John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is no doubt that trying to fix our broken immigration system is a complex issue. Frankly, part of what we have been trying to do is to find solutions that thread the needle and shrink the gap between the approach of the House of Representatives, which is primarily an enforcement-only bill, and comprehensive immigration reform that I believe is supported by most of us in the Senate, including myself. I differ with the sponsors of the bill in the Senate, and I intend to offer amendments that will, I believe, improve it, while retaining its comprehensive nature. I believe it is simply surreal to suggest that what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia does somehow retreats to the House position and is an enforcement-only approach. Indeed, I think the Senator from Georgia has struck upon an ingenious way to thread the needle by saying, yes, we believe that border security is important; yes, we believe that we ought to produce the computer systems, hire and train the people, create the databases which will actually make this reform work, rather than put the cart before the horse and say, with the stroke of a pen, that 12 million people who are living out of legal status are suddenly legal; and, yes, we are going to have 325,000 new people each year come into the country, regardless of whether our economy is in a boom or a bust and possibly compete with Americans for those jobs. What the Senator from Georgia has done is say let's put the horse in front of the cart, not the cart in front of the horse. Let's do first things first. Let's make sure this will actually work. Last night the President talked about sending 6,000 National Guard troops to help the Border Patrol secure the border, recognizing that it takes time to train Border Patrol agents. We now train them at the rate of 1,500 a year, and we can't all of a sudden secure the border because we can't all of a sudden train enough Border Patrol agents. We can't all of a sudden, with the wave of a magic wand, build the infrastructure that is necessary. We can't, with the wave of a magic wand, issue the request for proposals to actually let the contracts that will allow the construction of the computer systems and the databases that will actually make this work. We can't, with the wave of a magic wand, say we are going to create a secure identification card which will allow employers to verify the eligibility of prospective employees. It is going to take a little bit of time. But that is not the same thing as saying, as the Senator from Colorado has said, that somehow we are going with an enforcement-only approach. I support a comprehensive immigration reform plan that is built on a foundation of border security, that says we need to have worksite verification, that we need to have a secure identification card so that employers can determine whether in fact a person is eligible to work. I believe we ought to have sanctions against employers who cheat. I believe we ought to have a temporary worker program, not like the proposed guest worker program in this underlying bill, and that will be the subject for future amendments. The message we need to send the American people is that we are actually serious about making this proposed comprehensive immigration reform system work. If we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Colorado, it will send a message that we are not serious about making sure we have the infrastructure and the people and the systems and the cards in place that will actually make this comprehensive reform work. The American people have already been burned once very badly when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform. In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty, the tradeoff was supposed to be worksite verification and employer sanctions for employers who cheat. But the Federal Government never did what it was supposed to do by providing the means for employers to actually make that determination in a way that had some integrity. Now I believe the American people are looking at us skeptically, wondering whether we are going to try to pull the rug out from under them again. The American people can be amazingly tolerant, they can be amazingly forgiving, but they won't be mocked, and they will not believe us unless we build some confidence into the system by saying we are going to take care of helping to secure the border, we are going to provide the means to enforce this system, before we are going to implement a 12-million person amnesty which will put a tremendous load on the men and women who are supposed to administer this system. Can you imagine how long it will take to make this happen? All this does is say let's do first things first, rather than put the cart before the horse.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kyl and myself, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about a month ago when we were debating immigration reform and, unfortunately, because of the inability to get amendments heard and debated and voted on, that process was derailed, and here we are again. I was under the distinct impression that we were actually going to have a chance to offer amendments and then have debates and votes. We will work out whatever the misunderstanding is between the sides. But my hope is that we will have that opportunity because I think the American people are yearning for an honest and complete and comprehensive debate about this issue. It affects all of us. It affects all of the States that each of us as Senators represent, and it represents a clash of our values. We are proudly a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. Unfortunately, it is hard to reconcile the second ideal as a nation of laws with the current situation we see in this country with our porous border which last year allowed 1.1 million people to come across the border, and because we only had about 2,000 detention beds, most of those individuals were simply subject to what has now become known as the notorious catch-and- release program. And those who were sent back to Mexico came back again in short order, and we saw roughly 250,000 of those individuals who were detained at the border came from countries other than Mexico, including countries such as Syria, Iran, and other countries of special interest, which cause a lot of people, including me, an awful lot of concern because it is indicative of the fact that our southern border has become a magnet and has become a sieve for illegal immigration, not just from Mexico and Central and South America but literally from countries all around the world. I support comprehensive immigration reform, as a Senator from Texas. With about a 1,600-mile border, we understand what the border is about. A number of Senators have had the opportunity since this debate began to go to the border. I think that has been very instructive for all of them. But I can tell you that my constituents live and work along the border and have come to know both the tremendous benefits of that region of our country and the culture that transcends international boundaries, the fact that families have relatives on both sides of the border, the fact that for the last 11 years, since NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was signed by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, we have seen a tremendous growth in legal commerce and traffic across the border that has been enormously beneficial to all of those countries and created an awful lot of new jobs in my State. None of us want to jeopardize all of the benefits that attend to the fact that we do have a neighbor to our immediate south, Mexico, and the benefits that come from the cultural heritage and interaction, but the fact is that illegal immigration across the southern border of the United States has changed dramatically over the last few years because Mexico has been unable to control its southern border and, in fact, has become a sort of a land bridge into the United States and created a tremendous amount of concern, as it should, in a post-9/11 world. We simply have to know who is coming into our country and why they are here. We can no longer assume their motives are simply benign. I have no doubt that in most instances--perhaps nearly all instances--people come to this country for the same reason people have always come to America, and that is for a better life. We all understand that on a fundamentally human level. But we also understand that if we don't control our immigration system, if we don't control our borders, not only are we less secure, but literally our way of life may be subjected to a huge tsunami of humanity, people from all over the world who want to come to the United States, but if they don't do so in a controlled way, in a way that complies with our laws and allows us to regulate the flow in the pursuit of our national interest, that we will have lost something very important, and part of that will be the opportunity to provide the sort of prosperity we enjoy today to our children and our grandchildren. My hope is we will create a legal system of immigration that we will be able to regard with pride and that people who, as they always have, come here from all around the world through a legal system of immigration will become Americans. After all, becoming an American is an idea and an ideal. In other words, it doesn't matter where your country of origin is, where you were born. It doesn't matter how you pronounce your last name. It doesn't matter what race you are or what ethnicity you are. When people come to America and become Americans, they become part of this vast melting pot which we thank God for every day and which has become the envy of the world. We have benefited enormously from the fact that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are in danger because we are no longer a nation of laws when it comes to our immigration system. During the course of this debate, I will be offering several amendments. I want to talk about one of them in a moment. Because of the objection, we won't be offering any additional amendments today until we can work out the differences between the majority and minority side. As the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it has been my great honor to preside over a number of hearings on our broken immigration system. That has both caused me a great deal of concern but also a sense that there is a lot we can do if we focus on answering the practical questions that need to be answered before we can actually fix our broken immigration system. The Judiciary Committee voted out a bill that I think is fair to say bears the authorship of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy. That then came to the floor and now has been amended by Senator Hagel and Senator Martinez and is supported by a bipartisan group of Senators. I am sorry to say at this point that I am not able to support that bill, as amended, but it is my hope that after this debate and during the course of the amendment process that we have votes, and hopefully I will be able to win a few of those votes on amendments that will improve the bill to the point where I feel comfortable supporting the Senate bill. That is my hope. Regardless, I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and our colleagues from the House once the Senate passes a bill, assuming we are successful in doing so, in trying to reconcile the differences in the approach the Senate intends to take in comprehensive reform and the House approach, which is primarily a border security bill. I am proud to say that this bill, when I talk about comprehensive reform, has a number of components. I mentioned the first is border security. I am proud to say that the bill Senator Kyl of Arizona and I filed about a year ago now has been largely incorporated into the bill before us. When it comes to the work we need to perform for security along our border, we need to vastly increase the number of Border Patrol agents. I understand the President tonight may make some announcement with regard to the use of National Guard on a temporary basis to fill in the gaps and provide additional boots on the ground so we can get to that level of security faster, and I believe we should use all of our national assets to provide border security. But I also had the honor this morning of going out to Fort Belvoir, where the Army Materiel Command provided a demonstration to me with some of the unmanned aerial vehicles and ground sensors, the radars, the thermal imagery, and