John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to one of the greatest legal minds of our day: Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist, who passed away late Saturday night. His death is a tremendous loss to our entire Nation. I join my fellow Americans in both mourning his passing and honoring his profound contribution to our country. Chief Justice Rehnquist faithfully served the American people on their Supreme Court for 33 years. Without question, our country owes him a debt of great gratitude. The individual who occupies the center seat on the Supreme Court is not the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but the Chief Justice of the United States--the one person who embodies our national commitment to constitutional democracy and to the rule of law. Throughout his life, William Hubbs Rehnquist revered the Supreme Court and the rule of law as few people have--not only as our Nation's Chief Justice for 19 years, as Associate Justice for 14 years, and as a high Court law clerk, but also a student and a scholar of the Supreme Court. Rehnquist has written numerous books on legal history and the Supreme Court-- including: The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is; Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson; All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime; and Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876. William Hubbs Rehnquist was born October 1, 1924, in Milwaukee, WI. He entered the U.S. Army Air Force and served in World War II from 1943 to 1946. Rehnquist obtained his undergraduate degree from Stanford University and two master's degrees from Stanford and Harvard Universities. He received his law degree from Stanford, graduating first in his class. Rehnquist served as a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, then practiced law in Phoenix, Arizona. President Richard Nixon appointed Rehnquist to serve, first as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, and then as Associate Justice in 1972. President Ronald Reagan nominated him Chief Justice in 1986. The Supreme Court enjoyed renewed admiration under Rehnquist's leadership. Guided by Rehnquist's steady hand, the United States Senate weathered one of the most difficult and controversial moments in our nation's modern history--the impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. president. Rehnquist believed that the best judiciary was a restrained judiciary--one that would adhere to the letter of the law--not to the personal policy preferences of its members. Two areas in particular stand out in my mind as perhaps the most lasting examples of this legacy. The Rehnquist Court may perhaps best be remembered for the restoration of common sense to our criminal justice system. Many Americans perhaps do not remember the days of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. The 16 years under Warren, from 1953 to 1969, were nothing short of a heyday for criminals in America. Many Americans probably are familiar with the notion of letting a criminal off on the basis of a ``technicality.'' This notion originated in the years of the Warren Court. The Supreme Court let countless criminals go free because police officers did not say precisely what the Court wanted them to say when they arrested criminals, or because warrants did not say precisely what the Court wanted them to say when the police searched criminals. It is no exaggeration to assert that, at that time, the rights of criminals were placed before the rights of victims--not to mention before the wellbeing of society in general. This period ended when President Reagan elevated William Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Chief Justice Rehnquist did his level best to return our Constitution to its original understanding, an understanding that gives law enforcement officials the freedom they need to protect society from criminals. Over the last decade, we have witnessed an historic decline in violent crime all across America. This is due, in no small part, to the efforts of Chief Justice Rehnquist. The second area, one equally, if not more important than the first, was the effort to restore the federal-state partnership known as ``federalism'' envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers believed that States and the Federal Government should be equal partners. Indeed, it was the view of our Founding Fathers that the Federal Government should have limited and enumerated powers, and, in fact, the primary authority to legislate should be left to State governments. I know this might come as a surprise to some, but not all wisdom emanates from Washington DC. State governments, after all, are closer to the people than the Federal Government is. Our Founding Fathers realized this fact. Unfortunately, many Supreme Court Justices did not. Over the years, many of these Justices had interpreted the Constitution to give the Federal Government unlimited powers. These Justices characterized everything the Federal Government wanted to do as a regulation of ``interstate commerce.'' This was a fiction, of course, but over the years the Federal Government grew bigger and more powerful, the State governments grew smaller and less powerful, and the American people became less free. Chief Justice Rehnquist did his part to stem this tide. He tried to stand for our Constitution and the founding vision that not everything should be left to the Federal Government. Although this project is still unfinished, Chief Justice Rehnquist made impressive strides, and there is no question that our Nation is better off today for his efforts. Chief Justice Rehnquist's passing also reminds us that Supreme Court Justices are, after all, human beings--and that they should be treated with civility and respect, not as political pawns. Thus, perhaps the best way that we in the Senate might pay tribute to Chief Justice Rehnquist's legacy is to put partisanship aside in the judicial confirmation process. President Bush has now fittingly nominated one of Rehnquist's former law clerks, Judge John Roberts, to replace him as Chief Justice. We should do the right thing by Chief Justice Rehnquist and vote on Judge Roberts's nomination as expeditiously as possible--and without some of the political posturing that has greeted other well-qualified nominees. My thoughts and prayers are with Chief Justice's Rehnquist's family. The Nation suffered a profound loss on Saturday night. I am confident, however, that we in the Senate will do our part to proceed in a manner that honors the memory of our late Chief Justice and in a manner that would make him proud.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I, too, rise in an expression of sympathy to the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to convey my deep gratitude to the many people who are working in ongoing relief efforts. As we gather here today, thousands of people throughout the South are struggling to recover from one of this Nation's greatest natural disasters. Really, if you think about it, it is a disaster that continues to unfold. With the public health issues, the sustenance-of- human-life issues, the needs that need to be met on a daily basis, this disaster, the full extent of it, is not yet even known. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast on Monday, August 29, leaving in its wake destruction and devastation. The loss of life is incalculable at this time. The city of New Orleans lies in ruin, and residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida are struggling today to meet their most basic needs--shelter, food, clean water, and medical care. This Congress has appropriated, on an emergency basis, more than $10 billion to help meet the most immediate needs of these victims of this disaster. But, obviously, there is more that needs to be done. Thousands of Americans now face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives. I am proud to report the people of my State of Texas are doing their part, welcoming literally almost a quarter of a million people with open arms. While some Texans are providing resources to meet evacuees' immediate needs, others are facilitating longer term needs for this large and displaced population. State and local government agencies are coordinating efforts on the ground and countless volunteers--from churches, synagogues, mosques, other faith-based organizations, and just good hearted people--are providing all of the help they can on a round-the-clock basis to ensure our neighbors' needs are being met. On the ground, nearly 2,000 soldiers and airmen from the Texas Air National Guard are continuing to provide assistance with Hurricane Katrina relief and security efforts. An additional 350 members of the Texas State Guard have also joined them. Texas National Guard aviation has moved more than 6,650 people, distributed 20,000 meals, and almost 40,000 bottles of water, and supplied more than a million pounds of material to help repair the breach in New Orleans' levees. Even as Texas leaders have notified FEMA and Louisiana officials that we are nearing capacity, people across the State continue to open their homes to their neighbors in need and to reach out to help them in any way they can. In the shelters, one of the most important ongoing efforts is to locate a place for displaced residents to actually live on a temporary basis. The Red Cross in Dallas is doing everything it can to register evacuees or those who have been victimized by Katrina. This will help facilitate the reuniting of these victims with their families and loved ones. This effort is being duplicated at all other shelters. The city of Fort Worth and Tarrant County have partnered to provide the best possible care for victims. The local government has taken full responsibility for this situation and is managing these shelters in an efficient and professional manner. In Houston, 20,000 people are being housed and cared for at the Astrodome. Another 4,000 are being sheltered at the Reliant Center. And 3,000 more are being housed at the George R. Brown Convention Center. It is estimated that up to 100,000 more are in hotels and shelters throughout the greater Houston area, with around 