John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to conclude my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to talk about immigration reform and border security. In particular, since this debate will be continuing for this week and the next, I want to emphasize the importance of border security, and, obviously, enforcement begins at the border. But before I talk about border security and enhanced enforcement, I want to address the issue of the 12 million immigrants who are already here who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws. We know why people come to America. It is the same reason they have always come: because too often they have no hope and no opportunity where they live. So we understand at a very human level why it is that people want to come to the United States. Yet I think we all acknowledge America cannot open its borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come here or we would literally be drowned in a wave of humanity. We have to regain control of our broken immigration system, and that means to deal with enforcement at our borders, to deal with enforcement in the interior of our country, and to deal with verification of the eligibility of prospective employees to actually work legally in the United States. We cannot repeat the mistake this Nation made with the 1986 amnesty bill. I remind my colleagues that in 1986, that legislation required illegal aliens to pay a fee, to learn English, to improve themselves by working in this country for a set time. I also remind my colleagues that everyone agrees on two points when it comes to the 1986 experience with the amnesty bill. No. 1, they agree it was amnesty. And No. 2, they agree it was a complete and total failure. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a solution to this great crisis that confronts our country, but I won't accept a repetition of the mistake of 1986 when this country granted amnesty in the hopes of that being the end of it and in the hopes that there would be a reciprocal obligation on the part of the Federal Government to actually sanction employers who violate our immigration laws. I am afraid the numbers speak for themselves, with 3 million illegal immigrants who benefitted from the amnesty and now roughly 12 million who are here awaiting the next amnesty. Thus we can see what a magnet amnesty becomes and why it is so counterproductive. I am proud to represent a border State, the great State of Texas, and I know from personal experience what problems the border States face. I know the strains that illegal immigration and our broken borders have placed on local taxpayers when it comes to education, when it comes to health care, and I know the anger and frustration that many people feel at the Federal Government's abject failure when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. I also know the nature of immigration across our borders is changing. There is more and more violence on the northern border of Mexico in cities such as Nuevo Laredo. I have listened to the concerns of my fellow Texans, including ranchers and those who are well accustomed to the movement of people across the border into the United States who want to work here and who then go back home with the savings and skills they have established. I have listened to the ranchers and the Good Samaritans who live and work along the border who were happy to lend a helping hand to the occasional traveling immigrant worker, to those seeking a better life. But I have to tell you, these people are now scared. They are terrified because drug smugglers and human traffickers are wreaking havoc along our Nation's borders. Let's not delude ourselves. This debate isn't just about drugs, and it isn't just about violence, as horrible as those are. This debate is also--and I would say first and foremost--about our Nation's security. In a post-9/11 world, border security is national security. I say that again: In a post-9/11 world, border security is national security. Make no mistake about it. Today we do confront a crisis that threatens our security. We all know that our immigration system is broken and has been for many years. And it is not getting any better on its own. So I applaud the majority leader and those who have worked so hard on both sides of the aisle to try to bring this debate to the Senate floor. This is the greatest deliberative body on the face of the planet, and I would hope that we could have a debate about this urgent need to fix our broken immigration system and to restore security to our border and do it in a way that is dignified and civil and worthy of this great institution and of this great democracy. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona and I have teamed up to work on this issue from top to bottom. We have worked closely together over several years to address this challenge in a comprehensive way. We have held numerous hearings, and we have heard testimony from a diverse array of experts across the political spectrum. We have also inspected our Nation's failed immigration system and its relationship with the terrible events of September 11. And we have examined why it is important for America's neighbors to raise living standards for their own citizens to help relieve some of the pressure on our border. Senator Kyl and I have sought to lay a foundation for a comprehensive solution to fix our broken borders, a comprehensive solution that would avert another crisis 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. When we sat down to draft legislation, we were alarmed that many of the bills already introduced at that time simply called for more studies and more reports. One so-called comprehensive bill failed to contain a single provision on interior enforcement. This is not a time for more studies or more reports. This is a time for action. We need to act, and we need to act prudently and in America's best interests. So our goal was to craft an immigration bill that would be comprehensive. We understood that any truly comprehensive bill must address both border security and enforcing the law in our Nation's interior. Over a dozen of the strong and sensible enforcement provisions we crafted made their way into the bill that is now before the Senate in the form of the Judiciary Committee bill. I want to talk about these enforcement measures and why they are a necessary precondition to everything else that we do when it comes to reforming our broken immigration system. I repeat: National security and border security begin at the border. Congress can no longer ignore the realities on the ground. We can no longer afford to under-fund and under-man our borders. What we see in my State of Texas is that the mandates that the Federal Government issues when it comes to health care, when it comes to education, when it comes to law enforcement are foisted off on State, and most often, local taxpayers. It is considered a local problem when self-evidently, it should be a national mandate. When it comes to any of those issues, we have a national responsibility, and the Congress and the Federal Government must step up. Let's look at the reason many Texans and others who live and work along the border are scared, people who are very much accustomed to immigrants moving back and forth across the border. It is because they know the face of illegal immigration across our border has changed. We have a chart, chart No. 1, that illustrates the changing nature of illegal immigration and the rise in the number of people coming from countries other than Mexico. You can see on this chart that the aliens who have been detained along the border are from special interest countries--countries with ties to international terror such as Syria, Iraq, Iran. Just 2 weeks ago, I talked to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and he told me there were 39,000 Chinese who had been detained coming across our southern border and, unfortunately, once they were detained, China refused to accept any of them back. So we have to use every diplomatic tool in our toolbox to make sure we not only detain people who come across our border illegally, but that we then, in an expeditious way, return them back to their country of origin. Second, in the bill that Senator Kyl and I proposed, we proposed a doubling in the number of Border Patrol agents. And while we have heard a lot of talk about additional Federal agents at the border, the Federal Government really hasn't stepped up yet. There is a lot of good and, I think, well-intentioned talk. But on 9/11, we saw that 9,788 Border Patrol agents were funded by the U.S. Government. Here we are today, and we have seen a small increase to a little over 11,000. But lest some people think that is a lot of Federal agents on the border, let me remind them we have a 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico--a 2,000-mile border--and now a little over 11,000 Federal agents, when the city of New York has somewhere on the order of 39,000 policemen. So if you compare a 2,000-mile border and 11,000 Border Patrol agents with the fact that the city of New York has 39,000 police officers, you can see why I suggest to my colleagues that we are both underfunded and undermanned when it comes to the sheer volume of people coming across the border. Last year, about 1.2 million--that's 1.2 million--people were apprehended coming across the border. So how can we in good conscience say that we are doing everything within our power to enforce our borders and enforce our laws when we simply deny the Federal agents, who are doing a very good job, the number of people they need in order to be successful? Then there is the issue of detention beds. Once you detain someone coming illegally across the border, they are entitled, ordinarily, to a deportation hearing, if they come from a country other than Mexico. People who come from Mexico are returned expeditiously--usually the same day. Of course, many of them try to come back and, after enough tries, they usually make it past the border. But we have had a flawed policy of catch and release. In other words, when we have apprehended people at the border who come in illegally from countries other than Mexico, we said: Please show up in 30 days for your deportation hearing. Are we surprised that the vast majority of people don't show up but just merely melt into our landscape and become part of that 12 million people who come to our country in violation of our immigration laws? Well, it is because we only have 20,000 detention beds--20,000--with 1.2 million people coming across our borders just last year. That is the fundamental, root problem with the catch-and-release policy that the Department of Homeland Security has had for far too long. Senator Kyl and I would not only raise the number of detention beds to 50,000, but we would end the catch-and-release policy by improving and increasing and mandating the use of expedited removal across our borders. This chart reflects that Border Patrol apprehensions of people from countries other than Mexico were 165,000 last year. Yet 114,000 of them were released under the catch-and-release program. As I say, most, if not all, of them melted into the landscape and became part of this shadow culture living in America today of people who have come to this country in violation of our immigration laws. We may assume we know why they have come here. We may assume that they are people in search of a better life and, indeed, many of them are. But the fact is, we can't assume in a post-9/11 world; we have to know who is coming into our country and why they are here because we know there are those who have evil intent toward America. We know there are common criminals. We know there are drug dealers and drug smugglers. We know there are arms dealers. We know there are international criminal syndicates who will do anything for a buck, whether it is smuggling drugs, guns, weapons of mass destruction, or smuggling terrorists across our borders. In addition to the 10,000 more Border Patrol agents, I believe the solution to securing our borders is in the technology we have, our technological advantage. But we are not using technology along the border the way we should. We know the Department of Defense, our military, is the finest, most professional military the world has ever known, and in large part it is because of the technology they are able to use. We need to use ground sensors. We need to use unmanned aerial vehicles. We need to use technology to provide a secure border.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. That is entirely correct.