so forth, that the military has developed for force protection. It has obvious applications in providing the Department of Homeland Security additional technology which will allow us to secure our border. Here again, the problem is not a shortage of ideas; the problem is the shortage of assets, including human assets and technological assets that will actually allow the Department of Homeland Security to accomplish the goal of border security. We have a long way to go between ideas and concepts and actually building the infrastructure, actually purchasing the technology and training people to operate it. That is one reason I look forward to further debate on Senator Isakson's amendment currently pending that provides a trigger. In essence it is saying the rest of the provisions of the bill will not be implemented until such time as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security certifies that the border security provisions have, in fact, been implemented. I think that is a significant proposal. I commend to my colleagues an article that I read this morning called ``Can Immigration Reform Work?'' This is an article written by Lawrence B. Lindsey, who was the former chief economic adviser for President Bush. Mr. Lindsey writes as an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform, as am I, but he asks some very practical questions which I think have to be answered during the course of this debate. First of all, advocates of the current bill pending on the floor acknowledge that beneficiaries of the provisions of the bill, the 12 million or so who will benefit from the earned legalization--or some might call it amnesty based on its similarity with the amnesty of 1986--but the argument is that the beneficiaries of this provision of the bill will have to go to the back of the line. Again, I commend the Lindsey article to my colleagues. The question is: The back of which line? Basically what this bill does is it allows people who are currently here in an unauthorized status; that is, they have come either in violation of the immigration laws or they have come here legally and have overstayed in violation of the immigration laws, it allows them 6 years before they can then receive a green card. A green card confers legal permanent residency. After 5 more years, in other words, a total of 11 years, they can then apply for and receive American citizenship. The problem with the current bill on the floor is that it essentially guarantees the 12 million a green card and all they have to do is stay where they are. In other words, the line does not start in America; the line starts at the consulate in Hong Kong or in Mexico City or in Bogota, Colombia, or in some other place around the world where people would apply for a green card, not here in the United States. What they are essentially saying is people under this current bill can break in line in front of those who have been waiting patiently outside the country, but break in line for those awaiting citizenship who otherwise would have to wait outside the country. There is something, it seems to me, fundamentally unfair about line-jumping, about breaking in line, and many have expressed concerns, and I am one of those who have the concerns, about rewarding people for line-jumping. Another aspect of Mr. Lindsey's article, which I again commend to my colleagues because, again, these are practical questions: How are you going to solve this problem? And I stand here as someone who is interested in solving the problem and as a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. But we have to do better than the bill that is currently on the floor. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to study it and also to listen to the amendments, and hopefully we can improve it. The other question that Mr. Lindsey raises is the sheer immensity of the program proposed in the Hagel-Martinez compromise. In 2004, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued almost 1 million green cards and naturalized 537,000 people. Contrast that with what this bill would do. It would give green cards to about 12 million people in one fell swoop and make them eligible for citizenship 6 years later, which is roughly a twelvefold increase in the workload of the agencies and the people who are actually supposed to make this work. I hope all of us will pay close attention to whether this thing that we are creating, this comprehensive immigration reform, can actually work. Part of making it work is going to be making sure there are the people and the processes, the databases, the computers, the cards, all of the things that are going to be necessary to actually make it function as intended. If not, we are going to be swamped by a tsunami of newly legalized people seeking documentation without any real ability to actually respond to that. The third issue he raises is the need for what he calls a certificate of legal residency. We are going to have to--and the bill does provide, and there will be some additional debate about this--a work site verification program, which is absolutely critical to the functioning of comprehensive immigration reform. I think it needs to be beefed up and improved because what we need to provide employers is a way to swipe a card through a card reader and then almost immediately the light turns green and that means that person can work here legally. If it is red, they can't. Right now, employers can be presented some combination of up to 19 different documents to prove eligibility to work in the United States, and what happens is the human smugglers and those who benefit from this phenomenon provide a whole host of counterfeit documents. In other words, there are millions who generate fake documents such as driver's licenses, Social Security cards, and birth certificates. So we need a secure identification card that can help us as part of this enforcement regime because if we don't, then we will find ourselves 5 years or 10 years from now in the same fix we are in today, except probably worse. I say that because in 1986 the Congress thought it was fixing this problem once and for all when it granted what everyone acknowledges was an amnesty. It bears a lot of resemblance to the proposal that is on the floor today. Yet some say: Well, it is not really amnesty, it is earned legalization. Well, whatever it is, it looks very similar, if not its identical twin. But everyone I think will agree that the amnesty in 1986 was a complete and total failure, probably for one of two reasons. Some say: Well, it is because we didn't really have any provision for a legal work force, a temporary worker program as part of that. But I think most people would agree that it was mainly a failure of work site verification and employer sanctions. There have been virtually no employer sanctions prosecuted by the Federal officials responsible for that, and part of the reason has been because it is very hard for employers to know whether the person they are in fact hiring is legally eligible to work in the United States. We can figure this one out. It is not rocket science. If we can go into a convenience store and buy a bag of chips and a Coca Cola and hand the clerk our card and they swipe it and in a matter of seconds it is authorized, we can figure this one out. We have a variety of identification cards and biometric identifiers to help verify that the person who holds the card is in fact the same person whose name is on the card. So we can figure that out. I will talk more about that later. I think the proponents of this bill as written need to convince the American people that this time we are serious, that we are not going to pull the rug out from under the American people if they put their confidence in the solution proffered by this bill. I remember what my dad always said: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The American people can be enormously forgiving and tolerant. But if they feel as if the Federal Government is simply not serious about this and is going to pan this bill off as strict on enforcement and not fund it and not implement it, and not be serious about it, I think there is going to be a terrible price to be paid. Unfortunately, it will be deserved if we are not serious about doing what we say we are going to do when it comes to enforcement, including work site verification. I want to talk briefly about an amendment I tried to offer, but there was an objection. Hopefully, we will work this out. This was actually the amendment that was pending by Senator Kyl and myself back about a month ago when this whole debate got derailed because we couldn't get any votes on the amendments and basically we ended up going nowhere. After a month now, we are back here again. Hopefully, we are locked and loaded and ready to proceed in the regular order, which means that in the world's greatest deliberative body we will actually have debates and we will actually have votes and majorities will prevail and people who don't get the majority vote will lose. While none of us likes to lose, that is the process, and that should be the process. Unfortunately, we are here a month later, but now I hope we have an opportunity to have those debates and to have those votes and to proceed to passage of a good bill. The amendment I am referring to specifically would exclude from the benefits of the bill on the floor--and what I mean by that is the 12 million people who are here in an unauthorized status, who either came illegally or who overstayed their legal authorization; they are here in violation of our immigration laws. It would exclude from amnesty or earned legalization or whatever you want to call it the benefits for convicted felons. In other words, convicted felons would not get amnesty under this bill if this amendment passes. People who have committed at least three misdemeanors would not get amnesty under this bill if this amendment is agreed to and passes. Finally, it would exclude the benefits of the bill to those it applies to, those who have actually had their day in court and lost and simply melted into this huge American landscape. What I mean by that is they are absconders. In other words, they are people who have been caught in violation of the law, people who have had their day in court, who have exhausted their remedies, and then refused to show up when it came time to go back home. These are known as absconders. What this amendment would do is say, if you are an absconder, then you don't get the benefit of the amnesty because you have already had your one bite at the apple, and we are not going to give you two bites at the apple. I don't think any Americans really believe that it is just OK to ignore a lawful court order. How many Americans, for example, after receiving a subpoena to show up in court or maybe a jury summons, simply ignore it and skip the date? Today in the United States, there are 544,000--544,000--aliens who have been ordered deported but then have gone underground. That is more than a half million people who simply chose to ignore a lawful court order. Under current law, it is a felony offense punishable by up to 4 years in jail to not comply with a deportation order. So let's be clear. We are not talking about civil violations. We are talking about criminals, people who not only have overstayed their legal authorization or who have come in illegally and been caught; we are talking about people who have had their day in court and simply ignored the judgment of the court and gone underground. I believe this amendment is indicative of whether we will continue to tolerate and reward those who violate our immigration laws. The current bill increases penalties and would impose a mandatory minimum criminal sentence of 6 months on any alien who fails to leave the country after being ordered deported. The current bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to list absconders in the NCIC, the national database, criminal database, so that State and local police officers can arrest them when they are encountered during regular traffic stops. These are both steps in the right direction, I believe. But then, oddly in the same bill, the same proposal on the floor, it would allow those same individuals to apply for legalization and would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from apprehending or detaining these same aliens. In other words, this bill simultaneously increases criminal penalties for failing to follow a court order but then rewards the same criminal act with an easier path to a green card. I do not think there is a better