John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to mark a historic occasion, and that is the retirement of our Nation's first female Supreme Court Justice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the father of two daughters who are now 22 and 23, I appreciate in so many ways the career of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but one of the ways I appreciate her career is that she has paved the way toward the highest accomplishment for women in our society, and for that I shall be grateful always. She was Justice O'Connor, after all, born in El Paso, TX--I have to remind my colleagues of that--on March 26, 1930. She married law school classmate John Jay 0'Connor III in 1952 and raised three sons: Scott, Brian, and Jay--all while managing, as many women do in our society today, a career and family at the same time, but in this instance demonstrating and living out one of the most remarkable legal and political careers in our history. She received her undergraduate and law degrees at Stanford University and graduated third in her class. She then served as deputy county attorney in San Mateo County, CA, and then as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center in Frankfurt, Germany. She later served as assistant attorney general of Arizona and then as a member of the Arizona State Senate. As one who has now served in the executive branch and the judicial branch of State government in Texas and now serves in the legislative branch in Washington, the kind of service Justice O'Connor has had in all of her varied and important positions during her career has well prepared her as a Justice on the Court and understanding both the opportunities and potential and the limitation of government to do good in our country and in our society and what questions can be resolved by government and which questions are best reserved to the people. In 1975, she was elected judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served there until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. In 1981, it was President Ronald Reagan who nominated her as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has written two books, ``Lazy B'' and her most recent, ``Majesty of the Law.'' Justice O'Connor has played a leading role in some of the Nation's most contentious legal disputes in recent years. And she has provided a critical voice of judicial restraint on a number of important issues on which the Court is closely divided 5 to 4. She authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion upholding the three- strikes-and-you're-out law for repeat convicted criminals. She wrote the Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi, affirming the President's legal authority to detain enemy combatants in wartime and thus preserving a key tool in the ongoing global war on terrorism. She provided the critical fifth vote protecting the First Amendment freedom of association of the Boy Scouts. She has provided the critical fifth vote in case after case after case, involving the important role that States play in our federalist system of Government, and in the protection of religious liberties and religious expression in the public square. Justice O'Connor has made important contributions to our jurisprudence, even when she was not part of the Court's ruling majority. Just last week, she penned an important dissent on behalf of private property rights against overreaching and ever-growing government--and against the 5-4 majority ruling in Kelo which has attracted so much national attention and outrage this past week. Last year, she provided a critical voice in defense of the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, even though a majority of her colleagues refused to do so. And 2 years ago, she demonstrated respect for precedent when she refused to join the Court's controversial majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision that inspired State and Federal court rulings and local government actions against traditional marriage laws nationwide. Throughout her 24 years of service on the Nation's highest court, Justice O'Connor worked to restore common sense to our criminal justice system and due regard for the power reserved to the States under the Constitution, and to limit restrictions on faith in the public square. Thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor, victims of crime are more likely to receive justice, and inner city children are no longer constitutionally barred from access to school choice programs. Although I have not always agreed with her rulings, I have always felt a deep and abiding respect for her commitment to public service, her reverence for the law, and her regard for her fellow man and woman. In a time when so many controversial issues divide Americans of good will, it is especially critical that our Federal courts, led by our Supreme Court, be steadfast in its interpretation and application of the law as it is written, and for our courts to avoid picking winner and losers in the great political debates of our day. Under the steady hand of Sandra Day O'Connor, America has weathered some of the most heated legal controversies our Nation has ever endured--and for that, the American people will forever be grateful. Today's historic announcement also raises an important question about the Senate and the role we will play in the confirmation process of the President's selection to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Moments ago the President called upon the Senate for a dignified process, and I think we should heed that call. We should conduct ourselves in a way worthy of this great body, which has served the Nation for more than 200 years, and which time after time after time, when there has been a vacancy on the Court, has done its job, providing advice and consent, asking hard questions, investigating the background of the President's nominees--but ultimately providing an up-or-down vote to each and every one of the President's nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. The process for considering the next Associate Justice should reflect the best of the American judiciary--not the worst of American politics. We deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law--and a confirmation process that is civil, respectful, and keeps politics out of the judiciary. As I wrote in an op-ed piece this past Monday in National Review Online, which I had printed in the Record yesterday, history affords us some important benchmarks for determining whether the Senate has undertaken a confirmation process worthy of the Court and of the American people. There is a right way and a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court nominee. The Senate's past record, unfortunately, has been mixed. Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications--not personal political beliefs. Whoever the nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks. I wish to congratulate Sandra Day O'Connor on her extraordinary life and commitment to public service. I wish her and her family well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I am glad to be here in the Chamber during the remarks of the Senator from Utah and have him explain for all of our benefit his position on important issues such as flag desecration. While I think some of us differ about the means to the end, I think the end is important, and that is protecting the symbol of our country and the symbol of our freedom. For myself, I think if we can offer protection to a symbol of our country like the bald eagle, then we should offer protection to other symbols of our country including our flag. But I always consider Senator Bennett to be one of the wise men in the Senate, and I certainly defer to his great judgment and wisdom. I appreciate his introduction today, and I look forward to studying it more closely. Exhibit 1 [From the Deseret Morning News, Jun. 24, 2005] Dump the Flag Amendment Once again, the House of Representatives has passed a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration. This is an annual event almost as predictable as the swallows returning to Capistrano. So, too, is the Senate's annual ritual of not passing it. This year, there is reason to think the Senate may be inching closer to passing it, and that's a concern. Few things are as reprehensible as watching someone protest the government by burning the flag. Particularly at a time when the nation is involved in a military conflict, it is a stunning affront to brave men and women who are sacrificing their all for freedom. But it would be wrong to rewrite the Constitution to equate a forced honoring of the flag with other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As upsetting as it is, flag burning is a form of expression every bit as much as flag waving. And a nation that attributes part of its greatness to its willingness to tolerate dissent and protest can't afford to stifle this type of speech. Flag burning--an occurrence so rare most Americans would be hard-pressed to pinpoint the last time they saw it--would not disappear because of an amendment. Chances are, it would become more prevalent, out of some misguided attempt to stand on principle. That would harm public morale at an important point in history, and the pride many Americans feel in their ability to tolerate free speech would feel more hollow. Besides, an amendment would raise a number of troubling questions that surely would be tested by 1 the nation's detractors. Would it be illegal to desecrate something that was almost a flag? For instance, if protesters create something that looks like the flag but has less than 50 stars, could they be punished for burning it? And what about hanging the flag upside down or in other ways considered disrespectful? A lot of clothes these days, from hats to T- shirts to blue jeans, contain images of the flag. Would these, too, be covered under the amendment? Would they, themselves, be illegal? Courts would be kept busy for decades answering these and other questions. This is the sixth time the flag amendment has passed the House. Should it pass the Senate, where its sponsor is Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, it would be almost assured of ratification by the states. All 50 states already have resolutions calling for it to pass. One of the Senate votes against it belongs to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, who normally agrees with much that Hatch supports. He has said he is unwilling to overturn 200 years of tradition in regard to the First Amendment. He's right. The Constitution is no place for feel-good amendments that do nothing but restrict freedoms.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I am glad to be here in the Chamber during the remarks of the Senator from Utah and have him explain for all of our benefit his position on important issues such as flag desecration. While I think some of us differ about the means to the end, I think the end is important, and that is protecting the symbol of our country and the symbol of our freedom. For myself, I think if we can offer protection to a symbol of our country like the bald eagle, then we should offer protection to other symbols of our country including our flag. But I always consider Senator Bennett to be one of the wise men in the Senate, and I certainly defer to his great judgment and wisdom. I appreciate his introduction today, and I look forward to studying it more closely. Exhibit 1 [From the Deseret Morning News, Jun. 24, 2005] Dump the Flag Amendment Once again, the House of Representatives has passed a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration. This is an annual event almost as predictable as the swallows returning to Capistrano. So, too, is the Senate's annual ritual of not passing it. This year, there is reason to think the Senate may be inching closer to passing it, and that's a concern. Few things are as reprehensible as watching someone protest the government by burning the flag. Particularly at a time when the nation is involved in a military conflict, it is a stunning affront to brave men and women who are sacrificing their all for freedom. But it would be wrong to rewrite the Constitution to equate a forced honoring of the flag with other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. As upsetting as it is, flag burning is a form of expression every bit as much as flag waving. And a nation that attributes part of its greatness to its willingness to tolerate dissent and protest can't afford to stifle this type of speech. Flag burning--an occurrence so rare most Americans would be hard-pressed to pinpoint the last time they saw it--would not disappear because of an amendment. Chances are, it would become more prevalent, out of some misguided attempt to stand on principle. That would harm public morale at an important point in history, and the pride many Americans feel in their ability to tolerate free speech would feel more hollow. Besides, an amendment would raise a number of troubling questions that surely would be tested by 1 the nation's detractors. Would it be illegal to desecrate something that was almost a flag? For instance, if protesters create something that looks like the flag but has less than 50 stars, could they be punished for burning it? And what about hanging the flag upside down or in other ways considered disrespectful? A lot of clothes these days, from hats to T- shirts to blue jeans, contain images of the flag. Would these, too, be covered under the amendment? Would they, themselves, be illegal? Courts would be kept busy for decades answering these and other questions. This is the sixth time the flag amendment has passed the House. Should it pass the Senate, where its sponsor is Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, it would be almost assured of ratification by the states. All 50 states already have resolutions calling for it to pass. One of the Senate votes against it belongs to Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, who normally agrees with much that Hatch supports. He has said he is unwilling to overturn 200 years of tradition in regard to the First Amendment. He's right. The Constitution is no place for feel-good amendments that do nothing but restrict freedoms.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice and my support for the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. CAFTA would be a great benefit to the United States and all countries involved. Momentum continues to build for this important accord which will, notwithstanding what some have said on the floor today, actually grow jobs in the United States and grow jobs in Central America. It will boost opportunities for exporters in the United States and provide additional market access for our products in Central America. Congress should pass this important agreement for the good of both our economy and our national security, as well as those of our neighbors. Economic growth brought about by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and raises income. This growth lifts people out of poverty, even as it spurs positive economic development. Free trade supports sustainable development and strengthens private property rights while encouraging competition, transparency, regional integration, and the open flow of technology. And a strong world economy based upon free trade and transparency advances not only the prosperity of nations but the cause of peace and liberty around