200,000 to 250,000 victims of Katrina in Texas. Mr. President, 20,000 volunteers in Houston alone have been working to accommodate the enormous manpower requirements to put all of these efforts in place. A lot of credit is due not only at the highest levels of State government, to Governor Perry and his team, but also to local leaders such as Harris County Judge Robert Eckels and Mayor Bill White of Houston who have done an excellent job working to mobilize the major county and city efforts to offer immediate shelter to these victims. Both the judge and the mayor have been going to Fortune 500 companies in the greater Houston area to ask for immediate help and have been met with generous offers of assistance. Shelter volunteers are working, also, to make sure the medical needs of these evacuees are being met. Dallas County Health and Human Services has stated that physicians are taking extra precautions to prevent the outbreak of communicable diseases at the shelters. The Mental Health and Mental Retardation Department has deployed social workers and psychiatrists to shelters to help deal with the mental trauma associated with this disaster. But in addition to the immediate needs for food, clothing, water, and medical care, there are long-term needs that need to be addressed as well. We must also ensure that these long-term needs are met by this same team effort of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as nongovernmental and faith-based organizations. Federal agencies have stepped up and have given information to evacuees on how to receive Social Security and other Government benefits while they are temporarily displaced. The Post Office has stopped mail according to ZIP Codes so mail will not be lost and can ultimately be delivered. Local district clerks have given information regarding how to apply for child support payments. And I recently was in communication with district clerk Charles Bacarisse of Harris County, who is working with attorney general Gregg Abbott to make sure child support payments are delivered on time to those who are entitled to them. Congress is also considering waivers so the Department of Housing and Urban Development can give out vouchers for housing. My office has joined with the rest of the congressional delegation to facilitate the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ability to provide services and assisting HUD to provide housing as quickly as possible to such an enormous number of people. Likewise, communities have joined together, and many good people are personally even housing in their home those who have nowhere else to turn. So I am gratified, but not surprised, by the big heart of the people in the State of Texas toward those who are in need. We know there are stories that are heartwarming on a personal level as well as on a larger level as to the way people are responding, which is in a way that we would all hope that if the shoe were on the other foot we would respond. While we have heard there have been episodes of lawlessness, looting, and other acts of desperation, it is important to remember there have been innumerable acts of kindness from those expressing charity and goodwill which I believe truly embodies the American spirit and the Texas spirit. These are some of the stories on which I would like to close. I was told an expectant couple from Louisiana was so appreciative of the warm welcome they received when they arrived in Dallas that they named their newest arrival, their baby girl, ``Dallas,'' after our fine city. After a 23-hour drive to Texas, one woman gave birth to her new son and named him after the hospital where he was born in gratitude for the money, gift certificates, clothes, and other necessities that the hospital staff collected for her. Louisiana resident Bernell Royal was rescued from his rooftop with nothing more than a bag of clothes--no identification, no wallet, no personal documents or effects. He is now being housed at a shelter in Austin, TX. Although he believes everything he owned is now gone, he told one reporter: I feel like in Austin I've found a new sense of respect, dignity and honor. I would love to stay in Austin, get a job, and start a new life. We hope he will. In Duncanville, Darwin German II and his family wanted to help hurricane victims, so they decided to give away what they had--free apartments at the Candlelight Park Apartments. Move-in costs will be covered, as well as 4 months of free rent. Dallas school officials over the weekend prepared to enroll approximately 500 student evacuees who were expected to start school today. The Dallas Morning News reports that Melissa Farria said when her children were registered for school: These people are amazing. . . .When they were saying they were registering students, I couldn't believe it. And the University of Texas is likewise opening its doors to Texas students who were on their way to Louisiana universities. It has been reported that 134 undergraduates and 60 law students have now been enrolled at the University of Texas and will be able to continue their programs of study. The Dallas Morning News is offering free classified advertisements for businesses and individuals offering free goods or services to evacuees from areas struck by Hurricane Katrina. These are just some of the stories of goodwill and charity and big hearts that we found in response to this terrible disaster. I know the temptation is perhaps almost irresistible, particularly here in Congress, to point the finger of blame at mistakes made, plans that were not executed the way we hoped they might have been. Believe me, there will be plenty of time for that. But I believe right now it represents a distraction from the job we ought to be about, as exemplified by these wonderful Good Samaritans I have described this afternoon. We ought to be about making sure people have food, shelter, and clean water; that they have medical care; that their children are allowed to go to school; and that we help them get on with their lives and leave the blame game and the finger-pointing for later on. I know Congress and the Senate will undertake a series of hearings--and, in fact, this afternoon--looking at gasoline prices. We should and we will deal with that issue appropriately. We also ought to look at the mistakes that were made and things that could be done better. I am confident the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will, in due course, have hearings and make sure we learn from those mistakes and we do better next time. But I think more than anything else this is a time for Americans to pull together. I wanted to take a few minutes to express my gratitude to the big-hearted people of Texas for taking in these nearly quarter of a million evacuees from Hurricane Katrina who had nowhere else to turn and who were looking for the milk of human kindness, which they found in the great State of Texas. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the conferees who have been meeting over the last few weeks to complete this comprehensive energy legislation. In particular, I want to thank the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate committees for their leadership in guiding this highly complex and important legislation through the process. Congress has tried several times to approve a comprehensive energy bill. Under their wise guidance and counsel, I believe that we will be successful this time. It is critical that we provide the country with the resources and tools to meet our growing energy needs and this bill will go a long way in accomplishing that goal. There are many good and worthy provisions in this legislation. In broad terms, having a national energy policy will enable the country to more effectively utilize our resources to reduce our dependency on imported oil. It will enable us to diversify our sources of energy with renewable fuels, develop resources like nuclear power in the future and conduct research into hydrogen fuel cells. The bill recognizes that we need to develop ways to utilize one of our country's largest resources, centuries worth of coal deposits, and develop ways through research to burn it cleanly so it doesn't contribute to pollution and harm our environment. However, I must express my disappointment that many of the provisions dealing with MTBE were not ultimately included in the final bill. As a lawyer and a former judge, the issue of liability is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. That we are denying liability protection to MTBE producers is disturbing to me. When Congress set out to encourage clean air by passing the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and passed a particular fuel standard, Congress knew that MTBE would be widely used to satisfy the standard. As a result, manufacturers produced and marketed MTBE to satisfy the Congressional standard. Now, manufacturers face significant lawsuits solely because they produced a product that Congress encouraged them to produce. Manufacturers did not make mistakes in production, they did not cut comers in an attempt to increase profits, and they did not try to trick consumers. All they did was exactly what Congress wanted them to do. It is only fair that any fuel producer who responds to a congressional mandate should be protected against legal action based upon the use of that mandated product. No one should be penalized for obeying the law. I am disappointed that there was a failure to address this issue. Texas is proud of its heritage as an energy producing State. Texas will continue to play a vital role in providing for the Nation's energy needs. Even in light of my disappointments with the bill, I believe that this legislation provides strong leadership and guidance to address the critical energy needs of our country.