policies. However, much work remains to be done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist them as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth. I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure the economic prosperity of North America as part of an ever-changing and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important topic. My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund with the governments of Canada and Mexico. The fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions. First, the Government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross domestic product of Mexico. Their current tax rate is approximately 9 percent. Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, while also maintaining economic stability in Mexico. These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes in Mexico must start from within. The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in Mexico to ensure their own economic development. The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries. As I have mentioned on several occasions, I have heard from Mexico leaders who say they want desperately to ``export goods and services, not people'' to our country. Well, I think we all recognize that opportunity in one's home country and immigration are linked, and I believe we should be more involved in helping to promote the strength and stability of our neighbors. Development provides a positive and stabilizing influence on economies, on government institutions, and also on immigration. We've seen, in past years, a steady flow of immigrants--particularly undocumented workers--coming across our borders. A vast number of these immigrants are here to work hard so they can send money home to their families and relatives. They may be well-intentioned, but at the same time, these hard workers are doing nothing to help their own economies. Mexico does not want the most entrepreneurial members of its society to permanently leave. What it wants most of all is for economic development to grow in their region, so that citizens would have real opportunities to stay and grow the economy there. But with the entrepreneurs and risk-takers coming to the United States, Mexico cannot hope to improve its own economy. Economic growth creates new jobs and raises incomes. This growth lifts people out of poverty even as it spurs positive economic reform. The potential for good is nearly limitless; as with such a fund we could spur sustainable development, strengthen private property rights, while also encouraging competition, regional integration, the open flow of technology. So the best solution for all of us is a Mexico economy that is vibrant--and one important way is to ensure its continued development of infrastructure and resources. The legislation I am proposing today would encourage this development, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I have no illusions that Congress will move quickly to approve the idea of a North American Investment Fund. In fact, I think it will likely take some time to make our case regarding the important role this fund would play in helping spur much-needed reforms in Mexico. But this investment in Mexico's future will only serve to contribute to a more stable and prosperous North America, which should be a goal we all work to actively support. It is important that we consider not only what is immediately feasible, but also what is ultimately desirable--the ultimate goal--in terms of the relationship between our three countries, and so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation-- previously introduced in the 108th Congress--which I believe is important to the long-term competitiveness of North America. And I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Coleman, for his support and recognition of the value of this legislation. He is an original co-sponsor of the bill, and I look forward to working with him and others to ensure its success. Currently, a significant development gap exists between Mexico and the United States and Canada. I believe it is in our best interests to find creative ways to bridge this development gap. As my colleagues undoubtedly are aware, Mexico will elect a new President this weekend. When President Fox was elected in 2000 it was a watershed event for Mexico because the election was fair and the transfer of power was peaceful. I hope that the same fair, peaceful process takes place this weekend. So I wish all the candidates well and I look forward to working with the new Administration and the new Congress on issues of mutual importance to our countries. Considered in the context of history, Mexico has--particularly within the past decade--made significant strides related to its system of government and its trade policies. However, much work remains to be done, and I think it is important that we explore ways to help our neighbor move their development efforts to the next level, to assist them as they continue on a path of prosperity and growth. I have come to view the creation of a North American Investment Fund as both central to our relationship with Mexico and necessary to ensure the economic prosperity of North America as part of an ever-changing and growing global economy. I hope that this legislation will be a useful vehicle to help jump-start discussions on this very important topic. My bill authorizes the President to negotiate the creation of a North American Investment Fund with the governments of Canada and Mexico. The fund can only be created if Mexico satisfies two conditions. First, the Government of Mexico must raise tax revenue to 18 percent of the gross domestic product of Mexico. Their current tax rate is approximately 9 percent. Second, Mexico must develop and execute a program of economic reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, while also maintaining economic stability in Mexico. These steps are of the utmost importance because any lasting changes in Mexico must start from within. The purpose of this fund is to reinforce efforts already underway in Mexico to ensure their own economic development. The funding would make grants available for projects to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade, to develop and expand their education programs, to build infrastructure for the deployment of communications services and to improve job training and workforce development for high-growth industries. As I have mentioned on several occasions, I have heard from Mexico leaders who say they want desperately to ``export goods and services, not people'' to our country. Well, I think we all recognize that opportunity in one's home country and immigration are linked, and I believe we should be more involved in helping to promote the strength and stability of our neighbors. Development provides a positive and stabilizing influence on economies, on government institutions, and also on immigration. We've seen, in past years, a steady flow of immigrants--particularly undocumented workers--coming across our borders. A vast number of these immigrants are here to work hard so they can send money home to their families and relatives. They may be well-intentioned, but at the same time, these hard workers are doing nothing to help their own economies. Mexico does not want the most entrepreneurial members of its society to permanently leave. What it wants most of all is for economic development to grow in their region, so that citizens would have real opportunities to stay and grow the economy there. But with the entrepreneurs and risk-takers coming to the United States, Mexico cannot hope to improve its own economy. Economic growth creates new jobs and raises incomes. This growth lifts people out of poverty even as it spurs positive economic reform. The potential for good is nearly limitless; as with such a fund we could spur sustainable development, strengthen private property rights, while also encouraging competition, regional integration, the open flow of technology. So the best solution for all of us is a Mexico economy that is vibrant--and one important way is to ensure its continued development of infrastructure and resources. The legislation I am proposing today would encourage this development, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I have no illusions that Congress will move quickly to approve the idea of a North American Investment Fund. In fact, I think it will likely take some time to make our case regarding the important role this fund would play in helping spur much-needed reforms in Mexico. But this investment in Mexico's future will only serve to contribute to a more stable and prosperous North America, which should be a goal we all work to actively support. It is important that we consider not only what is immediately feasible, but also what is ultimately desirable--the ultimate goal--in terms of the relationship between our three countries, and so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, The Right People? Oversight of the Office of Personnel Management.