example of Congress sending mixed signals on immigration reform. If we are going to avoid the mistakes of 1986 and avoid the massive buildup of people who are in our country out of status, we have to create a system that encourages self-compliance by illegal aliens. Each year, there are 300,000 deportation hearings. What is the point of conducting those hearings if those who are ultimately ordered deported after they have had their day in court simply go underground and ignore a lawful court order? If the absconder rate is about 85 percent today, what will it be in the future if we reward those who fail to comply with amnesty? The aliens who comply and who leave the country would not be eligible for amnesty. So the message, at least so far as the bill on the floor is concerned, is you are better off violating the law, hunkering down, melting into the landscape, and then you are going to get amnesty. But if you actually comply with a lawful court order and leave, then you are not entitled to the benefits under the bill--exactly the opposite of the message we ought to be sending. We need to decide whether we are more interested in granting amnesty than we are in reforming the immigration laws and restoring confidence in the immigration system. Without this amendment, the current bill would grant amnesty to aliens who committed felony offenses, thereby encouraging further violations of immigration and undermining the integrity of our immigration court system. Some may argue that the majority of aliens deported never receive notice that they are in proceedings. That is simply not true. Deportation proceedings are initiated when written notice is provided to the alien, which is almost always done when that individual is apprehended. The notice, informally called a notice to appear, advises the recipient of three things: No. 1, the conduct alleged to be in violation of the law; No. 2, the alien's obligation to provide the Government with a written record of an address; and No. 3, the consequences of failure to provide or update the address on record with the Government. The Government is also required by statute to provide notice to the alien of any change or postponement of the proceedings. Just as in any other civil or criminal proceeding, the alien has an obligation to provide a current address. If that were not the case, how would the immigration courts administer the 300,000-plus cases they hear each year? So what happens if the alien fails to appear at the hearing? The court may order the alien removed in absentia only if the Government establishes by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the written notice was provided to the alien and that the alien is, in fact, deportable. The court may rescind the order if, within 6 months of the order, the alien establishes that he did not receive notice of the hearing or if exceptional circumstances prevented the alien from appearing. This amendment we are offering--will offer when permitted-- includes the same waiver standard, so any alien who establishes that he or she did not receive notice as required or was unable to appear at a hearing because of a medical emergency or other exceptional circumstance remains eligible to apply. The text of the amendment is unambiguous. It would not apply to any alien who entered without inspection, overstayed a visa, or violated their visa status unless the alien has had his or her day in court and been ordered deported. To avoid any confusion, this amendment uses the exact language as in the current Immigration and Nationality Act. In conclusion, let me say that national security demands that we know who is living within our borders, especially since 9/11. We must reform our immigration laws in order to bring millions of those who are living outside of the law out of the shadows and in compliance with that law. But success of immigration reform cannot be measured solely on how many aliens obtain legal status. The 1986 amnesty bill brought millions of illegal aliens out of shadows. Yet Congress never lived up to its commitment to enforce the law at the border and at the worksite. Today, 20 years since the 1986 amnesty, the continued failure to enforce the law has resulted in a new class of illegal aliens that is estimated to be approximately 12 million. That is four times larger than 20 years ago. I share the goal of comprehensive reform and of bringing those 12 million illegal aliens out of the shadows and into compliance with the law. In fact, I believe we ought to give them a second chance to reenter the country in a legal status. But I also believe that we should not repeat the failures of 1986 and restore credibility and law and order to the immigration system. The current bill, without any amendment, rewards criminal behavior and will undermine the Government's ability to enforce the immigration laws. My amendment, which only excludes criminals from obtaining legal status, will reveal whether we are really serious about reforming our immigration laws or if we are strictly interested in granting legal status to as many illegal aliens as possible, irrespective of whether they are criminals or whether rewarding them would repeat the failures of 1986. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Isakson, I call up amendment No. 3961, which was earlier sent to the desk by Senator Specter.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Kyl.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my wholehearted support for the bill that the chairman of the HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, has shepherded so far through this process, this small business health plan bill. I think it presents an outstanding opportunity for the Senate to do what my constituents tell me they want every time I go back home and I talk to them, and that is to have access to good quality health care. The fact is this bill will allow small businesses to band together on a national basis and give them the leverage they need to negotiate good terms with insurance companies for their small businesses and for their employees. This bill would let these insurers bypass some of the mandates that are well-intentioned but which have the impact of driving up the cost of health insurance for employers to the point where many people can't afford it. In my State we have the unfortunate distinction of having one-quarter of the population without health insurance. What that means is that people end up going to the emergency room for their health care, which has a couple of unintended consequences: No. 1, it costs a whole lot more than it should to treat those conditions in places like a clinic or somewhere else where they could be treated on a nonemergency basis. No. 2, it has the consequence of causing emergency rooms to have to go on divert status, and that is when people come with true emergencies to those emergency rooms and they can't be seen because the emergency rooms are full of people who are going there for nonemergency care. It literally endangers the life and certainly the well-being of that individual who needs to be seen in an emergency room. So we have a broken health care system that can be so inefficient and not serve the best interests of the American people. What this bill does is provides a means for, as I said, small businesses to band together to increase their negotiating leverage. It is anticipated to be able to bring down the price of health insurance by about 12 percent, which will allow more and more people to gain access to health insurance so they don't have to go to the emergency room, so they have more choices, and so they have the peace of mind that comes with having that coverage in a way that allows them to enjoy the benefits that many of us have but which we take for granted. We have an alternative that has been offered by Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln, and I think it serves a useful purpose, not because I agree with the alternative proposed, but what it does is it demonstrates the competing approaches or visions or principles between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle when it comes to providing access to health care. It has become increasingly apparent to me that while we share the goal of access to good quality health care on both sides of the aisle, we approach it in fundamentally different ways. For example, our side of the aisle--and this bill, I think, reflects the fact that we believe there ought to be something other than a government-run health care system; that private insurance companies offering competitive plans to individuals create consumer choice. It creates competition. And we know that competition creates better service and better prices for American consumers. The alternative being offered is a command-and-control health care system operated by the Federal Government that is neither efficient nor does it offer the sort of choice and competition, lower price and better service that would be offered through private health insurance options. Indeed, I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have, if nothing else, been consistent in their approach to health care. They believe the Government ought to dictate health care choices for the American people, whether it has to do with CHIPS, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Medicaid Program, the Medicare Program, or whether it is veterans health care. They believe the Federal Government knows best and that bureaucrats in Washington, DC ought to make the choices that I believe ought to be reserved for me and my family when it comes to what is best for us. As I said, this is an issue I hear about all the time when I talk to my constituents. It is, in fact, the growing cost of health care and the unavailability of health care that is one of the greatest concerns of my constituents in Texas. Rising costs, systemic inefficiencies, barriers to access, and the increasing costs of coverage represent the challenge we have to confront and which this bill directly addresses. I understand the difficulties that small businesses have in Texas when trying to obtain quality health care coverage for their employees at reasonable prices. One employee of a small business in Addison, TX, for example, had this to say about the disparity in coverage available to small versus big businesses: Our February 2006 renewal premium increased by nearly 40 percent. For a group of 4 insured with no major medical issues and no increases in plan benefits, this was difficult to understand. Our course of action was to look for affordable plans with fewer benefits, but that proved to be difficult and the results undesirable. Fortunately, one of our employees decided to waive coverage and join the policy offered by a large corporation that employs her husband. Her premium under our policy would have been $4,740 a year. The price to carry her on her husband's policy was only $700 a year. Now, that is a disparity. If adequate health coverage is to be provided to employees of small businesses, it is going to be vital that small businesses be allowed to pool their employees in order to maximize their leverage and in order to minimize the premiums to which they are now being subjected. That is exactly why I support this legislation. Because it would allow associations such as trade, industry, professional, chambers of commerce, for other small business associations to offer fully insured health plans to small businesses. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I believe this bill is an important step toward making health insurance more available and affordable to more Americans. I thank Chairman Enzi and his committee for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. The goal of this bill is to reduce health care costs and expand access by creating small business plans. As I mentioned, a recent study indicated that the price of health insurance could literally be brought down as much as 12 percent and as many as an additional 1 million working Americans insured who currently are not insured and have no alternative but to go to the emergency room for their health care. Recently, the Small Business Health Plan Coalition sent a letter signed by organizations that represent more than 12 million employers and 80 million workers. They wrote in support of this bill, saying it will: Provide workers employed in small businesses and the self- employed with access to Fortune 500-style health benefits now enjoyed by workers in corporate and labor union health plans. This is a principle that resonates with the American people, and I must say that the American people have every right to be frustrated at Congress's unwillingness to step up and deal with this problem. And woe be it to those politicians who stand between the American people and their desire to see health coverage expanded and access increased. Almost 90 percent of voters, including 93 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats, in recent polls state that they favor allowing self-employed workers and small business employees to band together to negotiate lower insurance costs. It is time for the Senate to act. In 2005 alone, health care costs rose three times faster than inflation--and even faster than that for many small businesses. Many small firms had to simply cut benefits or eliminate health care coverage entirely. Only 41 percent of firms with 9 or less employees offer health benefits, compared with 99 percent of larger firms. We all know that small businesses are our Nation's chief job generator, our No. 1 job creator. They deserve to be treated fairly. But by themselves, these small firms and self-employed people have almost no leverage against insurance companies to try to negotiate fair prices and fair plans. As it stands now, if they want to join other small employers and purchase insurance through national associations, they have to deal with an enormous array of State-level health insurance regulations and benefit mandates. It goes without saying that many of the mandates that are ordered by State legislators to be included in insurance policies in their States are passed with the best of intentions, but they have the unfortunate effect of raising the price of the insurance to the point where many people simply cannot afford it. It makes no sense to say that everyone must have a Cadillac with all the bells and whistles when all some people want or can afford is a basic model of a similar vehicle. Big businesses, for the most part, do not have to deal with these regulations. The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office and others have found that State-imposed benefit mandates raise the cost of health insurance and, in effect, represent an unfunded mandate on employers. Small business health plans will have a strong incentive to offer the best policies possible for their members. After all, that is what the competitive market is all about. Small businesses will have to compete with large businesses for employees. And when employees decide where they want to go to work, they will look at not only the salary they will be offered but the benefits that will be offered, including the health coverage that is available. This is simply a case of the market working and allowing individuals the maximum freedom to choose what is best for themselves and their families. In order to remain competitive and attract a talented workforce, I believe small businesses would want to have the ability to offer high- quality health benefits, the same opportunity that large companies currently enjoy. Right now, small businesses effectively have the choice of offering expensive plans with all the required mandates, whether employees will actually even use those services or simply not offering insurance at all. That policy in my State is part of what has been responsible for 25 percent of the people of Texas not having health insurance. It must change. This is not a complete panacea, but it will provide dramatically better and expanded coverage to the people of my State and the people across this country. Under the Enzi bill, every small business owner will have the opportunity to choose a comprehensive plan, but they will also have other, more affordable, high-quality choices, too. This will improve access for millions of Americans who currently do not have any insurance at all. I believe this legislation is a good step in the right direction toward increasing the affordability and access to health care that all Americans deserve. More can certainly be done, and I certainly believe that while this is an important step, we should not stop here. We should continue to increase the number of choices available to the American people--things like consumer-oriented health care, which provides greater transparency and provides information to consumers so they can determine where to go for their health care services based not only on price but based on outcomes--things like health savings plans, which would give people greater access and greater control over their health care decisions and allow them to determine how their health care dollars will be utilized rather than having to buy high-priced plans that contain attributes that they frankly don't need or don't want and which cost them additional money. Certainly, more could be done, but I urge my colleagues today to support this important legislation because I think it represents a dramatic and long overdue improvement over the status quo. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to add a few words to the eloquent words spoken by the Senator from North Carolina about a national crisis in access to good quality health care. Some have said we do not so much have a health care system in America today as a sick care system. We know there is a lot we can do to change that and improve that. But we, at bottom, need to make sure everyone in this country has access to good quality health care. One of the ways we do that is by making it less onerous for health care providers--doctors and hospital workers--to practice their chosen profession. But right now--because of soaring costs of medical liability insurance, because of our unpredictable, some might say, litigation lottery system in this country--we need to come up with some practical ways to solve that problem, to help bring down those costs, to make it possible for doctors and health care providers to practice their profession. In the end, that is the only way we are going to be able to follow through on this promise of universal access to good quality health care in this country. Now, we, fortunately--as Louis Brandeis described the States, he called them laboratories of democracy. And we know, as Americans, not all good ideas come from Washington, DC. Indeed, an awful lot of bad ideas come out of Washington, DC. What we need to do is to look for good models and good examples of success stories and to try to emulate those on a national basis. Now, three times in the 108th Congress we brought to the floor legislation designed to modestly limit runaway damages--not for economic damages; that is, lost wages, medical bills, and the like-- but, rather, to provide some reasonable caps on what are called noneconomic damages, things such as pain and suffering, punitive damage awards, and the like. Three times we brought proposals to this floor to provide modest caps, to try to emulate the success stories in States across this Nation, to try to lower health care costs and increase access to health care, but we were denied an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on those reforms. We brought forward a bill limited to obstetricians and gynecologists because of the lack of doctors to deliver babies for pregnant women. We were told no. We then brought forward a bill limited to emergency room physicians, again, to try to deal with the crisis and the lack of access to well-trained emergency room physicians. Again, we were told no by the other side of the aisle. But I have learned one thing in the short time I have been in the U.S. Congress; and that is, perseverance pays off. So if at first you do not succeed, try, try again, because, hopefully--hopefully-- circumstances will have changed, people will reconsider. Hopefully, constituents, whom Members of the Senate represent, are talking to their Senators and saying: We need reform. We need change. And so here we are again to make another try. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, the voters in my State, the voters in Texas, passed proposition 12, a referendum that paved the way for medical liability reform and helped to stem the tide of frivolous and expensive litigation that had for so long plagued our civil justice system. The result: Decreased costs and increased numbers of physicians. And with it, better access to good quality health care for the people of my State. Consider the following: All major physician liability carriers in Texas have cut their rates since the passage of the reforms, most by double digits. Texas physicians have seen their liability rates cut, on average, 13.5 percent. Roughly half of Texas doctors have seen their rates slashed a quarter, producing roughly $49 million in annualized premium savings for Texas physicians. Let me make clear, this is not just about saving doctors money. That is not what this is about. This is about patient access because when the costs of doing business go so high, doctors who have practiced a long time, who are nearing retirement, say: Do you know what. I think I am going to retire early. Or when young, smart men and women are deciding what careers to pursue--if they look at a career where the overhead costs of practicing their chosen profession are so high that the rate of return on this investment they have made will be so low-- they will decide to do something else. That is why we have had a lack of access to health care in my State and in this country and why this issue of liability insurance rates coming down is so important to the ultimate goal of increased access to good quality health care. In my State, since the reforms were passed, five carriers have announced double-digit rate cuts, and recently Medical Protective, a company that writes medical liability insurance coverage, announced a 13-percent rate cut in February--their third announced rate cut within a span of 11 months. The largest underwriter, Texas Medical Liability Trust, has cut premiums almost 21 percent, resulting in $86 million in savings, plus a $10 million dividend for its policyholders. Competition is also increasing. With the passage of these reforms, Texas has added three new regulated carriers, 20 unregulated carriers, and now Texas physicians can competitively shop for their medical liability insurance policies. But that is not the only good news. By far, the most encouraging results of these reforms has been a flood of new physicians coming to Texas. So there are more people to treat my constituents, the patients of Texas. Since proposition 12 passed, this medical liability reform, Texas has added somewhere in the order of between 3,000 and 4,000 new physicians. The Texas medical board is anticipating a record 4,000 applications for new physician licenses just this year, which is twice last year's total, and 30 percent more than the State's single greatest growth year. After a net loss of 14 obstetricians between the years 2001 and 2003, Texas has now seen a net gain of 146 obstetricians. Texas experienced a net loss of nine orthopedic surgeons from 2000 to 2003. Since these reforms were passed, the State has experienced a net gain of 127 orthopedic surgeons. And those who need it most are the ones who are benefiting, as physicians move to jurisdictions where there has been a woeful lack of available health care. Sadly, in my State, the parts of the State that need access to health care the most are the ones that have been the least hospitable and, indeed, the most hostile to the health care providers because they have been the areas where medical liability lawsuits have run amok. This, in fact, has helped rein that in and bring some common sense to the system. For example, Cameron County, along the Texas-Mexico border, is experiencing the greatest ever increase in numbers of physicians. Jefferson County, which is Beaumont, Nueces County, which is Corpus Christi, and Victoria County, which is Victoria, saw a net loss of physicians in the 18 months before these reforms were passed, but currently all three counties are producing impressive gains, adding much needed specialists and emergency room physicians. As a result, the people of those areas have benefited enormously. Each of the medically underserved communities of Corpus Christi and Beaumont now has a neurosurgeon that they did not have before the passage of the reforms. Sometimes lost in the numbers are the real benefits that are realized, the day-to-day improvements in the lives of the people who are affected. After the passage of these reforms, two obstetricians in the small town of Fredericksburg, TX, announced their return with an advertisement in the local newspaper that said: ``We're Back.'' One of these obstetricians, a