Mr. CORNYN. Absolutely not. That has been one of the misconceptions or perhaps straw men that have been hoisted out there because some people have suggested we are trying to criminalize people who merely want to come to this country for economic opportunity to provide for their families. This does nothing of the kind. These are people who have already been convicted of felonies in the United States or three misdemeanors or have committed serious crimes out of the United States, or that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security believes are a safety risk to the American people.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this debate we are having on this important legislation is critical to our Nation. It is long overdue. I am glad we are finally talking about border security and immigration reform in a comprehensive way. I know, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, our chairman, Senator Specter, and the committee have worked very hard on this legislation. There is a lot of the legislation that I think is very good. For example, the border security component of the bill is very strong. I am proud to say that a good chunk of that came from legislation Senator Kyl and I have drafted and has been out there for a year or more. But I believe with all my heart that what has brought us to this day and this debate on the Senate floor is because Americans are terribly concerned that in a post-9/11 world, we simply do not have control of our borders. And they believe--and I believe they are correct--it exposes us to a danger and that the Federal Government has a primary responsibility of making sure our security interests are protected. As I said earlier today, border security is national security. Now, how did we get here? I believe this is important because I do not want people to get the wrong impression. We are a proud nation of immigrants. All of us--no matter who we are, how we pronounce our last name, where we were born--came from somewhere else. America has been the net beneficiary of the fact that we have been that beacon of freedom and opportunity which has attracted people from all around the world. What distinguishes this country from the rest of the world is that once you come to America, you become an American, not because of the color of your skin or your religious affiliation or beliefs or the country where you were born, you become an American because you believe in the American ideal and you believe that everyone, no matter who they are, is entitled to the opportunity to achieve their own American dream. That is really one of the greatest legacies this Nation will ever have. But we are also a nation of laws. To me, the toughest part about this legislation has been, how do we reconcile that vision--our American values of a nation of immigrants--with this important notion and ideal of a nation that also believes in the rule of law? One of the reasons I so strongly support this amendment is that while we are a welcoming nation and we open our arms to people who want to come to America to achieve a better life--hopefully through legal avenues of immigration--we know there are some who have not come here through those legal avenues. What we are attempting to achieve in this legislation is to create legal avenues of immigration into this country. Some people may decide they want to come here to become legal permanent residents and citizens and become Americans. Others might figure they want to come to this country on a temporary basis to work and to earn a living so they can support their family, so that they ultimately can return to their country of origin with the savings and skills they have acquired while working in the United States. But in a very real sense, these temporary workers do not intend to become Americans. They do not intend to sever their relationship with their country and their family and their culture. The fact is, we need those legal workers here in the United States. We ought to create--and I do support creating--a legal avenue for them to come and work for a time and then to return to their country of origin. The fact is, that serves America's national interests. It also serves the national interest of those countries from whence they come. Indeed, one of the components of that, which we will talk about more as this debate continues, has to do with establishing a legal opportunity for people to work for a while in the United States and then to go home with savings and skills they have acquired here. The reason that is important--and this should not be overlooked--is that no country could sustain the permanent exodus of its hard-working young people, which is what is happening to many countries south of our border today. Those economies are handicapped dramatically because of the massive immigration and permanent exodus of their young people to this country. What we ought to be about, not only in our national interest but as a means of reaching out to those countries and enabling them to create economic opportunity there at home, is a way for them to build their own economy to create opportunity in their homeland. While there are certainly people who will want to immigrate to the United States permanently, there are many others who, if given the opportunity to work for a while in the United States, would be more than happy to maintain their ties to their country and their culture and their family and return home and possibly to come back after a period of time. But I say all that by way of predicate to say that we have a right as a sovereign nation not only to protect our own borders, we have an obligation to make sure the American people are not exposed to extraordinary danger that might occur if common criminals are given a free ride, inadvertently, in this bill. Now, I do not imagine for a minute the authors of this bill intended that felons, persons who were guilty of three successive misdemeanors, people who are under final orders of deportation or criminal absconders--I do not actually believe the authors of this bill intended to grant an amnesty or to forgive those crimes or to welcome those people into the United States because I believe either these individuals, by virtue of the crimes they have committed, should not be accepted into the United States--and we certainly have a right to control who comes and who does not come, and I think these people have disqualified themselves by virtue of their criminal activity--but there is also another segment of people, some 400,000 individuals, who have had their day in court, who have been ordered deported because they have had their due process, and they simply have failed to reappear so the law may be carried out. So they are what is called an absconder. And 80,000 of those some 400,000 people are criminal absconders, people guilty of felonies in the United States, people who have, since they have come here, disqualified themselves by virtue of their failure to comply with our law and no longer deserve to be able to live in the United States. So I believe it is very important to make those distinctions. We ought to be able to distinguish between those individuals who have come to the United States because they do not have any opportunity, they do not have any hope of providing for their families where they live--we are willing to find a way to provide them a way to work in a legal system or, if they are willing to comply with the requirements of the law, to exit the country and return in a legal way and work and live in the United States, should they choose to do so and should they be qualified--but surely we can all agree there are certain persons who, by virtue of their misconduct, as evidenced by their unwillingness to comply with our laws and exposing the American people to danger in the process, that we ought to be able to protect the public safety and distinguish between people who have violated the immigration laws and those who have committed far more serious crimes or abused their rights and had the opportunity to be heard and are under final orders of deportation. I will not go into any more detail other than just to say a few things about this amendment that I gladly join. One of the reasons I am concerned that under the Judiciary Committee bill some people might perceive that what is granted is an amnesty is because while there may be some definitional disputes about what constitutes an amnesty, what I am confident of is that people will agree that in 1986, we had an amnesty. And I am confident the vast majority of people will agree with me, not only was it an amnesty, they will agree with me, I believe, that it was a complete and total failure. The tradeoff for the amnesty of 3 million people was to get worksite verification and employer sanctions, yet the Federal Government did not step up and provide that capacity. So what happened is that 3 million now becomes 12 million today. One reason I am so determined not to repeat the mistakes of 1986 is because I believe it would be a magnet for further illegal immigration. This amendment is sensible. It provides that criminals can't get a green card, and those who have had their day in court and proven themselves disqualified from further opportunity to immigrate to the United States legally and become American citizens or permanent residents should not be included in what some might regard as a repetition of the amnesty that was issued in 1986. It is with pleasure that I join Senator Kyl in cosponsoring this amendment. We urge our colleagues to support us.