the world. A vibrant, free market that values innovation and competition is one of the vital components of American success. For consumers here in the United States and the DR-CAFTA countries--Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua--free-trade will provide real and tangible benefits. It will demonstrate our commitment to the economic prosperity of that region, and it will also encourage the spread of democracy, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. DR-CAFTA countries are our 12th largest export market, with nearly 44 million consumers. Currently, nearly 80 percent of products from these countries enter the U.S. duty-free, but the average tariff on our goods is between 7 and 9 percent. DR-CAFTA would eliminate this imbalance and provide instead for reciprocal trade between all parties to the agreement--this means the playing field would be leveled for American exporters. The benefits of this agreement are clear: When CAFTA is implemented, 80 percent of U.S. products will enter DR-CAFTA countries duty-free, with the remaining 20 percent being phased in over 10 years. Currently, the average tariff imposed on U.S. exports to Central America is between 7 and 9 percent--and some farm products being taxed as much as 16 percent. Key U.S. export sectors stand to significantly benefit from the agreement, including medical and scientific equipment, information technology products, construction equipment, and paper products. As well, agriculture exports will be allowed to expand: More than half of current U.S. farm exports to Central America will become duty free immediately, including cotton, wheat, soybeans, fruits and vegetables, high-quality cuts of beef, processed food products, and wine. It is estimated that U.S. agriculture producers will increase their exports by $900 million as a result of the DR-CAFTA agreement. Finally, after tariff liberalization has been fully implemented, and all economic adjustments have occurred, overall U.S. welfare is likely to increase in the range of $135.31 million to $248.17 million. As well, the U.S. International Trade Commission has found that the effect of the agreement would be to reduce the overall U.S. trade deficit by $756 million. Furthermore, over half of current U.S. farm exports to Central America will become duty-free immediately, and other U.S. exports, such as information technology products, agricultural and construction equipment, paper products, chemicals, and medical and scientific equipment will immediately gain duty-free access. Workers in Central America and the Dominican Republic support the agreement. They recognize that it will help create more and better paying jobs. This in turn will help fight poverty, lifting these workers out of circumstances where they currently survive on only a few dollars a day. Enhanced opportunities for economic growth will provide these governments with additional resources for much-needed health care, education, and basic infrastructure. By working to alleviate poverty in Central America, we increase the likelihood that would-be immigrants would instead choose to stay and work in their own countries. We have seen the flow of immigrants who flock across our borders--they come here to work hard so they can send money home to support their families and relatives. They may be well- intentioned, but these hard workers are doing little to help the economy of Central Amerixa. The young democracies of Central America still face resistance from those opposed to the spread of democracy and economic freedom. In supporting DR-CAFTA, the United States will stand alongside those who support these ideals--those who believe in the rule of law, and will demonstrate that America does not merely view Central America as a trading partner, but that we intend to support the continued democratic development of our neighbors. Congress should promptly pass DR-CAFTA, as agreements that remove unnecessary barriers to free markets are good for America, and it is in our economic and national security interests to support a prosperous Central America. DR-CAFTA will encourage economic prosperity, stability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law throughout the region. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this important agreement. Mr. President, let me focus, in the time I have remaining, on immigration. I heard the Senator from Illinois claim that if we pass CAFTA, it will somehow displace Central American workers and they will be caused to immigrate--illegally, perhaps--to the United States. I could not disagree with him more. About a year ago, I traveled to Central America to five of the countries involved in this agreement, and in each and every one of those Central American countries we were told that their new democracies' future depends on ratification of these free-trade agreements. To a man, the leaders of those countries asked us to do everything we can to see that this free-trade agreement passes. While certainly we want to be a friendly neighbor if we can, I would not support this agreement if it weren't in the best interests of the United States on a number of bases. There is one conversation I remember in particular that relates to the comments we just heard from the Senator from Illinois about immigration. In Guatemala, at the Ambassador's residence, a gentleman told me, ``We want to export goods and services, not people.'' Mr. President, that stuck with me because what he was saying is that by our ratifying CAFTA, we create jobs and opportunities for the people of Central America where they live, so they don't have to come to the United States--illegally or otherwise--to be able to support their families. That is one of the reasons I am so strongly for this agreement. I am also for this agreement because these new democracies, many of which were engaged in civil war not that many years ago--and countries such as Nicaragua, where Daniel Ortega is hoping and praying that we will somehow turn our back on that country and these other new democracies--there are literally people waiting to take advantage of America if we turn our back on these countries, and to claim that instead we should align our interests with people like Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and others. It is in our best interest to make sure that these new and fragile democracies flourish, that people who live there can also find work there and support their families. The irony is that we hear people argue that unless we have stronger labor provisions or environmental provisions for these agreements--this agreement in Central America-- that we somehow should not pass it. The fact is, there are strong labor provisions and environmental provisions in this agreement. But do you know what. The best guarantee for a good environment is democracy. The best guarantee for good labor laws and the rule of law in these countries is democracy. If we turn our backs on Central America and these countries in this free-trade agreement, critics and enemies of this country will point to us and our actions and our rejection of this agreement and claim victory and say that America was not serious about helping; America does not care about anyone but itself, when in fact the opposite is true. We know, further, that the avenues used for illegal immigration up from South America, Central America, through Mexico's southern border, through seaports, and in the air are being used by organized criminals who smuggle human beings, who traffic in persons, who smuggle weapons, and who smuggle illegal narcotics. In other words, they are organized criminals who care only about making money, and they don't care one whit about the human suffering that they cause. It is simply in America's