Dr. David Cantu, had been working for more than 10 years with no claims, but he and his partner had to quit practicing their profession of obstetrics and gynecology because of the cost of insurance. Dr. Cantu's overhead was hitting 100 percent. In other words, everything he was earning was going to overhead, and he had a 3- month stretch of time when he could not draw down any pay whatsoever. As soon as Dr. Cantu stopped delivering babies, the practice saw an immediate decrease in their insurance costs, but the patients were negatively impacted because they then had to travel miles away to have their babies delivered. This was doubly difficult for them considering that a full 70 percent of Dr. Cantu's patients were Medicaid patients and 40 percent were Spanish-speaking patients. With this reform, Dr. Cantu and his partner are now able to deliver babies once again. When asked why proposition 12 in Texas helped him, Dr. Cantu said: Because now I come out ahead instead of paying to be an obstetrician. Prop. 12 made the practice of obstetrics affordable. After 4 years of searching for a neurosurgeon in Corpus Christi, the community successfully recruited Dr. Matthew Alexander from a Wisconsin residency program. Dr. Alexander told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times he would not have come to Texas had the reforms not passed. As a result, patients are now getting procedures previously unavailable to them. Consider, for example, high school principal and triathlete Travis Longanecker, who was a recipient of an artificial disc in his back, the first procedure of its kind in south Texas. The surgery has alleviated his pain and allowed him to return to a normal life--again, a procedure that could not have previously been performed because Corpus Christi was having a difficult time recruiting a neurosurgeon to actually come practice there. Or consider George Rodriguez, who had a spinal abscess and arrived at the hospital paralyzed from the waist down. He had been in a paralyzed state for roughly 24 hours. Dr. Alexander again successfully performed the necessary procedure. But had the surgery been delayed for as little as 1 hour, George Rodriguez would have been paralyzed for life. These stories are not about theory. This is not about actuaries and about insurance policies and premiums. These stories are not the stuff of academic journals, and these stories at bottom boil down to basic issues of life and death and quality of life. These are real-life examples. These are real people whose lives are much better as a direct result of the relief provided after the people of Texas took to the polls, took action, and passed these reforms. While I am very proud of the reforms passed by Texas and the great strides we have been able to make in that State of 23 million people toward a better health care system, the fact is, we now have an opportunity to extend those benefits to all of the people in this country by passing nationwide legislation which would build on that Texas model and accomplish these reforms. I hope our colleagues who previously have blocked our ability to have an up-or-down vote on this important legislation will reconsider. The proof is as plain as the nose on your face. It is there for anyone and everyone to look at and to learn from. I hope those who have previously blocked our ability to address this important issue will have learned and will reconsider. Obviously, health care is so important to all of our families and all of our lives. I am pleased that we will also be bringing to the floor the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005. That is a long title, but basically it is about giving small businesses and other individuals an opportunity to pool together to try to make health insurance coverage more affordable and accessible so more people can have health insurance. We can use this to build on some of the great reforms we passed as recently as 2003 which allow people to create such things as health savings accounts, which has given rise to the whole notion of consumer-driven health care. Someone pointed out to me not too long ago that we know more about the used cars we buy than we do about the health care services we purchase because we can find out about quality, we can find out about price, and we can compare. The fact is, the American consumer is largely denied that opportunity, and we need to provide that sort of transparency so that patients can compare and make the best decision for their needs and their family, and which, not coincidentally, will help bring down the price of health care services because people will be able to then pay out of their health savings account. Obviously, that will have an impact on utilization rates as well. I thank the Chair for his patience and willingness to assume that position so I could say these few words both out of pride for my State and for the successful experiment we have conducted in Texas which has now served as a wonderful model for the United States going forward to try to address a true crisis. But not only a crisis, it is something that, once we address this and hopefully pass this medical liability legislation, Senator Enzi's health care bill which will provide greater access to health insurance and provide people with a better life, that we will ultimately have done something good that the American people can say: I know my Senator and my Congressman are up in Washington, and they are actually listening to what we are saying. They are actually dealing with the great issues that affect the quality of my life and my family's life, and that we will have done something of which we can be very proud. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will reform our immigration policies to make the United States more competitive, called the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership, or ``SKIL'' bill. Other original cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Allard, Allen, Bennett, Enzi, and Lott. Our ability to innovate is crucial to the success of our economy. By investing in science and technology, we revolutionize our economy and improve the world. The President has responded to this need by proposing the American Competitiveness Initiative. And I am a proud co- sponsor of legislation that has been introduced in the Senate: the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE bills) and National Innovation Act. But there is still more that can be done. Immigration policy must be part of any discussion of competitiveness. The United States does not produce enough engineers--China graduates four times as many engineers as the U.S., and within a few years, approximately 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be in Asia. Foreign students fill that gap right now in the U.S., but then our immigration policy-- not our economy--forces them to return home because there are not enough highly skilled work visas. In the long run, we must improve our schools and encourage more U.S. students to study engineering and mathematics. But we also must adapt immigration policy so that when U.S. students are educated in engineering fields, there will be U.S. jobs for them to fill. With the SKIL bill, foreign students who graduate from U.S. institutions will be able to stay and work in the United States. The bill will allow companies to retain highly skilled and educated workers. The SKIL bill requires the government to change its processes so that companies do not waste valuable resources. If a worker has been in the U.S. and has complied with all immigration laws, he should be allowed to renew his visa here in the U.S. Why make that worker go to a consulate when all of the processing can be done here in the U.S.? The SKIL bill exempts from annual visa limit any foreign student graduating from a U.S. university with a Master's or PhD in essential fields. Foreign workers with extraordinary skills, such as a Nobel Prize winner or an international scholar--should not have to wait for a visa. The President has also called for an increase in H-1B visas. As Chair of the Immigration subcommittee, I have seen how immigration--both legal and illegal--affects all aspects of our lives. I am pleased that there is so much discussion about immigration and about improving avenues for workers to enter our country. But immigration today will shape the country that our children grow up in. And so there needs to be more discussion about the kinds of immigration that will most benefit our economy and our country. I am introducing the SKIL bill because I don't believe enough attention has been focused on legal immigrants, especially the highly skilled workers who contribute to our economy and comply with our laws. It is my hope that this legislation will allow U.S. companies to retain a highly educated workforce until we can channel more American students into the math, science, and engineer pipeline. The SKIL bill is yet another important piece of the U.S. competitiveness agenda, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will reform our immigration policies to make the United States more competitive, called the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership, or ``SKIL'' bill. Other original cosponsors of this legislation include Senators Allard, Allen, Bennett, Enzi, and Lott. Our ability to innovate is crucial to the success of our economy. By investing in science and technology, we revolutionize our economy and improve the world. The President has responded to this need by proposing the American Competitiveness Initiative. And I am a proud co- sponsor of legislation that has been introduced in the Senate: the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE bills) and National Innovation Act. But there is still more that can be done. Immigration policy must be part of any discussion of competitiveness. The United States does not produce enough engineers--China graduates four times as many engineers as the U.S., and within a few years, approximately 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will be in Asia. Foreign students fill that gap right now in the U.S., but then our immigration policy-- not our economy--forces them to return home because there are not enough highly skilled work visas. In the long run, we must improve our schools and encourage more U.S. students to study engineering and mathematics. But we also must adapt immigration policy so that when U.S. students are educated in engineering fields, there will be U.S. jobs for them to fill. With the SKIL bill, foreign students who graduate from U.S. institutions will be able to stay and work in the United States. The bill will allow companies to retain highly skilled and educated workers. The SKIL bill requires the government to change its processes so that companies do not waste valuable resources. If a worker has been in the U.S. and has complied with all immigration laws, he should be allowed to renew his visa here in the U.S. Why make that worker go to a consulate when all of the processing can be done here in the U.S.? The SKIL bill exempts from annual visa limit any foreign student graduating from a U.S. university with a Master's or PhD in essential fields. Foreign workers with extraordinary skills, such as a Nobel Prize winner or an international scholar--should not have to wait for a visa. The President has also called for an increase in H-1B visas. As Chair of the Immigration subcommittee, I have seen how immigration--both legal and illegal--affects all aspects of our lives. I am pleased that there is so much discussion about immigration and about improving avenues for workers to enter our country. But immigration today will shape the country that our children grow up in. And so there needs to be more discussion about the kinds of immigration that will most benefit our economy and our country. I am introducing the SKIL bill because I don't believe enough attention has been focused on legal immigrants, especially the highly skilled workers who contribute to our economy and comply with our laws. It is my hope that this legislation will allow U.S. companies to retain a highly educated workforce until we can channel more American students into the math, science, and engineer pipeline. The SKIL bill is yet another important piece of the U.S. competitiveness agenda, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation that will ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and will help enhance America's ability to compete in the global economy. Each year, our Federal Government invests more than $55 billion on basic