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from Michigan and cosponsored by the Senator from Minnesota. While this amendment appears to be innocuous, it would actually gut the very underlying purpose of this legislation. Let me explain briefly. First, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit frivolous lawsuits from being brought against manufacturers or sellers of firearms, lawful products, but which result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. Now, the Senate has many people who have had a lot of experience in the legal profession, and any of us who have had any experience with civil litigation, particularly tort litigation, know that the scope of the discovery, the scope of the litigation is determined by what is pled actually by the person who brings the lawsuit, or the plaintiff. In my experience, and I am confident that it is generally true, in virtually every civil lawsuit where damages are sought, not only is there a pleading of ordinary negligence--or perhaps strict liability if it is a product or manufacturer--but in addition there is an allegation of gross negligence, which is what this amendment would except from the general prohibition against lawsuits against manufacturers of these lawful products for harm resulting from criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. It is clear to me that the litigation expense, the harassment of a lawful manufacturer of this product, would not be avoided. In fact, one of the very purposes of this legislation would be undermined if this amendment were agreed to. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as I do. The fact is, in America today, we are less competitive globally because of a variety of reasons, but it can be summarized this way: our tax policy, our regulatory policy, our lawsuit culture, the cost of health care, just to name four items. But the fact is, because of our litigation culture today in this country, we are less competitive with other countries around the world, and we are seeing the exodus of jobs in America because, simply stated, manufacturers and producers of other lawful goods can do it cheaper and more efficiently elsewhere. That is a threat to our economy and our prosperity that we enjoy in this country. This is actually true in the case of gun manufacturers. For example, one such manufacturer is located in the small town of Eagle Pass in my home State of Texas. A company by the name of Maverick Arms, Inc., assembles Maverick and Mossberg brand firearms there and is one of a group of companies that is in the fourth generation of family ownership that dates as far back as 1919. Maverick employs approximately 150 skilled workers in Eagle Pass, as well as supplying other work to other vendors. Maverick and its parent company, Mossberg, cannot withstand the continued onslaught of frivolous litigation against this manufacturer for merely doing what lawful manufacturers do--making a legal product but in this instance one that is misused by a criminal. They know if they get caught up in the litigation, too often emotions run high, reason and rationality is suspended, and these manufacturers become not only sued but actually on occasion held responsible for the acts of criminals. I certainly respect the distinguished Senator from Michigan, and I was just thinking, of course, his State is known in particular for manufacturing automobiles. It strikes me that automobiles can be used safely or unsafely, but certainly no one would claim that General Motors or any other manufacturer of an automobile should be held responsible if someone decides to take that automobile that is operating in completely good condition and decides to run over somebody and kill them or cause them physical harm. For the same reason, firearms can be used both for lawful purposes and safely or they can be misused. For the same reason we would say General Motors or any car manufacturer would not be responsible for the criminal use of an automobile, so should manufacturers of firearms not be held responsible for the criminal acts or misuse of their lawful product. We know in the end that what this is all about is trying to drive gun manufacturers out of business. Unfortunately, that means American jobs are being threatened. Eventually it means that the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are compromised. I wish we would focus more of our efforts, as we have in the recent past, on criminals, the people who misuse firearms, the ones who cannot lawfully own or sell firearms, and leave those who are making a lawful product that can be and is used safely day in and day out out of the picture. Indeed, the effect of this amendment, I submit to my colleagues, is to undermine the effect of the entire bill which would protect these lawful manufacturers from frivolous litigation when their product is misused by a criminal and causes harm to some person. So I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will spend no more than 10 minutes to comment on the President's nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Several weeks ago, shortly before the President nominated Judge Roberts, we were informed that the strategy on the other side of the aisle was a three-pronged strategy: one, to claim that there was inadequate consultation; two, to somehow paint the nominee as extreme; and three, to use document requests to go on a fishing expedition to delay the confirmation for as long as possible. Before this nominee was proposed by the President, there was unprecedented consultation with both sides of the aisle, and because this nominee is clearly in the mainstream of American jurisprudence and has a distinguished record of public service as a judge and as an advocate on behalf of the United States in the Solicitor General's Office and elsewhere, it looks as if we already have jumped to prong three, the first two prongs being unavailable. Some members on the other side of the aisle are already intimating that, unless the White House finds and turns over every piece of paper written by Judge Roberts when he was a Government lawyer, they cannot properly assess his qualifications to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is preposterous. The public record on Judge Roberts is already immense. It is telling that opponents of this nomination, or at least those who want to slow it down unnecessarily, have not even had a chance to review the documents that are already available. Yet they are calling for more documents. If history is any teacher, and I believe it is, this may indeed be the beginning of a case of moving the goalpost each time a document request is made and then satisfied, to then ask for more, which then leads to another request for more, and a game that the nominee cannot win because the goalposts move each time. I would like to remind my colleagues what we already have. Judge Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Court of Appeals just 2 short years ago. He testified extensively before this Senate on two previous occasions, and these transcripts total 14 hours of testimony. In conjunction with those hearings, he completed more than 100 pages of responses to written questions posed to him by Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If this were not enough, the Senate already has before it various legal briefs and oral argument transcripts from the hundreds upon hundreds of briefs written by Judge Roberts, or in which he participated, when he practiced as a lawyer both in the private sector and in the Solicitor General's Office. The committee and the Congress already has before it 10 articles authored by Judge Roberts, scholarly legal articles which reflect some of his thought processes and his expertise on various issues of law. All of this, of course, was more than enough for the Senate to unanimously confirm Judge Roberts as it did 2 short years ago to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called the second most important court in the land. There is more. Since his confirmation to the bench, he has participated in more than 300 appellate cases and opinions that cover more than 2,000 pages. The White House, as recently as yesterday or perhaps the day before, has pledged to expedite the public processing of more than 75,000 pages of memoranda that Judge Roberts wrote while an adviser to President Reagan during the 1980s. By any measure, this is a vast public record. I am quite confident none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or even on our side of the aisle have had an opportunity to digest this huge disgorging of public information at this point. Yet there is the clamor already for more, more, more and complaints that the President and this administration have not given them enough. Perhaps my colleagues, I respectfully suggest, should read what has already been produced before they start complaining that it is not enough unless, of course, this is more about picking a fight than it is about finding a reasonable path toward an orderly process leading to an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. The documents my colleagues are demanding to see, the documents that remain that have not been provided, are documents written while he was a Government lawyer working in the Office of Solicitor General at the Department of Justice. As my colleagues know, the Solicitor General is the public official who argues cases on behalf of the U.S. Government in the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, there are a number of lawyers who work there assisting the Solicitor General. Those lawyers write memoranda suggesting various litigation strategies--weighing, on the one hand, we could make this argument; perhaps it would be better to make this argument--and make a recommendation on the litigation strategy of the U.S. Government in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2002, all seven former living Solicitors General of both political parties wrote a letter asking the President to refuse to turn over these confidential documents because they said such a move would chill for years to come the candid advice the Government receives from its lawyers. They noted that ``our decisionmaking process requires the unbridled, open exchange of ideas--an exchange that simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure.'' Most Americans understand that it makes sense to allow this sort of private communication between a lawyer and a client in order to provide the most effective legal representation, and the same principle applies, of course, whether you are the Solicitor General representing the U.S. Government or