self-interest that we enter into this agreement which provides new markets for our producers in this country. It opens our markets further to those fragile democracies and market economies in Central America. It gives democracy a root in a way that cements our interest and reinforces our national interest, not only in this country, but in this hemisphere in Central and South America, an area that could sorely use the attention after what has been called a period of benign neglect. I urge my colleagues to vote with me in promptly passing CAFTA as agreements that remove unnecessary barriers to free markets which is in the economic and national security interest of the United States and a prosperous Central America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in light of recent comments on the floor of this body concerning the possibility of a Supreme Court vacancy, I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed that I published in National Review Online on Monday, June 27, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Meat Promotion Act of 2005. This legislation is long overdue. When implemented, it will help assist our producers of cattle, pork, and other livestock to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States. This proposal provides an efficient and effective solution to the country- of-origin labeling dilemma. The Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will benefit U.S. food producers by promoting American-grown foods. This bipartisan effort is widely supported by producers, processors, and retailers as a means to finally move country-of-origin labeling forward. This legislation provides for USDA implementation of a labeling program that will be similar to the many voluntary labeling programs that currently exist. Hundreds of programs that label products by region, state, and U.S. brand have already proven their value for producers and consumers alike. The Meat Promotion Act will put the marketplace in charge by allowing producers to meet consumer demand. Where that demand is demonstrated, more products labeled with country-of-origin will become available. Country-of-origin labeling has been an issue in the Senate for quite awhile, and yet, after all this time, we're no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. In reviewing the storied history of this issue, it's clear that there is not a shortage of viewpoints. One view overwhelmingly vocalized is that U.S. producers of beef and pork want to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States of America. They are proud of what they produce, and they should be: the U.S. produces the safest, most abundant food supply at the most affordable price, and our livestock producers want to capture the value they add to the market. But just like every other debate in Washington, the debate over country-of-origin labeling has been about the means to accomplish the goal. It is not that we are fighting about whether or not promoting U.S. product is a good idea. We are fighting about how to do it. Some in the U.S. Senate and some around the country have said: ``If it isn't mandatory, it's not labeling,'' or that the current mandatory labeling law that passed in the 2002 Farm Bill is the only way labeling will work. I strongly disagree. The current mandatory law is an example of a good idea gone awry. The warning signs of the negative impact of this law have long been on the horizon. On a number of occasions the Government Accountability Office published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. In 1999--3 years before the current mandatory labeling law was passed--GAO testified before Congress that ``There is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of mandatory labeling. At that same hearing, a representative of the Clinton administration testified that ``There are a variety of regulatory regimes for country-of-origin labeling that could be adopted.'' In 2000, the GAO released another study indicating that ``U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would, to the extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to their suppliers--U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers--in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.'' As if that was not enough, again in 2000, the USDA under President Clinton released another report which stated: ``[C]ountry-of-origin labeling is certain to impose at least some costs on an industry which will either be passed back to producers in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers via higher prices. There would also be compliance and enforcement cost to the government. The extent of these costs would vary depending on the nature of the regulatory scheme and the amount of enforcement and compliance action.'' Yet despite the warning signs, the current law passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. When USDA issued the proposed rule, it contained a cost-benefit analysis that said implementation could cost up to $4 billion--with no quantifiable benefit. The rule was followed by a letter from the Director of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this administration.'' And so, I am not surprised by how upset many of my constituents are, and that they have come asked me to do something about the burdens this law imposes on them. They ask: ``How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting U.S. products be so expensive?'' I am introducing this bill to help relieve that burden. There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will provide a better solution. Some have said that voluntary labeling is like a voluntary speed limit--that it won't work. On what basis do they make that claim? Products like Certified Angus Beef, Angus Pride, Rancher's Reserve; these are all labeled on a volunteer basis under existing USDA programs. If producers want to have their products labeled, then they should participate in a voluntary labeling program rather than impose a costly burden on entire segments of our Nation's economy. Others have argued that this is about food safety. Let's not kid ourselves: country-of-origin labeling is a product-marketing program, period. The security of our Nation's food supply is assured by a science-based, food-safety inspection system, not by labeling programs. In fact, the mandatory labeling law exempts food service and poultry. If this debate is about food safety, why are all poultry and the majority of beef imports for foodservice allowed an exemption? These exemptions clearly demonstrate food safety is not at issue. Some have also pointed to the mandatory labeling law now in effect on seafood and fish, saying that the sky has not fallen on those industries. That is subject to interpretation. GAO analysis of the seafood provisions of the mandatory labeling law shows that the seafood industry could face up to $89 million in start-up costs and up to $6.2 million in additional costs in year 10 of the program. Likewise, USDA estimated total recordkeeping at $44.6 million for the first year and $24.4 million in subsequent years. The Office of Management and Budget found the rule to be an ``economically significant'' regulatory action and USDA believes the rule would adversely affect--in a substantial way--a key sector of the economy. GAO B-294914. What do these numbers mean in a practical way? It means that these expenses are paid for out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, to fund a program that could be more efficient, more effective, and less costly. I stand with the livestock producers that want to market and promote the products they are proud to raise. I believe they should be able to market and promote their products as born, raised, and processed in the United States, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 provides the most effective and efficient opportunity for them to do so, while adding value to their bottom line and helping the economy of rural America.