and applied research. That s roughly 40 percent of the current two-year budget for my home State of Texas. The bulk of this money is spent by approximately 10 agencies, including: the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture. These agencies use the money to fund research which is usually conducted by outside researchers working for universities, healthcare systems, and other groups. Most of the time, researchers will publish the results of their work in an academic journal. The NIH, for example, estimates that roughly 65,000 articles are published each year that report on research either partially or entirely funded by NIH. Unfortunately, as it stands now, most Americans have little--to no-- timely access to this wealth of information, despite the fact that their tax dollars paid for the research. Some Federal agencies, with the NIH chief amongst them, have taken some very positive steps in the right direction to require that these articles reporting on government- funded research be freely available to the public in a timely manner. In fact, today marks the one-year anniversary of the implementation of a ground breaking public access policy at NIH developed by Director Elias Zerhouni. I thank Dr. Zerhouni and his colleagues for their leadership on this important issue and for energizing this debate. While Dr. Zerhouni and NIH have made strong progress, Sen. Lieberman and I believe more must be done, not only at NIH and in medical research, but throughout the Federal Government and the sciences in general. That is why today we are introducing the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, legislation that will refine the work done by NIH and require that the Federal Government's leading underwriters of research adopt meaningful public access policies. Our legislation is a simple, common sense approach that will advance the public's access to the research it funds. We hope this access will help accelerate science, innovation, and discovery. Under our bill, all Federal departments and agencies that invest $100 million or more annually in research will be asked to develop a public access policy. Each policy will require that all articles that result from federal funding be deposited in a publicly accessible archive no later than six months after publication. Our bill simply says to all researchers who seek government funding that we want the results of your work to be seen by the largest possible audience. It will ensure that U.S. taxpayers do not have to pay twice for the same research--once to conduct it, and a second time to read it. This legislation is an opportunity for our government to better leverage our investment in research, and to ensure a greater return on that investment, which is all the more important given the current budget situation. By sharing this information quickly and broadly with all potential users, we can advance science, accelerate the pace of new discoveries and innovations, and improve the lives and welfare of people at home and abroad. All Americans will be positively affected as a result of this bill: patients diagnosed with a disease or condition will be able to use the Internet to access the full text of articles containing the latest information on ent and prognosis; students at small institutions will have equal access to research articles they need to complete assignments and further their studies; researches will have their findings more broadly and more quickly disseminated, possibly sparking further discovery and innovation The Internet has dramatically altered how the world gathers and shares information. The Internet gives the homemaker in Houston the ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical diagnosis given to a family member. It allows a young community college student in rural West Texas--a great distance from the nearest research library--to learn the latest in scientific discovery and hopefully spur him to continue his studies. While a comprehensive competitiveness agenda is still in the works, ensuring greater access to scientific information is one way we can help bolster interest in these important fields and move this issue forward while at the same time helping accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation. Through this legislation, I hope to ensure that students, researchers, and every American has access to the published results of federally funded research, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on April 27, 2006, I spoke on the Senate floor regarding the needs of Texans and evacuees living in Texas following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I used a number of visual aids to show the impact of these storms on the State of Texas. I would like to note in the Record that The Beaumont Enterprise and Harris County Judge Robert Eckels provided these images to illustrate the current state of Texas.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. With regard to health care to help accommodate the large influx of people to Texas, my State was given a waiver by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that allows the State to reimburse providers who incurred costs for uncompensated health care. Evacuees at any income level who did not have insurance coverage were provided medically necessary health care through this waiver. Texas provided evacuees health care, long-term care, prescription medicines, and medical transportation through two programs, Medicaid and the Uncompensated Care Program. Those not eligible for the Medicaid Program but who had incomes below a certain cutoff were provided coverage under the Uncompensated Care Program. I next will talk about education. This chart depicts an evacuee, a young lady who is showing up for elementary school. There were 45,099 Katrina evacuees enrolled in Texas on October 13. Today, there are still about 36,000 Katrina children in our public schools alone. The photo next to me depicts one of the many such centers that were quickly established at conference centers and temporary shelters to register children who had evacuated to our State. Each of these children represents a cost of about $7,500 a year for the State of Texas to educate. Furthermore, approximately 5,000 Katrina evacuees are currently enrolled in Texas public universities and colleges. I give special credit to Texas institutions of higher education that took in students and faculty from other States with limited reimbursement. This massive evacuation, this wave of humanity, also has had an impact on crime in our State. According to a recent news article, evacuees have been victims of or accused of committing 39 of the 235 murders in Houston since last September, according to Houston's police chief, Harold Hurtt. In the month of January, Houston saw a 34-percent rise in felonies over the previous year. This city had 800 officers retire in the past 2 years; it recently moved 100 officers working in city jails to high-crime areas while also significantly increasing overtime. It is no small thing to reallocate those resources which are already stretched thin. Texas has given generously of its resources to our neighbors during a time of need. That is something we will continue to do and that we are enormously proud of. I have made a commitment to the people of my State that I will do all I can to ensure that the affected communities are reimbursed for the cost of providing care to victims of Katrina and that those affected by Hurricane Rita will receive fair treatment as they also face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives. This shown here is another picture. Here again, I am sure the Senator from Mississippi recognizes this kind of devastation, with cars turned on end as a result of the force of the storm in southeast Texas. I am talking now about Hurricane Rita again. When the good people of my State signed up for helping their neighbors, they were in it for the long haul. We will continue to support the evacuees who come to our State, even as we work to recover ourselves from Hurricane Rita. But I am here to make sure we have the tools and the resources necessary to do the job right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the State of Texas. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I am keenly aware of our fiscal challenges. During the consideration of the budget resolution, I had offered an amendment which would slow the growth of mandatory spending, hopefully to allow a little bit more flexibility so we can fund our Nation's priorities while we also manage our fiscal house. The amendments I have offered that I wish to talk about at this time are No. 3699 and No. 3672. These amendments aim to make Texas whole from the 2005 hurricanes, and it won't cost the Federal Treasury a single dime more. They are specifically tailored to deal with the needs that are true emergencies in every sense of the word. I need to set the record straight about some misperceptions with regard to the state of my State; in particular, the impact these two natural disasters, the worst storms in our Nation's history, Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, had on the State of Texas. Although the State was not hit directly by Hurricane Katrina, it was significantly affected by that storm. It came in a flood of evacuees fleeing New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In a matter of days, the Texas population grew by roughly the size of an average U.S. city, some half a million people, many of whom you see pictured to my right in a picture of the Astrodome floor where the evacuees were housed temporarily. It is estimated that at one point, there were 17,500 people housed at the Astrodome. It was only one of four megasites in Houston to house evacuees. Another 4,000 were housed at Reliant Arena and 2,300 at Reliant Center. The George R. Brown Convention Center in downtown Houston took the remaining people, about 2,800 evacuees. I have shown a picture of the city of Houston, but this is just one large concentration of the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina. We can show similar pictures of evacuation sites and housing sites all around the State. It was obviously no small feat to take care of the needs of these people who just had their homes and their lives taken away from them as they previously knew them. I remember shortly after this occurred there were many people who would stop me here in the Senate, in the hallways of the Senate office buildings, around Washington, DC, and elsewhere and tell me how thankful and grateful they were that the people of Texas were so willing to take in their neighbors at a time of need. The fact is, a large number of the people who have come to Texas in the wake of Hurricane Katrina are those with some of the greatest needs. That was true where they lived previously--many of them in Louisiana--and among the people were those with the greatest needs in our country in general. This shows thousands of people in Houston and elsewhere who were in wheelchairs. This man has a cane, and many of these individuals had special needs. They were not necessarily able- bodied when they came to the State. This obviously has put an incredible strain on Texas's local support systems in the midst of this flood, a flood of humanity. This hurricane and the subsequent hurricane, Hurricane Rita, went straight up the Sabine River between Texas and Louisiana. I still remember talking to one of the computer scientists who had actually modeled the potential impact on the State if Hurricane Rita had not taken a right-hand turn and gone up right through southeast Texas. He said that if a category 4 hurricane hit Houston, there would be a minimum of $80 billion in additional property damage. Thank goodness that did not happen, and thank goodness there was no loss of life on a massive scale. But that was primarily because of the evacuation of the city of Houston and the fact that Mother Nature decided to spare Houston a direct hit while it took a right-hand turn straight up the Sabine River between Texas and Louisiana. The coast, private property, critical infrastructure, and millions of lives were devastated by the storm. As this picture indicates--and I am sure the Senator from Mississippi and other Senators from other States directly affected can identify with the devastation we see here--this is just one example of the devastation in southeast Texas caused by Hurricane Rita. In light of these two unprecedented events, Texas counties that were most seriously affected need help, like the other affected regions of our