whether you are a lawyer representing someone who has been accused of a crime or someone who is pursuing a civil claim in a court of law. A couple of our distinguished Senators from Vermont and Massachusetts have in recent days argued that confidential memoranda written by Government lawyers are the property of the American people and, therefore, should be handed over to the Senate. Of course, that is in direct contradiction to what the seven bipartisan appointees of the Office of Solicitor General have said as recently as 2002. But we all understand that the nature of the attorney-client relationship is not one that should be breached simply because the government is a party to the communication. For example, the Federal Government's veterans hospitals are there to take care of the men and women who fought for our freedom. Does this mean that Members of this Senate are entitled to see confidential medical files of veterans who receive care in these facilities? Does that mean somehow we should be able to invade the doctor-patient relationship by making public their private medical records? Certainly not. The same principle holds true, this principle of confidential communications in a position of trust or fiduciary relationship, between lawyers and clients as well. To hold otherwise would deny the American people the vigorous and outstanding representation they are entitled to before the U.S. Supreme Court. I suggest, in accordance with traditional practice, that the claim of attorney-client privilege for these Solicitor General documents, these deliberate documents written by Judge Roberts when he was working in that office representing the U.S. Government, can and should remain confidential. They should not be made public. And we should stop playing this game of ``gotcha'' by moving goalposts on the President's nominees. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to two members of my staff, Mike Heidler and Matt Schuh, during debate on S. 397.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m., in Dirksen 106, for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 10 a.m., on All Hazards Alert Systems, in SR-253.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 3 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on recent progress in hydrogen and fuel cell research sponsored by the Department of Energy and by private industry. Testimony will also address the remaining challenges to the development of these technologies.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 10 a.m. in SR-328A, Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of this subcommittee hearing will be to discuss oversight of the Conservation Reserve Program.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., on 1372, the Fair Ratings Act, in SR-253. The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., for a hearing regarding ``Who's Watching the Watchdog? Examining Financial Management at the SEC.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on United Nations Peacekeeping Reform.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Improving Quality in Medicare: The role of Value-Based Purchasing.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 10 a.m., for a hearing titled, ``Chemical Facility Security: What Is the Appropriate Federal Role?, Part II.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on lands eligible for gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``FBI Oversight'' on Wednesday, July 27, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness List Panel I: Robert Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Glenn Fine, Inspector General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Lee Hamilton, President and Director, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC; William H. Webster, Partner Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Washington, DC; and John A. Russack, Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment, Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular, I would like to provide some context in a brief response to some statements that have been made by our colleague on the other side of the aisle, the senior Senator from New York. My colleague has repeatedly stated his intention to ask Judge Roberts during the confirmation proceedings dozens of questions about his positions on particular constitutional rights, as well as his views of particular cases that have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. He provided Judge Roberts a copy of these questions last week when the two of them met and has stated that he will take ``responsibility to make sure that those questions are answered.'' Any of our colleagues can, of course, ask whatever questions they want, but the notion that Judge Roberts puts his confirmation at risk if he does not answer the questions on the list from the Senator from New York is contrary to the traditional practice of this body. Nearly every single one of the questions on that list involves an issue that is likely to come before the Supreme Court during Justice Roberts's tenure. Every single Justice confirmed in recent memory has declined to answer questions of the sort contained on that list. As Justice Ginsburg has noted: In accord with longstanding norm, every member of the current Supreme Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate. Every member of the Court has declined to answer such questions because it has long been understood that forcing nominees to take sides on issues while under oath compromises their ability to rule impartially in cases presenting those issues once they sit on the Court. Judges are supposed to decide cases after hearing the evidence presented by the parties involved and the arguments presented by their lawyers. They are supposed to keep an open and impartial mind. As Justice Ginsburg has also noted, ``the line each [Justice] drew in response to preconfirmation questioning is . . . crucial to the health of the Federal judiciary.'' Judges in our system are like umpires in a baseball game. They are not supposed to take sides before the game has begun. Judges are not, for example, supposed to pledge to the Senate that they will be ``on the side of labor'' or ``on the side of corporations'' once confirmed to the bench. We should not demand of judges that they are biased on behalf of a particular party before they have even gotten to the bench and heard the facts and the arguments of counsel. The only side that a judge should be on is on the side of the law. Indeed, that is the oath that each of them take when they are sworn into office. Sometimes corporations should win in court, and sometimes they should lose. Sometimes labor should win in court, and sometimes labor should lose. But it depends on the facts of the case and on the law that applies to those facts. Any judge worth their salt would decline to make a commitment ahead of time about how that hypothetical controversy would come out, not knowing what those facts are or how the question would be presented. The Senator from New York has said that his questions do not threaten Judge Roberts's impartiality because he is not asking about specific cases that are already pending before the Supreme Court. He acknowledges that asking questions about those cases--in other words, cases that are actually pending--would be inappropriate. But I would ask my colleague to review, as I have, the Supreme Court's pending cases for the session set to begin in October because it clearly shows that this proposed list of questions would force Judge Roberts to prejudge the very pending cases that the Senator has said should be off limits. Take, for example, the question of whether Judge Roberts ``believes Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.'' That is one of the Senator's questions. The Senator has said specifically that this is a ``question that should be answered.'' Demanding that Judge Roberts answer questions about Roe v. Wade will undoubtedly force him to prejudge a case that is currently pending on the Court's docket. On November 30, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case involving the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring a minor to notify her parents before having an abortion. It is nearly certain that some party in that litigation, perhaps even an amicus party, will ask the Court to revisit or overturn Roe v. Wade because one party does so in nearly every abortion case that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned is not only an issue likely to come before the Court during Judge Roberts's tenure, it is already before the Court. Accordingly, demanding an answer to a question about Roe v. Wade will force Judge Roberts to prejudge at least one of the issues in the Ayotte case, and, no doubt, many others while he is on the bench. Perhaps an even better example is the Senator's question about whether ``the Americans with Disabilities Act requires State buildings to be accessible to the disabled . . . or [whether] sovereign immunity exempts the States?'' Again, on November 9, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case called Goodman v. Georgia, a case involving a suit by a disabled prisoner against the State of Georgia. The only question in that case is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act can force States to make prisons accessible to the disabled. Again, this is precisely the question that the Senator warned Judge Roberts that he would not have to answer but which, in fact, he is now being asked to answer. It is clear then that the questions proposed by the Senator from New York will force Judge Roberts to prejudge pending cases. This is something that surely all of us can agree is inappropriate. Thus, surely all of us can agree in this Chamber that Judge Roberts should be permitted to decline to answer at least some of the questions that the Senator from New York has said he will ask him and others like those questions. But once it is acknowledged that Judge Roberts should be permitted to decline to answer the questions involving issues already pending before the Supreme Court, it becomes clear that Judge Roberts should be permitted to decline the rest of the questions propounded