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Meat Promotion Act of 2005. This legislation is long overdue. When implemented, it will help assist our producers of cattle, pork, and other livestock to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States. This proposal provides an efficient and effective solution to the country- of-origin labeling dilemma. The Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will benefit U.S. food producers by promoting American-grown foods. This bipartisan effort is widely supported by producers, processors, and retailers as a means to finally move country-of-origin labeling forward. This legislation provides for USDA implementation of a labeling program that will be similar to the many voluntary labeling programs that currently exist. Hundreds of programs that label products by region, state, and U.S. brand have already proven their value for producers and consumers alike. The Meat Promotion Act will put the marketplace in charge by allowing producers to meet consumer demand. Where that demand is demonstrated, more products labeled with country-of-origin will become available. Country-of-origin labeling has been an issue in the Senate for quite awhile, and yet, after all this time, we're no closer to promoting U.S. products than we were a decade ago. In reviewing the storied history of this issue, it's clear that there is not a shortage of viewpoints. One view overwhelmingly vocalized is that U.S. producers of beef and pork want to market and promote their products as born and raised in the United States of America. They are proud of what they produce, and they should be: the U.S. produces the safest, most abundant food supply at the most affordable price, and our livestock producers want to capture the value they add to the market. But just like every other debate in Washington, the debate over country-of-origin labeling has been about the means to accomplish the goal. It is not that we are fighting about whether or not promoting U.S. product is a good idea. We are fighting about how to do it. Some in the U.S. Senate and some around the country have said: ``If it isn't mandatory, it's not labeling,'' or that the current mandatory labeling law that passed in the 2002 Farm Bill is the only way labeling will work. I strongly disagree. The current mandatory law is an example of a good idea gone awry. The warning signs of the negative impact of this law have long been on the horizon. On a number of occasions the Government Accountability Office published reports and studies, and testified before Congress about the burdens of mandatory country-of-origin labeling. In 1999--3 years before the current mandatory labeling law was passed--GAO testified before Congress that ``There is going to be significant costs associated with compliance and enforcement'' of mandatory labeling. At that same hearing, a representative of the Clinton administration testified that ``There are a variety of regulatory regimes for country-of-origin labeling that could be adopted.'' In 2000, the GAO released another study indicating that ``U.S. Packers, processors, and grocers would, to the extent possible, pass their compliance costs back to their suppliers--U.S. cattle and sheep ranchers--in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.'' As if that was not enough, again in 2000, the USDA under President Clinton released another report which stated: ``[C]ountry-of-origin labeling is certain to impose at least some costs on an industry which will either be passed back to producers in the form of lower prices or forward to consumers via higher prices. There would also be compliance and enforcement cost to the government. The extent of these costs would vary depending on the nature of the regulatory scheme and the amount of enforcement and compliance action.'' Yet despite the warning signs, the current law passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill. When USDA issued the proposed rule, it contained a cost-benefit analysis that said implementation could cost up to $4 billion--with no quantifiable benefit. The rule was followed by a letter from the Director of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Dr. John Graham, which said ``this is one of the most burdensome rules to be reviewed by this administration.'' And so, I am not surprised by how upset many of my constituents are, and that they have come asked me to do something about the burdens this law imposes on them. They ask: ``How can something so popular, like marketing and promoting U.S. products be so expensive?'' I am introducing this bill to help relieve that burden. There has to be a better way to market and promote U.S. products, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 will provide a better solution. Some have said that voluntary labeling is like a voluntary speed limit--that it won't work. On what basis do they make that claim? Products like Certified Angus Beef, Angus Pride, Rancher's Reserve; these are all labeled on a volunteer basis under existing USDA programs. If producers want to have their products labeled, then they should participate in a voluntary labeling program rather than impose a costly burden on entire segments of our Nation's economy. Others have argued that this is about food safety. Let's not kid ourselves: country-of-origin labeling is a product-marketing program, period. The security of our Nation's food supply is assured by a science-based, food-safety inspection system, not by labeling programs. In fact, the mandatory labeling law exempts food service and poultry. If this debate is about food safety, why are all poultry and the majority of beef imports for foodservice allowed an exemption? These exemptions clearly demonstrate food safety is not at issue. Some have also pointed to the mandatory labeling law now in effect on seafood and fish, saying that the sky has not fallen on those industries. That is subject to interpretation. GAO analysis of the seafood provisions of the mandatory labeling law shows that the seafood industry could face up to $89 million in start-up costs and up to $6.2 million in additional costs in year 10 of the program. Likewise, USDA estimated total recordkeeping at $44.6 million for the first year and $24.4 million in subsequent years. The Office of Management and Budget found the rule to be an ``economically significant'' regulatory action and USDA believes the rule would adversely affect--in a substantial way--a key sector of the economy. GAO B-294914. What do these numbers mean in a practical way? It means that these expenses are paid for out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, to fund a program that could be more efficient, more effective, and less costly. I stand with the livestock producers that want to market and promote the products they are proud to raise. I believe they should be able to market and promote their products as born, raised, and processed in the United States, and I believe the Meat Promotion Act of 2005 provides the most effective and efficient opportunity for them to do so, while adding value to their bottom line and helping the economy of rural America.