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last year, Congress made some real progress in getting a handle on mandatory spending by passing the Deficit Reduction Act. The Deficit Reduction Act will reduce mandatory spending by nearly $100 billion over the next decade, and it is the first time Congress has taken a hard look at how to find savings and reduce the budget deficit on the mandatory spending side since 1997. The Deficit Reduction Act is a good first step. My amendment builds on the savings of the Deficit Reduction Act. My amendment lowers the Federal budget deficit, lowers the Federal debt, and does not increase taxes on the American people. Today, the Federal budget, as we all know, is heavily weighted in favor of mandatory spending--entitlement spending, so to speak. As people live longer and the baby boom generation retires, that spending will increase and eat up a larger and larger share of our budget. Just in Medicare and Medicaid alone, in the last 5 years, we have seen a 22-percent increase in entitlement spending for those two programs. And if we don't do something in the next 30 years about entitlement spending, we won't have a dime of revenue to pay for other items that are important, such as defense, education, NIH research, and payments to health care providers to reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid. My amendment directs the Senate Finance Committee to find $10 billion in additional savings over the next 5 years. One proposal for the Finance Committee to consider under this amendment would be to repeal the stabilization fund included in the Medicare Modernization Act. Let me explain what that is. This is essentially a bonus provision to preferred provider organizations--insurance companies, in other words--over and above the regular Medicare share to encourage them to participate in the Medicare Program. There simply is no reason to increase the Federal subsidy for these insurance companies over and above regular Medicare payments. We should eliminate that bonus and use that money, which is not necessary, to pay down the debt by $7 billion. There are other good areas I believe for the Finance Committee to find the $10 billion this amendment would require. The problem is this: If we don't do something about the autopilot our budget is on when it comes to the mandatory side of spending, we have only ourselves to blame because no one is at the wheel, and I am afraid the plane will crash all too soon. We are feeling the squeeze already. The appropriators, I know, are trying to squeeze more and more out of the discretionary spending portion of the budget because as the mandatory and entitlement side rose, there was less and less flexibility for spending on important programs that represent America's priorities under the discretionary portion of the budget. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It is one that can be done without detracting from current Medicare spending, but eliminates this bonus provision, this additional cash or Federal subsidy that is provided for under the law that could be saved and be put to more constructive use, showing that we are serious about fiscal responsibility and paying down the debt. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3100 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment directs the Senate Committee on Finance to find $10 billion in additional savings out of the Medicare Program and builds on the work done in the Deficit Reduction Act where we reduced the rate of growth for mandatory spending by nearly $100 billion over the next decade. As all Members know, there is increasing pressure on discretionary spending on important priorities because of the growth of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Medicare and Medicaid alone grew by 22 percent over the last 5 years. This will allow the Committee on Finance to take the stabilization fund, for example, that is used to supplement payments to preferred provider organizations which participate in the Medicare Program, which is available to be recouped to help pay down some of the debt in the amount of $10 billion, as well as other sources of revenue that they can gain out of the Medicare Program. I ask my colleagues to vote ``aye.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham of South Carolina be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week our country is celebrating the second annual National Sunshine Week, established last year by an extraordinary coalition of print, radio, television, and online media associations and outlets. And yesterday was national Freedom of Information Day--celebrated every year at a national conference held at the Freedom Forum's World Center in Arlington, VA, on James Madison's birthday. As we celebrate National Sunshine Week, it is an appropriate time to evaluate the significant progress of the past year toward reforming the Freedom of Information Act. But we must also recognize that we can--and should--certainly do more to preserve the open-government principles on which our great country was founded. At a time when Americans reportedly know more about the television show ``The Simpsons'' than they do about the five provisions of the first amendment--freedom of press, speech, religion, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances--or can name the three ``American Idol'' judges more readily than three first amendment provisions, Congress must do its utmost to preserve these protections while also educating the public about reform efforts. The Declaration of Independence makes clear that our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be secured only where ``Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'' And James Madison, the father of our Constitution, wrote that consent of the governed means informed consent--that ``a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' As attorney general of Texas, I was responsible for enforcing Texas's open government laws. I have always been proud that Texas is known for having one of the strongest, most robust freedom of information laws in the country, and I have enjoyed working with my colleagues here in Washington to spread a little of that ``Texas Sunshine''. I would specifically like to express my gratitude to Senator Leahy and to his staff for all their hard work on these issues of mutual interest and national interest. And I would like to thank and to commend Senator Leahy for his decades-long commitment to freedom of information. He has been a strong ally and valuable advocate in this process, and he and I have both noted that openness in government is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Any party in power is always reluctant to share information, out of an understandable--albeit ultimately unpersuasive--fear of arming its enemies and critics. But regardless of our differences on various policy controversies of the day, we should all agree that those policy differences deserve a full debate before the American people. While much of the FOIA reform efforts, to date, have focused on providing access generally, more can be done to improve the process specifically. Access to information is certainly essential, but so is accelerating the rate at which these requests are fulfilled. Access is of little value when requests for information are subjected to lengthy delay. Open government is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy democracy. The default position of our Government must be one of openness. If records can be open, they should be open. If good reason exists to keep something closed, it is the Government that should bear the burden to prove that need--not the other way around. Back in December, President Bush signed an Executive order that enhances current FOIA policies. That move was just one important step toward more sunshine in government. But the President's directive moves the country forward toward strengthening open government laws and reinforcing a national commitment to freedom of information in several important ways that I will discuss here just briefly: It affirms that FOIA has provided citizens with important information about the functioning of government; It directs FOIA officials to reduce agency backlogs, create a process for everyday citizens to track the status of their request, and establishes a protocol for requestors to resolve FOIA disputes short of filing litigation; It creates a FOIA service center where people seeking information can track the status of their requests; And one very good step is that it creates a FOIA public liaison who acts as a supervisor of FOIA personnel. This person will be available to resolve any disagreements that might arise between people seeking information and the Government. It also requires each chief FOIA officer to review his or her agency's practices, including ways that technology is used, in order to set concrete milestones and timetables to reduce backlogs and carry out its FOIA responsibilities. Other important progress was made throughout 2005. In June, the Senate passed the legislation Senator Pat Leahy and I authored, and hopefully the House of Representatives will quickly pass this important legislation. This particular reform creates additional legislative transparency by requiring that any future legislation containing exemptions to requirements be ``stated explicitly within the text of the bill. In addition, we introduced the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005--OPEN Government Act, S. 394--in February and a separate bill in March to establish an advisory Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays. A hearing held in March examined the OPEN Government Act. And I urge Congress to pass this law as quickly as is possible. But, as I said, more remains to be done to ensure that American citizens have access to the information they need. One way we could do that, and something I believe would be a positive and welcome step in this area, would be to provide additional, dedicated funding for FOIA resources, to address request backlogs. I believe this could be accomplished much in the same way Congress offered assistance to local law enforcement through providing additional funds so they could address their DNA backlogs or the assistance it provided to the FBI to address its backlog of untranslated intercepts of terrorists' telephone calls. Additional funding dedicated to this problem will speed the rate information is given to the requestors. Working toward these goals means that we continue to ensure the public's access to information. Our Founders understood that a free society could not exist without informed citizens and open, accessible government. And as our country celebrates National Sunshine Week, Congress must continue its work to restore and strengthen its commitment to open government and freedom of information.