by the Senator as well. There are literally hundreds of cases at this very moment in lower Federal courts raising virtually all of the questions posed by the Senator from New York. Judge Roberts should not be forced to guess which one of them will or will not one day make their way to the High Court. This is why the Canons of Judicial Ethics counsel judges against answering questions about issues that are not only already before the Court, but also those that are likely to come before the Court. Any case pending in the lower courts meets this definition because it could be and, indeed, many will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, the danger of demanding that Judge Roberts answer such questions, even though some may not now be pending before the Court, is clear from an event involving one of the sitting Justices, Justice Scalia. Two years ago, after delivering a speech, Justice Scalia was asked whether he thought the phrase ``under God''--that is the reference in the Pledge of Allegiance--was constitutional. There was not at that time any case involving that question before the Court, so Justice Scalia answered the question. But there was, as it turns out, a case involving that precise question pending before a lower Federal court and, as we all know, that case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. As we also know, Justice Scalia was then forced to recuse himself from hearing that case because the rules of ethics prevent judges from publicly commenting on pending or impending cases. We should not force Judge Roberts to choose between confirmation and recusal. If Judge Roberts is forced to recuse himself in all of the cases, all of the issues on the Senator's list, then the Supreme Court will be left shorthanded for much of his tenure. The Senator from New York says that his list includes some of the most important questions of the day, and that may well be true. But surely we want all nine Justices on the Supreme Court to answer those important questions in those cases as they are presented. Judge Roberts should be permitted to do what we have always permitted nominees to do, and that is to decline to answer questions that might call into question his impartiality at a later date. We have always respected the right of nominees to decline to answer questions that make them feel as though their ability to do their job would be compromised. That is in the interest of a value that we all hold dear, and that is the independence of the judiciary. I hope and expect that we will not break that longstanding tradition with Judge Roberts. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we are currently debating the motion to proceed on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I am supportive of this legislation. I am happy to see 65 of my colleagues join me in invoking cloture today so we can reach resolution on the bill later this week. This is critical legislation for gun manufacturers, some of whom work in my State and employ hard-working Texans. It is important for our economy and for our national security. I plan to speak about this issue in greater detail later, but I wanted to take a few moments to address another urgent matter. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and that the time be discounted against the 30 hours.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today, Chairman Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a very important hearing addressing one of the most urgent matters confronting our Nation; that is, the need to fix our broken immigration system. I want to speak a few minutes about a proposal that I have made, along with my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, together representing two border States, ones that perhaps have the most experience with this issue because of our proximity to the border with Mexico. In summary, this bill strengthens our border enforcement while it comprehensively reforms our immigration system. Unfortunately, the ongoing immigration debate has too often divided Americans of goodwill into two camps--those who are angry and frustrated by our failure to enforce the law, and those who are angry and frustrated that our immigration laws do not reflect reality. I have learned that those two groups, both of whom deeply care about America and are committed to building a system that works, share more in common than they or many other people actually realize. The only groups who benefit from the current system are human smugglers, unscrupulous employers, and others who profit at the expense of people who are trying to come into this country and work through illegal channels. Unfortunately, we know that those channels are being investigated and potentially exploited by those who want to come here to do us harm. The reality is we need both stronger enforcement and reasonable reform of our immigration laws. It is my opinion that we, in the past, have not devoted the funds, the resources, or the manpower necessary to enforce our immigration laws or to protect our borders. No discussion of reform is possible without a clear commitment to--and a substantial escalation of--our efforts to enforce the law. Over a series of months now, as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have come to believe that increased enforcement alone cannot solve the problem. Any reform proposal must both serve our national security and our national economy. It must be capable of securing our country, but it must also be compatible with our growing economy. As I mentioned a moment ago, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I have worked closely with Senator Kyl, who chairs the Terrorism Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to conduct a thorough review of our Nation's immigration laws. We have covered a wide variety of subjects, and we have had the opportunity to hear from a diverse group of experts. From an analysis of how the immigration system failed on 9/11, to the role of our neighboring countries in raising living standards in their home countries, our hearings have laid a foundation upon which we have developed a comprehensive solution, one that will not result in yet another immigration crisis some 10 or 20 years down the road. We all know our immigration system has been broken for many years. First, the volume of illegal immigration continues to increase. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there has been a dramatic increase in illegal immigration since 9/11, approximately 30% since 2000. That same organization estimates there are approximately 10.3 million illegal aliens in the United States currently. Over the course of the 1990s, the number of illegal aliens increased by half a million a year, almost matching the number of visas that Congress has made available for legal immigrants. Last year alone, the Border Patrol detained roughly 1.1 million aliens who had come across the border. Professionals I have talked with on my travels to Texas and along the border, people whose experience and professionalism I trust, estimate that we are only detaining perhaps one out of every three or one out of every four people who are coming across our borders illegally. Second, and for me the most alarming, is the information that suggests that terrorists and other criminals, including smugglers, are aware of the holes in our system. They may be--and I am confident that they are--looking at ways to exploit these weaknesses. In recent visits in McAllen, TX, and Laredo, TX, I learned from people who have been long familiar with the movement of people back and forwards across our borders that the nature of illegal immigration has changed dramatically. The number of aliens from noncontiguous countries, sometimes called OTMs--in other words, people from countries other than Mexico--has doubled in the last year alone. Already this year the Department of Homeland Security has apprehended about 100,000 aliens across the southern border who are from noncontiguous countries. While many of these individuals are coming from countries that you would expect, countries in Central and South America, many come from countries that have direct connections with terrorism. For example, we know that the Border Patrol has apprehended at least 400 aliens from countries with direct ties to terrorism. Former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Admiral James Loy, stated that ``entrenched human smuggling networks and corruption in areas beyond our boarders can be exploited by terrorist organizations.'' He went on to state that ``several al-Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe that illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.'' I believe the vast majority of the people who come to this country, even those who come outside of our laws, come here for understandable reasons. That is, people who have no hope and no opportunity where they live see this tremendous beacon of opportunity that America represents, and they want to come here to work and provide for their families. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that our porous borders represent a national security vulnerability which can also be exploited by international terrorists. We know the current system benefits smugglers and all too frequently leads to the deaths of immigrants whose only crime was trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. Indeed, the greatest hazard to people who come to this country to find work is the fact that they have to, under current law, resort too often to an illegal entry into the country. They turn their lives over to people who care nothing about them and who are willing to leave them to die under the most extraordinarily bad circumstances. They must work for employers who can exploit them because they know they can't report labor law violations to the authorities. And they suffer criminal acts, such as domestic violence, and they must endure these acts because they believe they can't report the crime to law enforcement authorities or else they risk deportation. I believe a reform proposal must encourage aliens to participate in the legal process, to live within the law. Ultimately, after they have completed their time of work in this country, most will return home to their countries and to their families and to contribute to their societies in their homeland. And those who decide to live permanently must enter through the legal process. When people who come to this country live outside of the law, they are vulnerable to exploitation and violence. They risk their lives, sometimes just to visit their families. I believe we must take away this black market from smugglers and others who exploit these vulnerable immigrants by addressing deficiencies in our current system. Identifying problems, of course, is not the most difficult part of our jobs. If this were easy, someone would have already done it. It is not easy, but it merits our best efforts. The challenge that Senator Kyl and I have assumed is to find a solution, to find workable results. Last Wednesday, we introduced the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005, a bill that we believe will restore America's faith in lawful immigration and will meet the needs of our country, both from a security perspective and from the standpoint of our growing economy which needs the work provided by many immigrants. The bill is based upon certain principles. First, we have to reestablish the rule of law. Second, we have to enact laws that are capable of strong enforcement. That means they have to be realistic. Third, and most importantly, the law must be fair. If we address deficiencies in the current immigration process, then we must require that everyone who is here, even those who have come here just to provide for their families, must go through normal legal channels. The good news is that our bill provides them a direction and a way to do that in a way that is not overly disruptive of their employment or of their family life. We believe it provides a path so that they can regain their status as legal temporary workers or, if eligible, as legal permanent residents. The men and women who secure our borders at the ports of entry, and frequently at remote locations, should be commended for the job they do every day. But we have not provided them with the resources they need to be able to give them any reasonable chance of success. Last week, the Senate approved the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which, to the credit of the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, included increases for border security and immigration enforcement. Senator Kyl and I have introduced a bill that we believe builds on that foundation. First of all, it authorizes 1,250 new Customs and border protection officers over the next 5 years. It calls on the Department of Homeland Security to hire 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over that same 5-year period. That same amount was authorized by Congress in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. It calls for the expansion of a process called expedited removal, which is a fair and effective system for quickly removing those who are ineligible to enter our country. Right now, we only use expedited removal in a few locations along the border. But our bill calls for the Department of Homeland Security to expand that process to all Border Patrol sectors, and we also provide for additional safeguards for aliens by requiring a supervisory official with the Government sign off on any removal. Let me say a quick word about expedited removal. Right now, because of a lack of detention facilities, we have what is commonly called a ``catch and release'' program. For those we catch coming across the border illegally, a criminal background check is done to determine whether they are a threat to the American people; but if they don't appear on one of these watch lists or criminal background databases, they are released into the U.S. and asked to return for a hearing. It should not surprise any of us that this ``catch and release'' program results in more people not showing up than do show up, and those who show up for their hearing and are ordered removed then do not show up later when they are asked to report for their deportation process. So that is the problem that we simply have to remedy. And I believe that expansion of the expedited removal process will deal with it in a way that is consistent with our laws and our values and our need for an effective border security program. Our bill also addresses the release of aliens who come into the country from countries other than Mexico. It raises the minimum bond amounts for these aliens from $1,500 to $5,000. That means that fewer people from countries other than Mexico will be released, and those who are released will have a greater incentive to appear for their hearings. Another important component of immigration reform is interior enforcement. We also need to deal with those who make it past the border and into the interior of our Nation. Tackling illegal immigration cannot be done in a piecemeal fashion. If we increase our ability to apprehend illegal aliens at the border, we must have a place to put them. Once detained, lawyers and judges are necessary to ensure that these people receive timely and fair hearings. Reform, therefore, must evaluate the whole enforcement process, and we must remove obstacles that appear anywhere in the process. The goal is simple: If we apprehend someone who has no legal right to be in this country and is not entitled to any claim of asylum, then we must have an effective and efficient means to remove them from the U.S. The bill Senator Kyl and I have introduced will restore confidence in the system. First, it authorizes an additional 10,000 detention beds. Currently, there are only 23,000 detention beds. You will recall that a moment ago I said last year alone immigration control authorities apprehended 1.1 million people coming across our border illegally. Yet we only have 23,000 detention beds. That leads to what I described earlier as the ``catch and release'' program, which has proven to be completely unworkable. The intelligence reform bill called for an additional 40,000 beds over the next few years. The bill that we have introduced increases the total amount to 50,000 detention beds. Still, that is not enough to detain everyone who comes across the border illegally. That is where expedited removal comes into play--a process to remove aliens quickly so that we reduce the need for bed space. Our bill also increases penalties for alien smuggling, document fraud, and gang violence by aliens. We know, as I said a moment ago, that the nature of the people coming across our border, through our porous southern border, has changed. We are seeing many people who are violent gang members coming from places in Central America. We know that people are coming from Asia and from Europe, all around the world, and they are transiting through Mexico. Alien smugglers are the people that make that happen. We have learned that they consider human beings to be just another commodity. They are just as likely to smuggle arms, drugs or anything else that will make them money. We need to make sure that we crack down on these alien smugglers that facilitate this intrusion into our country illegally and show that we are committed to tough punishment. Our bill accomplishes that. We provide greater tools for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to require that countries accept their own citizens back if they violate our immigration laws and they come into our country illegally. Our bill also clarifies the authority of State and local officials to enforce immigration laws and authorizes the reimbursement of local and State officials for costs they incur in enforcing Federal immigration law. Recently, I traveled to Victoria, TX, and met with a group of sheriffs down there. It so happened that the Minutemen who first organized in Arizona were organizing in Goliad, TX, and local law enforcement officials were concerned about having these citizen volunteers engage in what essentially is a law enforcement process. They said to me: If the Federal Government would provide us additional resources, we would be glad to help. We need some training, but we would be glad to be cross-designated, if that is important, to enforce both Federal immigration laws as well as State and local laws. We would be glad to detain them in our local jail facilities pending their hearings, if necessary, but it is going to take a little help from the Federal Government. I told them that I welcomed their offer to assist because I believe interior enforcement performed by many of these local law enforcement officials is an important part of this puzzle. Our bill also creates a new senior-level position at the Department of Justice committed to immigration enforcement. The third piece of the enforcement puzzle deals with the employment of undocumented immigrants. The Congressional Research Service estimates that out of the roughly 10 million people who have come into our country in violation of our laws, about 6 million are currently in the workforce. I believe that a vast majority of employers simply want an effective, user-friendly way to comply with the law. In other words, they want a way to determine whether the person who shows up in their place of business saying ``I would like to work for you'' is in fact legally authorized to work in the United States. We must ensure that we provide them an efficient, easy-to-use system that is airtight. The example I often use is the following: if I show up at a convenience store and buy something, I can present my debit card or Visa or Master Card. In a matter of seconds, the clerk can swipe the card and it can authorize that purchase using modern technology. Why can we not use something similar--maybe with a few more bells and whistles--to allow employers to determine whether a person they want to hire is in fact eligible to work? Since 1996, the Government has been testing an electronic verification system that provides instantaneous confirmation of an individual's authorization to work in the United States. Our experience with this program tells us that it can work but only if we give it sufficient resources. Our bill calls for an expansion of this electronic verification system and requires all employers