country that are more visible. I am sorry to say, notwithstanding all of the good work that has been done by the Federal Government, the reimbursements now range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but Texas has not been made completely whole as a result of these hurricanes. I am deeply troubled by reports I have received from some that there is a widespread perception that Texas is doing just fine and that we somehow managed to absorb half a million people, including their needs for housing, food, security, health care, education, and employment, just to name a few, and that somehow some people still believe that Texas should have no special need for additional Federal assistance, no need to make the State whole or to have restored to us a reasonable portion of the resources we willingly gave and continue to give to our neighbors in need. Consider that the parishes of western Louisiana that were most directly affected by Hurricane Rita--not Katrina--were granted a much more favorable Federal-State cost-sharing ratio of 90 percent Federal to 10 percent State versus the 75/25 that was granted to Texas. The counties in southeastern Texas were denied that same benefit, even though their damage was similar and they suffered a similar impact. The only difference we are talking about here is on which side of the Sabine River these counties were located. I am in no way minimizing the devastation and destruction that affected places such as New Orleans and Mississippi, Alabama, and elsewhere. They have suffered tremendously. But the people of Texas have experienced their share of destruction, as well. So I take this opportunity for a few moments to provide my colleagues with a summary, a snapshot of the current situation in Texas nearly 9 months after half a million evacuees flooded our State. Based on FEMA registrations, an estimated 450,000 to 490,000 Katrina evacuees currently remain in Texas. Approximately 5,900 are individuals with essential needs that I mentioned a moment ago, those who are mentally or physically disabled, frail, or otherwise require special care. Approximately 286,000 of the evacuees are still housed in Texas hotels. Approximately 130,000 of them are in rental housing. Only 27,000 housing units are now even available to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Many Texas communities were hit with a one-two punch: first, providing shelter to half a million Katrina evacuees and then suffering enormous devastation from Hurricane Rita themselves. Funds are needed to provide housing assistance to Texas residents whose homes were damaged by Hurricane Rita and to assist the nearly 400,000 residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who continue to reside in Texas, albeit on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, Texas only received $74.5 million of the $11.5 billion made available in the community development block grants in last year's Defense appropriations bill. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has estimated that more than 27,000 homes in southeast Texas and 75,000 homes throughout the State were damaged or destroyed while thousands of businesses suffered heavy damage resulting in more than $1 billion in loss. I have offered an amendment that ensures Texas and all other States affected by hurricane devastation receive no less than 3.5 percent of the $5.2 billion included in the bill for CDBG. I note that Senator Landrieu, from Louisiana, is one of the consponsors of that amendment. Considering Texas has taken in almost half a million evacuees, it seems reasonable we would receive a modest 3.5 percent of the funds allocated for housing. With regard to jobs and welfare, currently about 62,000 evacuees are receiving food stamps from the State of Texas allotment. Of these, 97 percent are from Louisiana. Sixty-one percent of the food stamp recipients stated in a poll that they expected to return to their State within 3 months. Yet notwithstanding their response to the poll, they remain in Texas, and we must provide for them. Texas Workforce Commission has worked diligently to process more than 60,000 unemployment claims from Louisiana. Yet there are thousands more who will need employment training skills as they remain in our State. One of the amendments I have offered directs the Secretary of Labor to prioritize States that have taken in Hurricane Katrina and Rita evacuees when distributing the remainder of fiscal year 2006 national emergency grants. I note that Senator Hutchison has joined me as cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that she be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on amendment 3722, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up three amendments, 3722, 3699, 3672.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I need about 20 minutes, but I would be willing to work with the other side if there are short-time speakers, to try to make sure people would not have to wait. So I am sure we can work something out.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Hutchison, in commending to our colleagues this fine nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Soon-to-be-Judge Miller will succeed Judge Ewing Werlein, who assumed senior status early this year. I add to all of Mr. Miller's outstanding credentials my recognition and our appreciation for Judge Werlein's service to his Nation and the legal profession during his time on the bench. First, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, as well as the ranking member, Senator Leahy, for working with Senator Hutchinson and me to fill the important vacancy in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. Mr. Miller has been nominated to fill the vacancy created when Judge Ewing Werlein assumed senior status earlier this year. Judge Werlein has served his country and the legal profession admirably, and I commend him for his dedicated service. The Houston division is one of the most important and diverse in the entire Federal judiciary as it is responsible for some of the Nation's most complex, notable commercial disputes and criminal prosecutions. It is crucial that we fill this vacancy quickly and I thank the committee for their vote to bring Mr. Miller's nomination to the Senate floor. When I consider nominees for the Federal bench, there are certain characteristics that I value. In fact, I believe that many of my colleagues also appreciate these same characteristics. First, nominees usually have a notable history of public service. In addition, nominees are often well-respected by their peers and have impeccable academic and/or professional records. Last, nominees usually have a long and distinguished history of civil involvement. Mr. President, Gray Miller possesses these traits. Mr. Miller has the necessary qualifications to serve on the Federal bench. He has been a long-time partner in the distinguished Texas law firm of Fulbright and Jaworski. He has excelled at the practice of law and is well respected within the legal profession for his knowledge of admiralty and maritime law. This nominee also enjoys the support of the American Bar Association which has certified him as well-qualified after a thorough review of his credentials. Furthermore, he devotes a substantial amount of his time to public service. Most notably, he spent 9 years as a Houston police officer, working his way through his undergraduate and law degrees. Now, as a private practice attorney, he supports a variety of public service initiatives, including the Houston Volunteer Lawyers Program and Habitat for Humanity. He also previously has served on the board of trustees of the Mental Health/Mental Retardation Authority of Harris County and on the board of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. He and his wife actively support Houston schools for students with learning disabilities and drug and alcohol problems. His devotion to the greater Houston community is commendable. From a congressional page in 1965 to a police officer in the 1970s to an accomplished trial advocate, Mr. Miller understands and respects the role of our three branches of government. He has an unfailing respect for the judiciary and the jury system. It is with this understanding that I believe Mr. Miller will serve his country honorably as a Federal district court judge should--by interpreting and applying the law and adhering to established precedent. I am pleased that President Bush has nominated Gray Miller to serve on the court of the Southern District of Texas. I look forward to his service on the Federal bench in the Great State of Texas. I ask my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will use a few minutes to respond to some of the voices that have been raised regarding the fuel prices. Of course, this is an issue that affects everyone. It is ironic that those who have railed the loudest against high gasoline prices are the ones who indeed are responsible for obstructing rational energy policy in this country that would bring down the price of gasoline itself. For example, we all know that the global competition for oil and gas is greater with the industrialization and growth of countries such as China, with 1.3 billion people, with the growth and industrialization of countries such as India. But notwithstanding the need to diversify our energy sources to nuclear energy and use the 300 years of coal we have in this country in a clean and environmentally sensitive way, we have been met with nothing but obstruction when it comes to trying to both diversify our energy sources and to undertake policies that would literally bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. It is no secret the single greatest factor in high gasoline prices is high oil prices. We have simply been denied every opportunity we have tried to undertake to expand domestic production at home by exploring places such as the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in an environmentally responsible way and drilling offshore in America in a way that can preserve both the environment but also increase the supply of oil and help bring down the price of gas. Congress can do a lot of things, but we cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. Without additional supply, we know with additional demand, prices will continue to go up. Because of obstruction and unreasonable regulation we have not seen a new refinery built in this country in the last 30 years. Our time would be used more productively if our colleagues across the aisle would work with us to diversify and expand the sources of domestic energy so we can help bring down the price at the pump. It would be much more constructively used if we work together rather than attempting to score political points and to place the blame in a political season. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know, there has been an announcement of a resolution or a settlement among a group of Senators relating to the border security and immigration reform bill that is pending before the Senate, although I would note that the entire Senate has yet to sign off on that agreement. I, for one, want to talk for a few minutes about my concerns regarding the proposal. Last night we were told at approximately 10 o'clock that this agreement was struck with a group of Senators. It consists of 525 pages and I dare say not many people have read it yet. But my review of the agreement causes me some serious concerns about whether it represents something that reflects good policy or something that would warrant my support. First, I believe there is a grave risk that the proposal would represent a repetition of the mistake of 1986 when the Congress passed major immigration legislation. My colleagues will recall that it was that year Ronald Reagan signed a bill that was acknowledged to be now, in retrospect, two different things. The first is it was an amnesty for 3 million people who entered our country in violation of our immigration laws. The second thing we have come to realize in retrospect is it was a complete and total failure when it came to securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Some have speculated it was the Federal Government's failure to provide employers a means to verify the eligibility of prospective employees that they could work legally in the country, and certainly the failure on the Federal Government's part is a large part of what is to blame. The corollary of that is the lack of employer sanctions for hiring an illegal workforce. In the past year, we have seen only three sanctions filed against employers for hiring illegal aliens to work in the United States. Some have said the reason that bill failed is because it didn't have any provision for a legal workforce. I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument because I do support comprehensive immigration legislation, but starting first with border security. We know our inability to control our borders is not only resulting in massive waves of illegal immigration, but we also know it is a national security risk because anyone who has the money to pay a human smuggler or has their wits about them enough to make it over here on their own could literally walk or swim or drive across our border because it is wholly unprotected between the authorized ports of entry. We know our Border Patrol is sorely undermanned with only about 11,000 Border Patrol agents for a 2,000-mile southern border, and contrast that with 39,000 police officers in the city of New York alone. So we can see the Border Patrol has been vastly out manned and outnumbered when it comes to the number of people coming across. There were 1.1 million illegal aliens apprehended last year alone. The problem with the 1986 amnesty is that it led to additional illegal immigration, and we now have approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants--people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws. And we have come to learn that our booming economy is a vast magnet for people who want a better life. While we can all understand that on a very basic human level, we also know the U.S. Government and the people of this country cannot accept anyone and everyone who wants to come into this country in violation of our immigration laws. Thus, we have a right, as every sovereign nation has, to regulate the flow of people across our borders in our Nation's best interests. I worry that the legislation that is now pending before this body, the so-called Hagel-Martinez compromise, would actually result in a further magnet for illegal immigration because it, in part, rewards people for coming into the country in violation of our immigration laws. It causes me great concerns in other respects as well. For example, the proposal would not be closed to felons and serial criminal offenders. Nor would it be closed to people who had their day in court but failed to comply with the deportation order, showing tremendous disrespect not only for our laws but for the safety and welfare of the American people. We also know the current bill that is pending before us prevents information sharing by the Department of Homeland Security to root out fraud, which is another problem with the 1986 amnesty because people were able to generate fraudulent documents to qualify for that amnesty. We know that false documents are a tremendous vulnerability of the American people to terrorists and criminals and others who want to come across our borders, and this bill does not do enough to allow us to protect ourselves by investigating and prosecuting that kind of fraud, by sharing information, and that is why we need some amendments to be argued and voted on by the Senate to fix the serious gaps in this bill. But perhaps one of the gravest concerns I have is this proposed compromise does not protect American workers. Indeed, under this bill, up to 12 million people will be able to get green cards. In other words, they will gain the status of a legal permanent resident and a path to American citizenship. This is without regard to whether our economy is in a boom status as it is now, with about 4.8 percent unemployment, or whether our economy is in a recession, where Americans are more likely to be out of work and competing with these 12 million new green card holders for employment. So I believe we need a provision in this bill that provides for a true temporary worker program that can reflect the ups and downs of the economy. Under this bill there will be a massive one-way migration of people from countries in Central America and Mexico and South America into the United States, and no incentives for their return and for maintaining their ties to their family and their culture and their country in a way that ultimately benefits their country as well. No country on Earth can sustain an economic body blow of a permanent migration of its work force out of that country. But this proposal this creates a temporary worker category that is not temporary, but is instead an alternative path to citizenship. So even though there are some who have talked about a guest worker program or a temporary worker program, this is neither. This is an alternative path to citizenship for 12 million people, permanent status in the United States, regardless of whether our economy is good or our economy is bad. And when it is bad, these individuals will prove stiff competition indeed for America and people born in these United States, or legal immigrants. There is also no provision in this bill--and this is another concern I have for the American worker--that there be a willing employer and a willing employee. In other words, under this bill individuals can come into the country and self petition for green cards or legal permanent residency. Thus, here again, another important protection for the American worker is totally ignored under this bill. Another grave concern I have, and this goes back to 1986, is there is absolutely no provision made for employer verification of the eligibility of prospective employees. As some have said, this is deja vu all over again because the Judiciary Committee, as you know, Mr. President, and as the distinguished ranking member knows, did not have jurisdiction over that provision of the bill, so it had to be drafted by the Finance Committee. Yet there is absolutely no amendment pending. I don't know of any plans--maybe there are plans that I am just unaware of--that would provide employers the means to verify that individuals are indeed eligible to work in the United States and discourage, if not eliminate, the use of fraudulent documents to claim that authority to work in the United States. Without that, without border security, without interior enforcement, and without employer verification and sanctions for those who do not play by the rules, this bill provides another invitation to massive illegal immigration and constitutes a reward to those who have come into our country in violation of our laws. My ultimate concern is we will have a vote on a motion to close off debate on this compromise tomorrow morning. There are a number of pending amendments that I intend to offer. Of course we know the Senate largely operates by unanimous consent. There is also a desire by Senators right before any recess to get on to their homes and their families and back to their States. But this is an extremely important bill, I would say, even more than most of the issues we consider here because it is a matter of national security. It is a matter of maintaining the confidence of the American people because, frankly, the American people believe we let them down in 1986. They believe the Senate is not serious about border security, is not serious about workplace enforcement, and the only way we are going to be able to demonstrate that we are serious is to have a full and fair debate, to allow amendments and votes on those amendments on the floor. So far, all we have been met with is obstructionism because we have been denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on essential amendments that are necessary to improve this bill. I know we will have a vote tomorrow morning. Unless there is some good-faith attempt to reach some accommodation to allow Senators to offer those amendments that would improve the bill in the respects I have pointed out, then I expect that we will have a long weekend, and perhaps beyond, so there will be an opportunity for us to have the kind of debate that is reflective of the world's greatest deliberative body and which discharges the responsibility we have to protect the American people, to secure our borders, to make sure we are absolutely serious about enforcing our laws, while at the same time we enact comprehensive border security and immigration reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to closing off debate on the underlying bill. We have heard at great length how the opportunity to file and argue and have votes on amendments has been effectively denied by the Democratic leader. It would be a travesty and, indeed, it would be a farce for the Senate to close off debate before we have even had that debate on the substance of this bill. Why it is that the Democratic leader and others who might vote to close off debate would want to deny the Senate an opportunity to exclude felons from the scope of the amnesty provided by this bill is beyond me. Why it is that there could be those who would want to deny American workers the protection of a fluctuating cap on temporary work permits such that American citizens would not be put out of work because those who have come to the country in violation of our immigration laws and would be given a guaranteed path to American citizenship is beyond me. Why it is we would want to deny countries such as Mexico and the Central American countries the opportunity to develop their own economies and to provide opportunities for their own citizens so that fewer and fewer of them would have to engage in part of the mass exodus from those countries to the United States, leaving those countries hollowed out and unable to economically sustain themselves and create opportunities for their own citizens, is beyond me. I understand there are those, on both sides of the aisle, who happen to like the Judiciary Committee bill that is the subject of this cloture motion. While there are portions of the bill I like very much, particularly those which have to do with border security, we know that the bill as yet still does not have a worksite verification provision, to my knowledge. My understanding is, because of jurisdictional conflicts, the Judiciary Committee could not complete work on that portion of the bill, and that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. We are still waiting for that title III to this bill to come to the floor and be offered as an amendment and be made part of this legislation. Without a worksite verification requirement, this bill will not work, notwithstanding how much we do at our borders, which is very important. This bill will not work unless we make sure that only people who come forward and submit themselves to background checks and we know are not criminals or terrorists and we know in fact they are qualified and eligible workers--unless we have a system in place to make sure of that, this will not work and we will not have done everything we can and should do to make sure this bill will work. Indeed, in 1986, as part of the amnesty that was signed in that year, the quid pro quo for the amnesty of some 3 million people was an effective worksite verification program and employer sanctions for those employers who cheat and hire people on the black market of human labor. We know, because the Federal Government failed to provide that effective Federal Government worksite verification program, that now we are dealing with approximately 12 million people who have come here in violation of our immigration laws, and we are confronted with the monumental challenge of how to address those 12 million in a way that both respects our legacy as a nation that believes in the rule of law while we continue to celebrate our heritage as a nation that believes we are indeed a nation of immigrants and better for it. This is not the Senate working according to its finest traditions. The only way the Senate works is if each Senator has an opportunity to debate and to argue and to offer amendments. We understand not all of the amendments will be accepted. I am happy--maybe not happy, but I am willing to accept the fact that there may be amendments I will offer that will not be successful. But that is the way the committee process worked under Chairman Specter in the Judiciary Committee. Each of us had a chance to have our say, to offer amendments, and to have a vote. That is the way democracy works. But the idea that we will somehow try to jam this bill through here without Senators having a chance to debate and vote on amendments is a farce. I hope my colleagues will not support it and that they will vote against cloture so we may offer those amendments and have the kind of debate and process that represents the finest traditions of the Senate.