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona for his tremendous leadership in this area. I wish to detail some of that leadership and some of the work he has done. I have been proud to work with him. I think what the amendment really helps to do is to serve as a wake- up call, a wake-up call to the Senate, a wake-up call to the Federal Government, and really a message that is being delivered day in and day out by people in my State and people all across America, who say they are sick and tired of the Federal Government not living up to its responsibilities when it comes to securing our international borders. We all know in minute detail how porous our borders are, and we know that in the past the American people have been asked to accept solutions--like amnesty in 1986--on the condition that the Federal Government would provide a means whereby employers could determine the eligibility of prospective employees to work legally in the United States. But while the American people were given an amnesty program, legalizing roughly 3 million individuals, the Federal Government did not provide the means for employers to determine whether that prospective employee could legally work in the United States. The Senator from Arizona mentioned the basic pilot program which was supposed to be the means to that end, but it was a purely voluntary program, and thus employers were left with a conundrum. They needed the workforce, but they did not necessarily have access to a means to determine the legal status of prospective employees. So what they relied upon were oftentimes what turned out to be fake identification, whether driver's licenses, Social Security cards, passports, or the like. We do not expect the employers in this country to try to be FBI agents or to conduct an independent investigation as to the legal status of prospective employees. What this amendment will do is two important things. No. 1, it will begin to cause the Federal Government to step up to finally begin to provide the resources necessary to have a bona fide electronic verification system. But perhaps more importantly, it will demonstrate the seriousness of the Federal Government to finally live up to its responsibilities. The people across America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--we are hearing a lot from sectors of the employment community saying they need a temporary worker program, a guest worker program. I think we all acknowledge it is important for us to determine who the 10 or 11 million people are who are currently in the country who have come here, perhaps legally in the first instance, but at least 40 percent of them have outstayed their visas and are currently out of status or people who have literally walked across or swam across the Rio Grande River to come here. But in a post-9/11 world, there can be no doubt we must know who is in our country and what their reasons are for being here, so we can cull out the criminals, the people who come here to do us harm, and including the potential prospects of terrorists exploiting these known vulnerabilities in our way too porous border. So we need a national strategy to deal with that. As the current occupant of the chair knows and the Senator from Arizona knows, as members of the Judiciary Committee, we are working hard to try to come up with a solution to this extraordinarily complex problem. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that, here again, we are playing catchup. But the purpose ultimately served by this amendment as well as the budget resolution that is pending on the floor--and the Senator from Arizona rightly praised the chairman of the Budget Committee for moving funds into building infrastructure along our border--the American people need to know we are making a firm and solid commitment to do whatever it takes to make this system work and to finally bring it under control. Because people are not going to accept the bait and switch that essentially was foisted upon them in 1986, when they said take an amnesty, and then, on the condition we will have an employer verification system, we will actually sanction people for hiring people who cannot legally work in the United States, I do not think people will be fooled again. I certainly do not plan to be part of that. I know there are many in Congress and in the Senate who are absolutely committed to coming up with a solution to this problem. It is not easy. But again, I do not believe the American people or our constituents sent us here necessarily to do just easy things. They expect us to come here and do more than go to receptions or meetings at the White House. They actually expect us to do some real work. But it is going to take some real work, and it is going to take some real money to finally make the investment the Federal Government has to make in order to bring this broken system under control. So I gladly join as a cosponsor of this amendment and ask for the support of all of our colleagues for this very important step forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for Don DeGabrielle, an outstanding attorney and committed public servant who has been nominated by the President to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas. The Southern District of Texas is home to Houston, our Nation's fourth largest city. The district extends from Houston to the U.S.- Mexico border, and includes the cities of Brownsville, McAllen, and Laredo--all of which are located on or near the border. The position for which Don DeGabrielle is nominated has been vacant for some time now. As my colleagues know, the U.S. attorney is each district's chief Federal law enforcement officer. So it is critically important to the Department of Justice and to the people of the Southern District that this vacancy be filled as soon as possible. Don DeGabrielle is an outstanding selection for this post. He brings extensive and praiseworthy prosecutorial experience. Don DeGabrielle has served the Southern District as an assistant U.S. attorney for the past 20 years--the last 4 as first assistant U.S. attorney. As first assistant, he was responsible for the day-to-day management of the district, supervising an extensive criminal, civil, and appellate docket. Don DeGabrielle has unimpeachable credentials as a prosecutor. He has tried nearly 200 cases in both State and Federal courts, has been an instructor at the National Advocacy Center, and has provided legal instruction to Federal agents. Don DeGabrielle's diverse experience includes a stint in 2001 as the Resident Legal Adviser to the Republic of South Africa, where he advised that nation's prosecutors and helped reorganize its Justice Ministry. Prior to his career as a prosecutor, he served as an FBI special agent in New Orleans and New York City. In short, Don DeGabrielle's unique qualifications make this nomination a superb one. I am confident that he will serve this country with distinction. And I am proud to support his nomination. nomination of amul r. thapar

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to compliment my friends in the House of Representatives for passing expeditiously H.R. 32--the Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act--as amended by the Senate. In addition to a few technical changes, I am pleased that the bill included the entirety of S. 1095, the Protecting American Goods and Services Act, introduced last year by myself and Senator Leahy. I am particularly pleased to work with the senior Senator from Vermont in our continued bipartisan effort to protect intellectual property rights as well as to work on other important issues. Last year, we worked together on a matter near and dear to my heart--good government legislation related to the Freedom of Information Act, and it indeed has been a pleasure to work with him again. His staff has worked tirelessly with mine--especially Susan Davies, whose hard work and dedication to the goal of making good public policy is a testament to her, to Senator Leahy, and to good legislative process. The combined package passed today in the form of H.R. 32 represents important, bipartisan legislation designed to combat the trafficking of illegitimate goods throughout the world. The rampant distribution of illegitimate goods--be it counterfeited products, illegal copies of copyrighted works or any other form of piracy--undermines property rights, threatens American jobs, decreases consumer safety and, oftentimes, supports organized crime and terrorist activity. Amazingly, it is estimated that between 5 percent and 7 percent of worldwide trade is conducted with counterfeit goods and services. According FBI estimates, counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses as much as $200 to $250 billion annually--and that costs Americans their jobs-- more than 750,000 jobs according to U.S. Customs. In recent years, this plague on global trade has grown significantly. According to the World Customs Organization and Interpol, the global trade in illegitimate goods has increased from $5.5 billion in 1992 to more than $600 billion per year today. That is $600 billion per year illegally extracted from the global economy. But for me, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, I find it most troubling that the counterfeit trade across our borders and throughout the world threatens our safety and our national security. Most frighteningly, evidence indicates that the counterfeit trade supports terrorist activities. Indeed, al-Qaida training manuals recommended the sale of fake goods to raise revenue. Further, counterfeit goods undermine our confidence in the reliability of goods and service. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates that 2 percent of the 26 million airline parts installed each year are counterfeit. And the Federal Drug Administration estimates that as much as 10 percent of pharmaceuticals are counterfeit. And the reach of counterfeiting runs deep in my own home State of Texas. Data is difficult to collect, but a 1997 piece detailing Microsoft's efforts to combat counterfeiting and piracy--while dated-- pointed out that this type of activity costs Texas over 10,000 jobs and almost $1 billion. Today, we know those numbers are much higher. We must act to stop this illegal activity. The legislation we passed today will help us do just that. It is not complicated--nor is it long, but its global impact will be significant. The legislation is designed to provide law enforcement with additional tools to curb the flow of these illegitimate goods and it is perhaps even more critical for businesses, large and small, throughout America and for ensuring the safety of consumers around the globe. Those who traffic in counterfeit goods put Americans in danger, support terrorism and undermine the health of our Nation's economy. S. 1095--or the ``PAGS Act''--as included in the legislation passed today--fills certain important gaps in current counterfeiting law by clarifying the term ``trafficking'' to ensure that it is illegal to: Possess counterfeit goods with the intention of selling them; give away counterfeit goods in exchange for some future benefit--in effect, the ``bartering'' of counterfeit goods in such a way that avoids criminality; import or export counterfeit goods or unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. This bill will protect property rights, protect consumer safety, preserve American jobs, and bolster the American economy by cracking down on the trade of illegal counterfeit goods and services. Each of these items was highlighted by the Department of Justice in its October, 2004 report on its Task Force on Intellectual Property. In it, the Department describes the significant limitation law enforcement oftentimes faces in pursuing counterfeiters and offers, among others, the principles embraced in the Protecting American Goods and Services Act, as possible solutions to these obstacles. This legislation, and other reforms, will help turn the tide of the growing counterfeit trade. The legislation is critically important to law enforcement--but it is even more critical for businesses, large and small, throughout America--including in my home State of Texas--as well as for ensuring the safety of consumers around the globe. Those who traffic in counterfeit goods put Americans in danger, support terrorism and undermine the health of our nation's economy. It is time to put an end to this scourge on society. I look forward to the President signing this legislation into law, and in so doing, protecting property rights, protecting consumer safety, preserving American jobs and bolstering the American economy.