to participate. But while we make sure that there is a way for employers to check, we also have to make sure we crack down on employers who continue to operate in the black market of illegal labor. We have to crack down on the criminals who sell and who create fake identity documents and Social Security cards, which can also be exploited by terrorists. Because our bill will create bright-line rules for employers, companies will be able to know whether they are in compliance or not. That is an obligation we owe them. If we are going to ask them to comply with the law, we have to give them a clear and simple way to do so. Our bill will further reduce identity theft and fraud by increasing the penalties for false claims to citizenship or for filing false information with the Social Security Administration. It requires Social Security cards to be more secure and it imposes standards for the issuance of birth certificates, so someone may not simply counterfeit these documents and make a false claim to citizenship. Our bill also imposes certain obligations on countries who would like to make their citizens eligible to participate in this program. This would address another big challenge that we have, and that is the development gap between the United States and other countries. We, along with those other countries, have an interest in ending the one-way flow of workers, which only results in the drain of highly motivated workers from those countries and further impedes their development. Our proposal would not only require the sending countries to assist with border security, but it will require them to cooperate with the United States in bridging the development gap between our country and theirs. Foreign Minister Derbez of Mexico has said that ``[T]he Mexican government has to be able to give Mexicans . . . the opportunity to generate the wealth that today they produce in other places.'' I could not agree more. Other countries need for their young, energetic risk-takers and hard workers to ultimately return home, to bring back to their countries the savings and skills they have acquired in the United States. The bill we have introduced will require countries to enter into an agreement in which each country agrees to cooperate on border enforcement, to work to reduce gang violence and smuggling, to provide information on criminal aliens and terrorists, and to accept the return of nationals whom the United States has ordered removed. Lastly, let me cover the temporary worker program. I mentioned a moment ago that out of the 10 million or so people who have come to this country illegally, about 6 million are in the workforce. I believe the fact is many of these immigrants have come here to provide for their families, something all of us as human beings can empathize with and understand. Who among us would not do anything in our power, risk life itself, to provide for our families, even if it happened to be outside of our laws? We know many jobs being performed by immigrants in this country are jobs American citizens are reluctant to fill. I can only think about roofers working with hot asphalt in south Texas during August as the one example of that kind of job. Whether it is that or picking agricultural products, there are a lot of jobs, unfortunately, that Americans simply are reluctant to fill. We know we have a need for the work provided by many immigrants. What we provide for in our bill is a temporary worker program. That is something I believe can best be characterized as a work-and-return program, not a work-and-stay program. Some have said that is unrealistic, that you will never get people who come to the United States to agree to return. I guess we can all have opinions, but I have something even better than my opinion. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan, impartial think-tank that looks at some of these matters, has done a survey of almost 5,000 Mexican immigrants who applied for matricula consular card, a Mexican identity card, at Mexican consulates in the United States. They asked migrants to fill out a 12-page survey, and one of the questions they answered was this: Would you agree to work in a temporary worker program in the United States if it was legally authorized, even though at the end of that time period you would have to return home to your country of origin? By a ratio of 4 to 1, 71 percent to 17 percent, these immigrants said they would. I think that is solid evidence that people who are currently working in the shadows realize that they operate without the protection of our labor laws, without the protection of our criminal laws, and all too frequently they view law enforcement with suspicion rather than as an ally. They are looking for an opportunity to come out into the sunshine and to secure the protection our laws provide. Our bill does create a new temporary worker category that allows workers who have a job offer from a U.S. employer to enter the country for a period of up to 2 years to work in the United States. Before the employer can hire the worker, the employer must advertise a position, offer it to any qualified American worker, and agree to pay at least minimum wage. The worker will go through background screening, will be issued secure biometric documentation, that they are who they say they are and are coming here to work and not for some other nefarious purpose. We also create some financial incentives so that the worker, after the period of their temporary visa expires, will return home with the savings and skills they have acquired while working in the United States. I talked moments ago about the Pew Hispanic survey. Circular migration is important both for the United States and for countries such as Mexico and the countries of Central America who are losing their young risk takers and the potential entrepreneurs, the people who are essential to the development of their own economy. What economy could withstand the loss of the young men and women, the people who are going to be the engines of those economies and the prosperity of those countries? The public officials in Mexico and Central America with whom I talked do understand they need to have these people come back with the savings and skills they have acquired in the United States, so they can develop a way forward for their own people. In the end, it will benefit the United States because it will take a lot of pressure off illegal immigration if people can find hope and opportunity and good jobs in their own country. Finally, let me address what perhaps is the hardest issue: the people who are here now who have come here outside of our laws. According to the Pew Hispanic Center again, about a third of these individuals have been here for more than 10 years. So we do know that some have established roots in the United States, but we also know we have to find some way to transition this population into legal status. It must not, however, create a new path for people who have come here outside our laws. Our bill allows them to get back in line so they can return to the United States in a temporary worker program or, should they choose, as legal permanent residents. But we do it in a way that is premised upon fundamental fairness. I believe there are many people in America who would be deeply offended if we said: if you come to this country through legal channels, that is nice, but we are going to allow people who have come here illegally to have a preference, and we are going to let them jump ahead of you in line. Our bill provides a path for people to return to their country of origin and then, on an expedited basis, return to the United States. It will not be disruptive. To secure their participation, it may be necessary for them to know by the time they leave that they will be eligible to come back immediately once they secure the proper documentation. And we need to address processing delays so that they can obtain that proper documentation in a matter of days. If disruption is the only concern, then I see no reason why the model cannot minimize or eliminate that disruption. This bill is a comprehensive bill, and I know my colleagues are as concerned as I am about finding a workable solution to this problem. I speak today to share with all of our colleagues, not just the people who sit on the Judiciary Committee and who participated in the hearing this morning, an overview of our proposal which I think has some real promise in achieving results. I believe our constituents sent us here to represent them to solve problems, not to engage in partisan or otherwise divisive rhetoric designed to pick a fight. Our proposal is one idea about how we can find our way through this thicket, how we can thread the needle in a way that does not provide amnesty. I think our colleagues across the Rotunda in the House of Representatives will be open to discussing our proposal, for it is consistent with their principles of reform. I thank the Chair. I thank the indulgence of my colleagues. I yield the remainder of my hour to the Senator from Alabama. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with some reluctance, I rise to oppose the amendment of the distinguished occupant of the chair, the senior Senator from Indiana. But I feel a certain obligation, as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, out of which this particular portion of the bill emanated, to explain the reasons why the bill contains these conditions that I believe are important and which I will explain and which have existed in the bill as it has been passed by the Congress since its inception. The question that I would pose is, what has changed? What has changed that now would lead this body to eliminate these important criteria that have existed in the bill for lo these many years? I think it is important, as a general matter, that there be some sort of reciprocal obligation on the part of Russia for receiving more than $400 million in American taxpayer money, potentially. I know there has been discretion added to make sure that WMD located in other countries can now be addressed by this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. That is a good thing. But certainly, while I appreciate the argument that regardless of whether or not Russia complies with the conditions that are required to be monitored under this Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, I still do not believe that it is the best stewardship of the American taxpayers' moneys for us to say: We don't care whether Russia complies with their reciprocal obligations or not, and we are going to give the money away anyway, albeit for a good purpose. On balance, I am not persuaded that the burden to change the system, as it has been since 1991, has been met, and I believe that we should retain some way to monitor the progress of Russia, the recipient of these funds, on these important criteria that have been set out in the bill. Of course, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has long been providing assistance to states of the former Soviet Union to help eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure materials. These programs helped to eliminate large Cold War stockpiles of dangerous weapons that are no longer needed. Today, of course, this is an important element of our strategy to keep weapons of mass destruction and know-how from falling into the hands of terrorists. That is the reason why I applaud the senior Senator from Indiana for his leadership in this important effort. When Congress first authorized the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, an important element of the authorizing legislation was the inclusion of the conditions which now this amendment seeks to eliminate. These conditions must be met before a country can receive Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance from the United States. These conditions were retained in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 which reauthorized the original Nunn-Lugar program. That act included the requirement that for each recipient nation of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, the President certify that the recipient nation is committed to the following goals: One, to making substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or destroying its weapons of mass destruction; two, forgoing any military modernization program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; three, forgoing any use in new nuclear weapons of fissionable or other components of destroyed nuclear weapons; facilitating U.S. verification of any weapons destruction carried out under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program; complying with all relevant arms control agreements; and observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. I would certainly agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Indiana that some of these are vague standards. For example, as he pointed out, complying with all relevant arms control agreements or observing internationally recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities. But the fact that they are somewhat general-- some might say somewhat vague--does not mean that they are unimportant. One of the important roles played by these criteria is that there be some effort on the part of the Government to ascertain whether, in fact, the old Soviet Union is, in fact, exercising good faith as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. If, in fact, ultimately the President decides, as authorized by this bill, to ultimately waive the noncompliance of those criteria in the interest of our national security, at least Congress and the Nation know that some assessment has been made of the old Soviet Union's compliance with these criteria. I think we would all agree that the information that is collected and scrutinized is important in the interest of our national security and in the interest of knowing that we have met our responsibility to see that American tax dollars are spent as wisely and efficiently as possible. These conditions remain as relevant and as important today as they were in 1993. They provide Congress and the public relevant information about the countries that have received taxpayer-funded assistance for this program. The conditions also help provide us confidence that U.S. tax dollars will be well spent in countries that are committed to right-sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, providing transparency with regard to Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance, and respecting human rights. I do not understand how one could argue that these conditions are unimportant or irrelevant to our national security or that we ought to simply blind ourselves to the recipient nation's compliance with these criteria in the interest of pursuing our ultimate goal. The truth is, we all agree in the ultimate goal of this important program. But this provides us additional checks and balances and information that is relevant, significant, and which I think demonstrates that we are being good stewards of the American taxpayer dollar while we pursue a safer and more secure world. These certification requirements do not impede the provision of cooperative threat reduction assistance. For years now, the Congress provided the President with waiver authority, so that even if one or more of the certifications cannot be made for a particular country, the President may provide these funds if it is in our national interest to do so, and that is appropriate. One of the things this bill does is to make that temporary waiver authority that had been conferred upon the President permanent, to provide the kinds of flexibility that Secretary Rice said the President and the administration wanted when it came to this program in her letter of June 3, 2005, which has been previously referenced. This provision for permanent waiver authority for cooperative threat reduction programs in the bill provides the flexibility needed. It also provides us the way to deal in a responsible fashion with the countries that compose the former Soviet Union. I remember, of course, the famous words of President Reagan when talking about negotiating with the Soviet Union, where he said, ``trust, but verify.'' What these criteria do in this cooperative threat reduction program is allow us to not just trust but also to verify that these countries that were once the old Soviet Union are worthy of our trust by allowing us to verify their good faith compliance with this program. The amendment of the senior Senator from Indiana would also repeal conditions Congress placed on the provision of financial assistance to Russia for chemical demilitarization activity. These conditions were established in the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act. They required the Secretary of Defense to certify that Russia has provided a full and accurate accounting of its chemical weapons stockpile; demonstrated a commitment of $25 million annually to chemical weapons elimination; developed a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; agree to destroy or convert two existing chemical weapons production facilities; finally, a commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the chemicals weapons destruction facility in Russia. Here again, these provisions would be effectively repealed by this amendment which is proposed today by the distinguished Senator from Indiana. They do not represent an impediment to the accomplishment of the chemical demilitarization program because they may be likewise waived in the end if the President deems that waiver in our national interest. But no one, it seems to me, could in good faith argue that these criteria are unimportant or irrelevant. Indeed, each of these criteria demonstrate the reciprocal good faith and responsibility of the recipient nations in accomplishing chemical demilitarization, a goal that is the subject of an international treaty that this country is a party to and one that is certainly in our national interest to see accomplished. For several years, Congress decided not to support the provision of cooperative threat reduction assistance for chemical weapons destruction in Russia. It was precisely the inclusion of these conditions in the authorizing language that persuaded Congress to resume assistance under the chemical threat--the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program for this important effort of chemical demilitarization. These conditions relevant to the chemical weapons destruction program in Russia also have a waiver provision, so that the assistance, as I mentioned a moment ago, can continue in the absence of certification if, in the end, the President deems it in the national interest. The eligibility requirements and conditions for assistance are entirely appropriate. Mr. President, I believe the burden of proof on those who would repeal it has not been met. They remain an important element in assuring that the American taxpayer is being well served and that the money is being spent appropriately and wisely on the underlying aims of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that we all agree are a good thing. This assurance to the American taxpayer and to the American people that their money is being well spent is essential to maintaining strong public support for this important program. The waiver authority ensures that even in cases where a country doesn't meet all eligibility requirements, the President has the flexibility to provide this assistance if it is in the national security interest to do so. This is all, in the end, that the administration, through Secretary Rice's letter, has requested. So we have accomplished that goal already, even before this amendment has been proposed. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment that would repeal the conditions and the eligibility requirements under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. We all share the goal of supporting programs like this that can help keep dangerous weapons of mass destruction and technology and know-how from slipping out of the countries that used to be the old Soviet Union. I continue to believe that certification requirements are useful in helping to maintain public confidence in this important program, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator from Rhode Island addressing the Senate.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.