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I am sure all of my colleagues are aware, President Bush arrives today in India, where he will meet with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. As the President observed on February 22, ``We have an ambitious agenda with India. Our agenda is also practical. It builds on a relationship that has never been better. India is a global leader, as well as a good friend, and I look forward to working with Prime Minister Singh to address other difficult problems such as HIV/AIDS, pandemic flu, and the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. My trip will remind everybody about the strengthening of an important strategic partnership. We'll work together in practical ways to promote a hopeful future for citizens in both our nations.'' One of the most important items of business between the United States and India is the agreement for these two great democracies to cooperate on civil nuclear energy, which President Bush and Prime Minister Singh announced this past July. I have previously spoken in support of this initiative. I am hopeful that we will soon reach an agreement on the details of the plan and look forward to the Senate's consideration of the legislation that will implement the agreement. The civil nuclear agreement with India is important for a number of reasons, ranging from improving global nonproliferation efforts to lessening India's demand on fossil fuels. I would like to emphasize that India and the United States have common interests in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials. Indeed, India has repeatedly made the hard decision to stand with the United States in seeking a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. However, it would be a mistake to confine the significance of the President's mission to India to nuclear issues. India is not only the world's largest democracy but a rapidly growing consumer market for American goods and services. Unlike some other developing economies, India's growth is not confined to heavy industry geared for the export market. Because India's economic dynamo is being driven from the bottom up, satisfying the needs of a rising middle class points to a balanced, healthy commercial relationship with the United States. President Bush's visit to India is an opportunity to advance our partnership across the full range of issues: expanded cooperation on economic growth and development; mutual commercial opportunities, combating international terrorism; and a full field of cooperation on space, agriculture, energy and the environment, and high technology. I wish him the greatest success in all of these areas.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Ms. Burlingame writes: A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about ``killing'' or ``playing chicken'' with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us. She continues: The Senate will soon convene hearings on renewal of the Patriot Act-- And indeed we had those hearings-- and the NSA terrorist surveillance program. A minority of Senators want to gamble with American lives and ``fix'' national security laws which they can't show are broken. They seek to eliminate or weaken anti-terrorism measures which take into account that the Cold War in its slow-moving, analog world of landlines and stationary targets is gone. The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high-velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology. After four-and-a- half years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we're safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly FISA wall in the first place. What if they, like those lawyers and judges, are simply wrong? Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to ``question authority''--even when it is coming to our rescue--then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. . . .More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate George Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but rather whole populations. She concludes: The public has listened to years of stinging revelations detailing how the government tied its own hands in stopping the devastating attacks of September 11. It is an irresponsible violation of the public trust for members of Congress to weaken the Patriot Act or jeopardize the NSA terrorist surveillance program because of the same illusory theories that cost us so dearly before, or worse, for rank partisan advantage. If they do, and our country sustains yet another catastrophic attack that these antiterrorism tools could have prevented, the phrase ``connect the dots'' will resonate again--but this time it will refer to the trail of innocent American blood which leads directly to the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues to heed the words of Ms. Burlingame. And today I join my voice with hers and the millions of Americans who are calling for us to do our duty and to do our utmost to protect this country and the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From opinionjournal.com, Jan. 30, 2006] Our Right to Security (By Debra Burlingame) One of the most excruciating images of the September 11 attacks is the sight of a man who was trapped in one of the World Trade Center towers. Stripped of his suit jacket and tie and hanging on to what appears to be his office curtains, he is seen trying to lower himself outside a window to the floor immediately below. Frantically kicking his legs in an effort to find a purchase, he loses his grip, and falls. That horrific scene and thousands more were the images that awakened a sleeping nation on that long, brutal morning. Instead of overwhelming fear or paralyzing self-doubt, the attacks were met with defiance, unity and a sense of moral purpose. Following the heroic example of ordinary citizens who put their fellow human beings and the public good ahead of themselves, the country's leaders cast aside politics and personal ambition and enacted the USA Patriot Act just 45 days later. A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about ``killing'' or ``playing chicken'' with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us. Critics contend that the Patriot Act was rushed into law in a moment of panic. The truth is, the policies and guidelines it corrected had a long, troubled history and everybody who had to deal with them knew it. The ``wall'' was a tortuous set of rules promulgated by Justice Department lawyers in 1995 and imagined into law by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Conceived as an added protection for civil liberties provisions already built into the statute, it was the wall and its real-world ramifications that hardened the failure-to-share culture between agencies, allowing early information about 9/11 hijackers Khalid al- Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to fall through the cracks. More perversely, even after the significance of these terrorists and their presence in the country was known by the FBI's intelligence division, the wall prevented it from talking to its own criminal division in order to hunt them down. Furthermore, it was the impenetrable FISA guidelines and fear of provoking the FISA court's wrath if they were transgressed that discouraged risk-averse FBI supervisors from applying for a FISA search warrant in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. The search, finally conducted on the afternoon of 9/11, produced names and phone numbers of people in the thick of the 9/11 plot, so many fertile clues that investigators believe that at least one airplane, if not all four, could have been saved. In 2002, FISA's appellate level Court of Review examined the entire statutory scheme for issuing warrants in national security investigations and declared the ``wall'' a nonsensical piece of legal overkill, based neither on express statutory language nor reasonable interpretation of the FISA statute. The lower court's attempt to micromanage the execution of national security warrants was deemed an assertion of authority which neither Congress or the Constitution granted it. In other words, those lawyers and judges who created, implemented and so assiduously enforced the FISA guidelines were wrong and the American people paid dearly for it. Despite this history, some members of Congress contend that this process-heavy court is agile enough to rule on quickly needed National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance warrants. This is a dubious claim. Getting a FISA warrant requires a multistep review involving several lawyers at different offices within the Department of Justice. It can take days, weeks, even months if there is a legal dispute between the principals. ``Emergency'' 72-hour intercepts require sign-offs by NSA lawyers and preapproval by the attorney general before surveillance can be initiated. Clearly, this is not conducive to what Gen. Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence, calls ``hot pursuit'' of al Qaeda conversations. The Senate will soon convene hearings on renewal of the Patriot Act and the NSA terrorist surveillance program. A minority of senators want to gamble with American lives and ``fix'' national security laws, which they can't show are broken. They seek to eliminate or weaken anti-terrorism measures which take into account that the Cold War and its slow-moving, analog world of landlines and stationary targets is gone. The threat we face today is a completely new paradigm of global terrorist networks operating in a high- velocity digital age using the Web and fiber-optic technology. After four-and-a-half years without another terrorist attack, these senators think we're safe enough to cave in to the same civil liberties lobby that supported that deadly FISA wall in the first place. What if they, like those lawyers and judges, are simply wrong? Meanwhile, the media, mouthing phrases like ``Article II authority,'' ``separation of powers'' and ``right to privacy,'' are presenting the issues as if politics have nothing to do with what is driving the subject matter and its coverage. They want us to forget four years of relentless ``connect-the-dots'' reporting about the missed chances that ``could have prevented 9/11.'' They have discounted the relevance of references to the two 9/11 hijackers who lived in San Diego. But not too long ago, the media itself reported that phone records revealed that five or six of the hijackers made extensive calls overseas. NBC News aired an ``exclusive'' story in 2004 that dramatically recounted how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda ``switchboard'' inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, ``The NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying.'' Back then, the NBC script didn't describe it as ``spying on Americans.'' Instead, it was called one of the ``missed opportunities that could have saved 3,000 lives.'' Another example of opportunistic coverage concerns the Patriot Act's ``library provision.'' News reports have given plenty of ink and airtime to the ACLU's unsupported claims that the government has abused this important records provision. But how many Americans know that several of the hijackers repeatedly accessed computers at public libraries in New Jersey and Florida, using personal Internet accounts to carry out the conspiracy? Al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi logged on four times at a college library in New Jersey where they purchased airline tickets for AA 77 and later confirmed their reservations on Aug. 30. In light of this, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Justice Department has the time, resources or interest in ``investigating the reading habits of law abiding citizens.'' We now have the ability to put remote control cameras on the surface of Mars. Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil- liberties hard-liners is to ``question authority''--even when it is coming to our rescue--then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust. More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate George Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities. Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations. Three weeks before 9/11, an FBI agent with the bin Laden case squad in New York learned that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in this country. He pleaded with the national security gatekeepers in Washington to launch a nationwide manhunt and was summarily told to stand down. When the FISA Court of Review tore down the wall in 2002, it included in its ruling the agent's Aug. 29, 2001, email to FBI headquarters: ``Whatever has happened to this--someday someone will die--and wall or not--the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let's hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, [bin Laden], is getting the most `protection.' '' The public has listened to years of stinging revelations detailing how the government tied its own hands in stopping the devastating attacks of September 11. It is an irresponsible violation of the public trust for members of Congress to weaken the Patriot Act or jeopardize the NSA terrorist surveillance program because of the same illusory theories that cost us so dearly before, or worse, for rank partisan advantage. If they do, and our country sustains yet another catastrophic attack that these antiterrorism tools could have prevented, the phrase ``connect the dots'' will resonate again--but this time it will refer to the trail of innocent American blood which leads directly to the Senate floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the USA PATRIOT Act. As you know, the Senate has recently agreed to another temporary extension of this act. We have twice since December been in a position of having to offer, instead of permanent reauthorization, a temporary fix. Yet at a time when so many in this body are continuing to talk about security, this one piece of legislation, in my humble opinion, has been more important in terms of protecting the security of the United States than anything else we have done since September 11. This critical law, which, of course, provides law enforcement agencies with the vital tools necessary to fight and win the war on terror, should not be allowed to expire. I, frankly, am at a loss to explain why we are spending so much time trying to get to final closure on this legislation when the merits of the legislation seem to be so obvious--primarily by providing tools to law enforcement and intelligence agencies of this country, tools that are already in broad use in other aspects of law enforcement investigations. Unfortunately, it seems to me that there has been a certain amount of hysteria whipped up over this to cause people to have unreasonable fear and concern about civil liberties, when, in fact, the balance between security and civil liberties has been struck in an entirely appropriate way in this legislation. We must make it a top priority of the Senate to reauthorize this legislation as soon as possible, as it would be unconscionable to compromise the safety of the American people and undermine the progress we have made since 9/11 and delay critical investigations. An agreement reached in December between the House and Senate conferees preserved the provisions of this act which have made America safer since 9/11 while increasing congressional and judicial oversight, which should alleviate the concerns of those who believe the law enforcement tools somehow endanger civil liberties. And even recently, the White House and leaders of the House and Senate have made additional concessions in an attempt to reach a final agreement to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, it seems that there are a few who are continuing in their effort to stop reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, insisting on imposing their will on a bipartisan majority of the Senate, the House, and the President of the United States. The handful of diehards who continue to oppose this legislation are simply unwilling to accept the compromise that has been agreed to by both Houses of Congress, despite efforts from all quarters to try to accommodate reasonable concerns. Most reasonable people would agree that it is a practical impossibility for each legislator to get every single thing they want out of any particular piece of legislation, but that doesn't mean the American people should be left with nothing and be stripped bare of the protections the PATRIOT Act has been so effective at delivering. The art of compromise is, at times, a bitter pill, particularly when matters of such profound consequence as our national security and waging the war on terror hang in the balance. I personally supported leaving sections 215, 213, and other provisions of the PATRIOT Act alone. I also wanted to add administrative subpoenas to the PATRIOT Act and to add judicial review for national security letters. I also feel very strongly about ensuring that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations with regard to risk-based funding for homeland security grant moneys are implemented and personally pushed for such a provision during these negotiations. Senator Specter made it clear to me that he would try to seek consensus but that my demands would not be met in all regards. While I did not get everything I wanted and while I believe what I wanted was in the best interests of my country, I support this bill. I am simply unwilling to return the American people to the pre-9/11 law enforcement tools which so poorly served our national interests at that time. And while this legislation is not perfect in every regard, it represents what I believe are the best efforts of the Congress to arrive at an acceptable compromise. The national security has been well served by the PATRIOT Act since its original passage in a way that is both consistent with our national values and the protection of civil liberties. The war on terror must be waged in a manner consistent with American values and American principles. The hysteria over this legislation is simply hard for me to understand. The fact that people in too many instances have not focused on the hard-fought attempts to balance our security and civil liberty concerns is, I believe, a disservice to the American people. This debate does not concern a typical policy disagreement about taxes or other issues; in fact, the stakes are much higher. The PATRIOT Act was enacted in 2001 by an overwhelming bipartisan margin--98 to 1 in the Senate and 357 to 66 in the House. At that time, Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed that this legislation struck a wise and careful balance between national security and civil liberties. The law, to date, has had a successful track record. In addition to helping prevent any terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11 and playing such a critical role in dismantling several terrorist cells within the United States, the Department of Justice inspector general has consistently found no systemic abuses of any of the act's provisions. I support these recent concessions that have made this bill what it is today--and one in particular. Before these changes, a recipient of a 215 order seemingly could challenge the nondisclosure obligation at any time. The new revisions make clear that a recipient cannot challenge this requirement for 1 year, and it ensures that the conclusive presumption applies to these orders as well--something that was not clear before reaching this compromise agreement. The remaining changes seemed to me to be quite sensible; that is, recipients of a 215 order or a national security letter do not have to tell the FBI that they have or will consult an attorney or that a library is not an electronic or wire communications provider unless, of course, they happen to be such a provider. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, we know there were barriers that seriously hindered information sharing among law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies, and those barriers imperiled our Nation. This was described by Patrick Fitzgerald in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I quote: I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in early 1996. The team--prosecutors and FBI agents assigned to the criminal case--had access to a number of sources. We could talk to citizens. We could talk to local police officers. We could talk to foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. We could talk to foreign citizens. And we did all of those things as often as we could. We could even talk to al-Qaida members--and we did. We actually called several members and associates of al-Qaida to testify before a grand jury in New York. And we even debriefed al-Qaida members overseas who agreed to become cooperating witnesses. But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel intelligence investigation of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. We could not learn what information they had gathered. That was the wall. I am confident I am not the only one who is astounded at that statement. Consider our progress in the war on terror since the PATRIOT Act's enactment: Information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement personnel has been critical in dismantling terrorist operations, including the Portland Seven in Oregon, as well as a terrorist cell in Lackawanna, NY. It has helped prosecute several people involved in an al-Qaida drugs- for-weapons scheme in San Diego, two of whom have already pleaded guilty. Furthermore, nine associates of an al-Qaida-associated Northern Virginia violent extremist group were convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 4 years to life. Two Yemeni citizens have been charged and convicted for conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida and Hamas. An individual has been convicted of perjury and illegally acting as an agent of the former Government of Iraq by a jury in January of 2004. And the executive director of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation, who has had a longstanding relationship with Osama bin Laden, pleaded guilty to racketeering and furthermore admitted that he diverted thousands of dollars from his charity organization to support Islamic militant groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. These tools simply must remain available to those on the front lines who continue to wage the war on terror. The very safety of our Nation depends on it. I would like to share with my colleagues--and perhaps some of them have seen this op-ed piece--a piece written by Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles F. ``Chic'' Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This op-ed was originally published in the Wall Street Journal, and I believe it articulates precisely why this legislation must be reauthorized without delay. I will read an excerpt, and I ask unanimous consent that the complete op-ed be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad to hear our new colleague from New Jersey talking about our national security, and certainly this is one subject which always concerns us. It is the primary role of our National Government to provide for the security of the American people. I hope that in the debate, though, about the control of our ports, we don't operate on the basis of looking for political advantage but, rather, we take a calm and deliberate review of the facts. I heard this morning, in the Armed Services Committee, from the Director of National Intelligence, who said that after a review of this transaction, it was his opinion, as the lead Government official for the intelligence community in our Nation, that any risk in this transaction was low. Certainly, that was useful information to have, and I anticipate that we will continue to hear more as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee continues to look into this transaction, and I trust we will do our due diligence during this 45-day review period. But I hope we don't make this a political football. I hope we don't paint this with such a broad brush that we consider any Arab nation our enemy when, in fact, this Nation has been an ally in the global war on terror. I hope we will make our judgments based on behavior and not where someone comes from or their ethnicity or other origins because, of course, fanning the flames of prejudice based upon those sorts of considerations would be inappropriate entirely.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad to hear our new colleague from New Jersey talking about our national security, and certainly this is one subject which always concerns us. It is the primary role of our National Government to provide for the security of the American people. I hope that in the debate, though, about the control of our ports, we don't operate on the basis of looking for political advantage but, rather, we take a calm and deliberate review of the facts. I heard this morning, in the Armed Services Committee, from the Director of National Intelligence, who said that after a review of this transaction, it was his opinion, as the lead Government official for the intelligence community in our Nation, that any risk in this transaction was low. Certainly, that was useful information to have, and I anticipate that we will continue to hear more as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee continues to look into this transaction, and I trust we will do our due diligence during this 45-day review period. But I hope we don't make this a political football. I hope we don't paint this with such a broad brush that we consider any Arab nation our enemy when, in fact, this Nation has been an ally in the global war on terror. I hope we will make our judgments based on behavior and not where someone comes from or their ethnicity or other origins because, of course, fanning the flames of prejudice based upon those sorts of considerations would be inappropriate entirely.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for all amendments to S. 2271 occur at 12 noon today.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining Republican time for morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2292, a bill to provide rent relief to the Federa1 judiciary. Our Federal judges and court administrators have expressed serious concerns about the rental charges assessed by the General Services Administration, GSA, in courthouses and other space occupied by the courts around the country. If enacted, this legislation would require the administrator of general services to charge the judicial branch no more rent than that which represents the actual costs of operating and maintaining its facilities. Specifically, it prohibits the General Services Administration from including amounts for capital costs, real estate taxes, except for those taxes actually paid by the administrator of general services to lessors, or administrative fees in rental charges. The current budgetary problems caused by the judiciary's rental payments must be addressed. In fiscal terms, since 1986, the Federal Courts' rental payments to GSA have increased from $133 million to $912 million. The percentage of the judiciary's operating budget devoted to rent payments has escalated sharply from 15.7 percent in 1986 to about 22 percent in 2004. During this same time, the share of the Federal budget provided to the judiciary has dwindled as Congress has sought to tackle our Nation's increasing budget deficit. Even as overall resources available to the judiciary dwindle, analysts project that rental payments will reach approximately $1.2 billion by 2009, which will be an estimated 25 percent of the judiciary's annual operating budget. I believe that the courts are doing everything they possibly can to contain their costs without adversely affecting the administration of justice. The Federal judiciary has imposed a 24-month moratorium on the construction of any new courthouses and has stopped planning for many projects. If rent relief is not granted to the judiciary, more personnel cuts will be required in the near future, including the loss of another 4,000 jobs over the next 4 years. In my view, this constitutes a near crisis in the Federal judiciary. Space and appropriate personnel play a significant role in our judicial system. The ready availability of appropriate courtrooms, jury deliberation and assembly rooms, and workspace for support staff all facilitate the administration of justice. Appropriate space for drug testing and monitoring of persons under supervision by Federal probation officers is of the utmost importance. It is critical that the courts have all the tools they need to carry out their mission. Providing this relief to the judiciary will allow them to improve the administration of justice for all Americans. Additionally, serious building-related security problems in existing courthouses are also a key consideration. Courthouses should have secure passage for detainees to be transported, separating public passageways from these individuals. Unfortunately, this is not the case in many courthouses, including several courthouses in my home state of Texas. As an example, I recently wrote to Attorney General Gonzales to urge him to ensure that funding is granted to fix security concerns identified at the Midland Federal Courthouse as soon as possible. Affording the judiciary rent relief so they can devote more money to courthouse security is a good first step. Finally, I think it is important to point out that this bill addresses the unequal treatment generally afforded the lower Federal courts. Many of the buildings used by other agencies and branches of the Federal Government are exempt from rent. For example, the Department of Defense pays no rent to GSA on the Pentagon or on military bases. The Treasury Department, which once housed GSA, pays no rent on the main Treasury building or on its Mints. The Supreme Court-- unlike the lower Federal courts--pays no rent. Likewise, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and many other quasi-federal agencies do not pay rent to GSA. There is no rent paid on Federal prisons, embassies, NIH facilities, nuclear facilities, VA hospitals, EPA labs, or national parks and national forest facilities. Congress does not pay rent on the Capitol Building we're deliberating in today. Nor does Congress pay rent on the Senate or House office buildings or surrounding structures. Congress is charged rent by GSA only for a small amount of space for congressional State and district offices. The Federal judiciary-- specifically, the lower Federal courts--lack that same advantage. This bill takes a step towards granting the judiciary equal treatment. It is important that all who enter our Nation's courts are ensured fair and equitable treatment. This bill is a critical component in achieving this goal. I will work with Senator Specter and the other co- sponsors to get this bill moving through the judiciary committee as soon as possible.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in a call for asbestos reform. No other issue more readily highlights the toll that excessive litigation has placed on our society and, even more poignantly, on the lives of those who are dying with asbestos-related disease who are left with inadequate legal recourse and compensation by virtue of the massive waive of litigation, primarily by those who are not sick and who suffer no impairment as a result of their exposure to asbestos. Make no mistake about it: Today we are not just talking about liability reform, we are talking about scandal reform. The legislation before us represents a genuine effort--I dare say, a Herculean effort--by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member and others who have worked together with them to try to bring us to where we are today; that is, with a good-faith proposal to address this complex problem. No one has worked harder or driven the members of the Judiciary Committee harder than our chairman, Senator Specter. He has tried hard to reach consensus among so many disparate parties and on so many different complicated issues. The question before us is whether a national trust fund of the magnitude contemplated is the appropriate method to ensure victims will be compensated fairly and efficiently and that the trust fund can reasonably expect to remain solvent and viable. After countless hours of reviewing and studying the options and hours of working with my colleagues to achieve reform, I unfortunately conclude that in its current form and with its current significant weaknesses, it is not. Rather, I believe the likelihood is far greater that the trust fund will sooner, rather than later, prove unsustainable and return us to the same broken tort system, then leaving thousands of Americans in the wake of a failed Government program, wondering where to go and why they must now go back to court. This simply cannot be the outcome. I offer an alternative solution, a simple solution that has been tested in States around the country and a solution that would target the key causes of the asbestos liability crisis. I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of 14 cosponsors: Senators Coburn, Graham, Thune, Ensign, Inhofe, Martinez, Crapo, Bennett, Smith, Craig, Sununu, DeMint, Thomas, and Bunning. We are working closely with our colleagues on the Democratic side who are looking for an alternative solution. I do believe, before the close of business today, we will have bipartisan cosponsorship of this amendment. We are looking for a solution that provides a simple but effective approach and one that establishes a national floor with respect to the medical criteria required to bring a claim into court, one which tolls the statute of limitation to ensure that victims get their day in court and virtually eliminates the likelihood of fraud in the medical screening industry, which has proven to be a corrupt cottage industry. In short, that is basically what this amendment would do. It is about 50 pages, not 400 pages. It requires no complicated administrative scheme, no complex funding formulas that require a Ph.D. in economics to understand. There are no complex constitutional questions, no litigation that will arise over the constitutionality of the proposal, and no real cost to the American taxpayer or, for that matter, to the businesses that would otherwise have to contribute to this $140 billion trust fund. There is no question about favoring one constituency differently than another constituency. Most importantly, I am confident that our solution is a system more likely to ensure that those individuals who are truly sick from exposure to asbestos will receive fair and efficient adjudication of their claims against those who were actually responsible for their injuries. This proposal is embraced by such a diverse group as the American Bar Association that studied it. You can imagine getting lawyers to agree, with their divergent interests, on what solution to this problem would likely work best and be the least disruptive to our civil justice system. They believe this is it. Indeed, our legislation would target directly the well-documented causes of the asbestos liability scandal plaguing our civil justice system. The oft-quoted RAND Corporation, in its research, has discovered: Almost all the growth in the asbestos caseload can be attributed to the growth in the number of nonmalignant claims which includes claims from people with little or no functional impairment. In other words, these are people who are not sick. Those are the main claimants today under the asbestos liability system. Their research reveals that up to 90 percent of the plaintiffs filing claims have no physical impairment, but they have clogged our courts and delayed justice for those who are sick with asbestos disease. These claims brought by unimpaired plaintiffs often are generated through mass screenings and supported by questionable medical evidence, backed by doctors who do not claim to have a doctor-patient relationship but who will screen thousands of x-rays and who, not surprisingly, more often than not, overwhelmingly find some evidence of asbestos-related disease. When those same x-rays are given a second opinion by someone without a vested interested in finding asbestos-related disease, only a minute fraction actually are confirmed. So this is a cottage industry of fraudulent claims which has further contributed to the broken system we have today. Under the status quo, forum shopping is rampant. For example, between 1998 and 2000, five States captured 66 percent of the filings; 66 percent of the asbestos lawsuits were filed in just five States because of rampant forum shopping. They were the States of Texas--my State-- Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia. It is not surprising that each of these States has now enacted or is seriously considering enacting asbestos liability reform at the State level. The good news is, as the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, pointed out, these State reforms appear to be working. They are working because they rightfully focus on the causes. So, too, should a national solution. Doctors and medical providers take the Hippocratic oath which says: First, do no harm. We in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, have a Hippocratic responsibility to, first, do no harm in the legislation we pass. Notwithstanding the Herculean efforts undertaken by the chairman and the Judiciary Committee, I believe we cannot honestly take that oath and represent to the American people that we have done no harm in the proposal currently before us. We need an alternative which we have offered with this amendment. The past several years have witnessed encouraging signs from States known to have been havens of the worst of the asbestos litigation abuses. As I mentioned, States such as Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, Florida, and Georgia are taking action. During the time that we have debated in the Nation's Capitol what to do, the States have acted. Some States have created special dockets for unimpaired claimants, allowing only those who are sick to proceed to trial. It makes sense. The modest venue reforms and limits on consolidation have been adopted, and at least 4 States, including, last year, Texas, have enacted objective medical criteria. The Texas bill, in the context of asbestos-related claims, allows claimants who are actually impaired to pursue their claims in the judicial system and merely defers the claims of those who are exposed but not impaired. It does this by establishing medical criteria that a claimant must meet to demonstrate some impairment before proceeding with the lawsuit. The good news for these individuals who are not impaired and have been exposed, and for the system generally, is the vast majority of them never will get sick. Under the perverse limitations required by the statute of limitations that require you to file a lawsuit or risk being forever barred under the current system, they must file now, thus contributing to the huge clog of our court system and the bankruptcies that have racked up seemingly one after another. These State efforts are, in fact, working. While it is difficult to assess the nationwide impact in the short time they have been implemented, anecdotal evidence indicates there has been a real impact. For example, one Texas tort reform observer, in 2006, said this: We are still waiting on more definitive figures, but rough estimate at this point--filings of new claimants in Texas have dropped in excess of 50 percent since the State bill passed in July. Based on the terms of the act, the time has just run for claimants to file medicals to avoid the [multi district litigation in Federal Court]. The effect will be that at least 75 percent of pending claims will be dismissed or abated. Thousands of claims from unimpaired claimants have been rendered dormant and will not proceed. Perhaps the most important point is the ones that justifiably should proceed because they have real manifestations of asbestos-related disease will have priority, will have their day in court, and will not be left with pennies on the dollar, which many are today because of the bankruptcies that have been created by this flood of litigation. One example of the claims history of a company in Texas--we will call it ``company A'' because we don't want to necessarily point out or talk about a particular company, but company A, between 1980 and 1996, had 134,000 new claims. In 1987, they had 25,000. You can see the rest of the numbers. The height of their claims experience was in 2001, when they had 56,000 claims. In 2005, after this legislation passed in Texas imposing strict medical criteria, creating a dormant docket for those who were exposed but not impaired, while letting those who are sick go to court, only 13,272 claimants came forward. There has been a 77-percent decline in new filings over the last 5 years. This is due largely to the legislation and fair enforcement of the law in States such as Florida, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, and Illinois. Company B, in Mississippi, has experienced a 90-percent decrease in claims since their legislation was enacted. The point is, some might say why don't we leave this up to the States? Unfortunately, we have seen claims migrate to States that don't have similar reform legislation, thus mandating, in my opinion, a national solution. That is what this amendment proposes. Company C reports a significant decrease in new litigation filings since September 1, 2005. This is in Texas. The mix of the claims is important because there have been zero, none, malignancy cases, and 10 mesothelioma claims--the most pernicious cancers that are caused by asbestos exposure. In terms of the other types of claims, they have dropped precipitously. So 34 new filings in 5 months, all malignancy cases, which can be adjudicated in court based upon their respective merits. We will go through a couple more here. Company D, in 2003, experienced 32,444 filings. In 2004, that number dropped to 5,000--from 32,000 to 5,000, roughly. In 2005, it dropped to 2,415, with 6,791 dismissals. As we can see, there have been significant declines in the number of claims, making way for people who truly are sick to have their day in court, while those who have been exposed but are unimpaired and not sick can preserve their claims for a later date, if and when they happen to get sick. The national solution we have crafted is designed to ensure that those who truly are sick get their day in court, as I said. It establishes specific medical criteria to be used to distinguish claims between people who are physically impaired due to exposure to asbestos and the claims of people who are not experiencing any physical problems. This legislation will prioritize the claims of the truly sick through the use of reasonable, objective medical criteria. It requires physical impairment. It requires supporting documentation to verify that the claimant can demonstrate impairment based on reasonable and objective medical criteria. It requires that the diagnosing physician actually have a doctor-patient relationship with the claimant, avoiding the millions in this cottage industry doing fraudulent screenings, which has generated problems for the current system. It allows the claimant who acquires a nonmalignant condition to pursue a separate recovery if the person later develops an asbestos-related cancer. I could go on, but I think it is clear from not only the simplicity of this approach, and due to the fact that it has broadly been embraced among organizations such as the ABA, which has both defense lawyers and plaintiff's lawyers and represents the legal profession generally, it is their considered judgment that this represents a reasonable and, in fact, a better solution to our current problem. It observes the ``Hippocratic oath'' that I submit should apply to legislation as much as it should to the practice of medicine, that it does no harm to the current system. In fact, it is narrowly focused on the causes of the problems that confront our system today. The Federal trust fund may well be a fine solution to the current problem but only if structured appropriately and only if we can reasonably expect that it will proceed. I am sorry to say that S. 852, as drafted, cannot, in my opinion, succeed. It would create an unsustainable Federal entitlement, with costs that would likely far exceed the $140 billion price tag presently contemplated. Enacting this legislation without significant modification would undermine recent State reforms and would create at least as many problems as it would solve. I sincerely believe this alternative amendment my colleagues and I have offered today is the best hope we have of accomplishing the goal that I believe all of us operating in good faith share, and that is ensuring prompt payment for victims and allowing those exposed but not sick to have their day in court if and when they do become sick. I invite all of my colleagues to join the 14 of us who are cosponsors to this amendment. I predict by the close of business today we will have a bipartisan amendment. We are continuing to reach out to our colleagues in the Senate, and I know this is a complex issue and many on the Judiciary Committee have spent years trying to get us to where we are today. Frankly, I applaud their efforts, as I have the leadership of our chairman. I believe, and the cosponsors of this amendment believe, this is the best approach; that is, to pass this amendment and send it to the House of Representatives so we can provide a simple and effective solution to the current asbestos scandal. Amendment No. 2749 to Amendment No. 2748

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.