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. To put it mildly, these are not easy days for members of the State and Federal judiciary. I am unaware of any member of this body who has not, at one time or another, criticized a member of the State or Federal judiciary for issuing one ruling or another--including the numerous controversial rulings that have captured the Nation's attention in recent years. Indeed, in each of the two previous Congresses, the Senate unanimously approved strongly worded resolutions ``strongly disapprov[ing]'' the infamous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. See S. Res. 71 (108th Cong.) and S. Res. 292 (107th Cong.). To be sure, judges are supposed to follow and apply the law--not legislate from the bench. On numerous occasions, I have spoken out against instances of judicial activism. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to register one's disapproval and disagreement. The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to express disagreement with government officials--including State and Federal judges. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about criticizing judicial rulings with which one sharply disagrees. But it is entirely inappropriate to threaten the impeachment and removal of judges simply for issuing rulings with which one disagrees. It is inappropriate to file lawsuits against judges in the hope of pestering or bankrupting them in retaliation for judicial actions one does not like. And it is absolutely deplorable for any person to undertake violence, threats of violence, or other illegal acts against judges. As a former State trial judge and State supreme court justice of 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence. I have grieved with those families. And during the Easter recess earlier this year, I met with an old friend, a Federal judge in Texas, to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. So I look forward to legislation that will soon be introduced to strengthen courthouse security and to otherwise bolster protections against violence for judges, their staff, and their families. Today I would like to introduce legislation to protect State and Federal judges against a different kind of threat--a lesser threat than violence to be sure, but an important one nonetheless: the threat of civil litigation in retaliation for unpopular judicial actions. For centuries, our common law has protected judges against civil litigation by conferring upon them courtroom immunity. It has long been understood that judicial immunity is an essential element of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judges have the ability and freedom to do their jobs. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted less than a decade ago: ``Even when cases are routinely dismissed, the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases.'' Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996--S. 1887, S. Rep. No. 104-366 at 37 (1996). Throughout its legal existence, judicial immunity has been for the most part a creature of the common law. But there have been times when Congress has seen fit to step in and to strengthen judicial immunity-- particularly when the courts have undertaken an unduly narrow view. In 1996, for example, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act--important legislation that included a provision reversing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in order to expand the protections of judicial immunity. It is appropriate for Congress once again to consider legislation to strengthen judicial immunity. This time, I hope Congress will respond to a recent decision by a Federal district court in Fort Worth, TX. That decision applied recent Supreme Court precedents in good faith, but in a manner that leaves judges potentially exposed to vexatious civil litigation. In Alexander v. Tarrant County, the Federal district court held that traditional judicial immunity does not protect State judges acting in their administrative capacities. Specifically, the court held that State judges authorized under State law to supervise local correctional facilities could not claim judicial immunity against suit. As a recent news report and editorial by the San Antonio Express- News make clear, that decision has left judges throughout the State of Texas in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about their exposure to lawsuits and liability. As the editorial rightly argues, the Alexander ruling, and I quote, ``has sent shock waves through the judiciary. . . . Judges have a tough job. They should not be burdened with defending themselves for the administrative duties they perform.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of those articles be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. The legislation I introduce today is simple and straightforward. It protects State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. Specifically, it provides that State and Federal judges shall be immune against any Federal civil cause of action respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitutionally authorized duty, except for actions involving malice. The legislation would not preempt any judicial immunity that already exists under current law. This legislation was drafted with the support of two Texas State judges--the Honorable Dean Rucker, who presides over the 318th District Court in MidIand, and who chairs the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, and the former chairman, the Honorable Mark Atkinson of the Harris County Criminal Court. I want to thank them both for their service to Texas and for their help with this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I am also grateful for the technical assistance provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which has been intimately involved in the defense State judges against vexatious litigation. Finally, I am especially grateful for the support of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, and I ask unanimous consent that his letter of support likewise be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I hope that legislation to protect judges against deplorable acts and threats of violence will soon be introduced and quickly be enacted, and I hope that the legislation I introduce today to protect judges against vexatious litigation will likewise be considered favorably by my colleagues.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important legislation to protect State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. To put it mildly, these are not easy days for members of the State and Federal judiciary. I am unaware of any member of this body who has not, at one time or another, criticized a member of the State or Federal judiciary for issuing one ruling or another--including the numerous controversial rulings that have captured the Nation's attention in recent years. Indeed, in each of the two previous Congresses, the Senate unanimously approved strongly worded resolutions ``strongly disapprov[ing]'' the infamous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit striking down the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. See S. Res. 71 (108th Cong.) and S. Res. 292 (107th Cong.). To be sure, judges are supposed to follow and apply the law--not legislate from the bench. On numerous occasions, I have spoken out against instances of judicial activism. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to register one's disapproval and disagreement. The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to express disagreement with government officials--including State and Federal judges. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about criticizing judicial rulings with which one sharply disagrees. But it is entirely inappropriate to threaten the impeachment and removal of judges simply for issuing rulings with which one disagrees. It is inappropriate to file lawsuits against judges in the hope of pestering or bankrupting them in retaliation for judicial actions one does not like. And it is absolutely deplorable for any person to undertake violence, threats of violence, or other illegal acts against judges. As a former State trial judge and State supreme court justice of 13 years, who has a number of close personal friends who still serve on the bench today, I am outraged by recent acts of courthouse violence. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence. I have grieved with those families. And during the Easter recess earlier this year, I met with an old friend, a Federal judge in Texas, to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect our judges and courthouse personnel against further acts of violence. So I look forward to legislation that will soon be introduced to strengthen courthouse security and to otherwise bolster protections against violence for judges, their staff, and their families. Today I would like to introduce legislation to protect State and Federal judges against a different kind of threat--a lesser threat than violence to be sure, but an important one nonetheless: the threat of civil litigation in retaliation for unpopular judicial actions. For centuries, our common law has protected judges against civil litigation by conferring upon them courtroom immunity. It has long been understood that judicial immunity is an essential element of protecting judicial independence and ensuring that judges have the ability and freedom to do their jobs. As the Senate Judiciary Committee noted less than a decade ago: ``Even when cases are routinely dismissed, the very process of defending against those actions is vexatious and subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the risk to judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial independence and may impair the day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in close or controversial cases.'' Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1996--S. 1887, S. Rep. No. 104-366 at 37 (1996). Throughout its legal existence, judicial immunity has been for the most part a creature of the common law. But there have been times when Congress has seen fit to step in and to strengthen judicial immunity-- particularly when the courts have undertaken an unduly narrow view. In 1996, for example, Congress enacted the Federal Courts Improvement Act--important legislation that included a provision reversing a U.S. Supreme Court decision in order to expand the protections of judicial immunity. It is appropriate for Congress once again to consider legislation to strengthen judicial immunity. This time, I hope Congress will respond to a recent decision by a Federal district court in Fort Worth, TX. That decision applied recent Supreme Court precedents in good faith, but in a manner that leaves judges potentially exposed to vexatious civil litigation. In Alexander v. Tarrant County, the Federal district court held that traditional judicial immunity does not protect State judges acting in their administrative capacities. Specifically, the court held that State judges authorized under State law to supervise local correctional facilities could not claim judicial immunity against suit. As a recent news report and editorial by the San Antonio Express- News make clear, that decision has left judges throughout the State of Texas in a state of uncertainty and anxiety about their exposure to lawsuits and liability. As the editorial rightly argues, the Alexander ruling, and I quote, ``has sent shock waves through the judiciary. . . . Judges have a tough job. They should not be burdened with defending themselves for the administrative duties they perform.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of those articles be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. The legislation I introduce today is simple and straightforward. It protects State and Federal judges against civil lawsuits, by clarifying that Federal judicial immunity covers all acts undertaken by judges pursuant to legal authority. Specifically, it provides that State and Federal judges shall be immune against any Federal civil cause of action respecting the discharge of any legislatively or constitutionally authorized duty, except for actions involving malice. The legislation would not preempt any judicial immunity that already exists under current law. This legislation was drafted with the support of two Texas State judges--the Honorable Dean Rucker, who presides over the 318th District Court in MidIand, and who chairs the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas, and the former chairman, the Honorable Mark Atkinson of the Harris County Criminal Court. I want to thank them both for their service to Texas and for their help with this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I am also grateful for the technical assistance provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as well as by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, which has been intimately involved in the defense State judges against vexatious litigation. Finally, I am especially grateful for the support of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, and I ask unanimous consent that his letter of support likewise be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks. I hope that legislation to protect judges against deplorable acts and threats of violence will soon be introduced and quickly be enacted, and I hope that the legislation I introduce today to protect judges against vexatious litigation will likewise be considered favorably by my colleagues.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, entitled the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation in response to a controversial ruling of the United States Supreme Court issued just last Thursday. The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is: the first principle of association, ``the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'' The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that ``private property'' shall not ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only ``for public use.'' On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that ruling, the Court acknowledged that ``it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B,'' and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only ``for public use.'' Yet the Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development. This is an alarming decision. As the Houston Chronicle editorialized this past weekend: It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has: effectively . . . delete[d] the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thereby ``refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution.'' Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, [t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. She further warns that, under Kelo, [a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, [and] the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. Indeed, as an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted: [a]bsent a true public use requirement, the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly. In a way, the Kelo decision at least vindicates supporters of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence. The Houston Chronicle has called upon lawmakers to take action, editorializing this past weekend that: lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain. I firmly agree. It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain. That is why I am introducing today the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. The legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only ``for public use,'' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The act would apply this standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: (1) All exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds. It would likewise be appropriate for states to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, ``nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.'' The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. The Kelo decision was a disappointment, but I congratulate the attorneys at the Institute for Justice for their exceptional legal work and for their devotion to liberty. We must not give up, and I know that the talented lawyers at the Institute for Justice have no intention of giving up. In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. Exhibit 1 Stealing Home It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes. The Supreme Court found, 5-4, that local elected officials are not barred by the Constitution from condemning whole neighborhoods and small businesses if, in their view, doing so would lead to redevelopment that increases tax collections. A majority on the court was convinced that the possibility of improving the tax base for the benefit of the wider community satisfies the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property can be taken by eminent domain only for a public purpose. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented, pinpointed the problem with the majority's argument. It cedes ``disproportionate influence and power'' to a community's most powerful and well-connected residents. Public parks, schools and right of way for thoroughfares traditionally have provided the sort of public purpose to justify government's use of eminent domain. Grand redevelopment schemes, especially when they are cooked up by government officials, often lack a sound economic basis and carry the potential of becoming boondoggles that hurt taxpayers. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that local officials are qualified judges of whether an economic development project will benefit the community. In this case, city officials in New London, Conn., plan to tear down private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, offices and a fitness club. ``The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote. But is that universally true? Municipal and county governing bodies frequently miscalculate or wildly overestimate the benefits of tax abatements and other incentives. Besides that, individual taxpayers don't necessarily benefit from increased government revenues. Sometimes the increased revenue proves insufficient to cover the cost of providing services to new development. Sometimes increased revenues are wasted on things other than essential services. Now that the high court has cleared the way for elected officeholders to trump private property rights, abuse of eminent domain becomes more likely, particularly in neighborhoods populated by the least influential citizens. In Texas, lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. That is correct. I will need about 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has: effectively . . . delete[d] the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thereby ``refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution.'' Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, [t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. She further warns that, under Kelo, [a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, [and] the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. Indeed, as an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted: [a]bsent a true public use requirement, the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly. In a way, the Kelo decision at least vindicates supporters of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence. The Houston Chronicle has called upon lawmakers to take action, editorializing this past weekend that: lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain. I firmly agree. It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain. That is why I am introducing today the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. The legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only ``for public use,'' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The act would apply this standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: (1) All exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds. It would likewise be appropriate for states to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, ``nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.'' The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. The Kelo decision was a disappointment, but I congratulate the attorneys at the Institute for Justice for their exceptional legal work and for their devotion to liberty. We must not give up, and I know that the talented lawyers at the Institute for Justice have no intention of giving up. In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. Exhibit 1 Stealing Home It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes. The Supreme Court found, 5-4, that local elected officials are not barred by the Constitution from condemning whole neighborhoods and small businesses if, in their view, doing so would lead to redevelopment that increases tax collections. A majority on the court was convinced that the possibility of improving the tax base for the benefit of the wider community satisfies the Fifth Amendment's requirement that private property can be taken by eminent domain only for a public purpose. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented, pinpointed the problem with the majority's argument. It cedes ``disproportionate influence and power'' to a community's most powerful and well-connected residents. Public parks, schools and right of way for thoroughfares traditionally have provided the sort of public purpose to justify government's use of eminent domain. Grand redevelopment schemes, especially when they are cooked up by government officials, often lack a sound economic basis and carry the potential of becoming boondoggles that hurt taxpayers. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that local officials are qualified judges of whether an economic development project will benefit the community. In this case, city officials in New London, Conn., plan to tear down private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, offices and a fitness club. ``The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote. But is that universally true? Municipal and county governing bodies frequently miscalculate or wildly overestimate the benefits of tax abatements and other incentives. Besides that, individual taxpayers don't necessarily benefit from increased government revenues. Sometimes the increased revenue proves insufficient to cover the cost of providing services to new development. Sometimes increased revenues are wasted on things other than essential services. Now that the high court has cleared the way for elected officeholders to trump private property rights, abuse of eminent domain becomes more likely, particularly in neighborhoods populated by the least influential citizens. In Texas, lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this distasteful form of eminent domain.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, entitled the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation in response to a controversial ruling of the United States Supreme Court issued just last Thursday. The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is: the first principle of association, ``the guarantee to everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'' The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that ``private property'' shall not ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only ``for public use.'' On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that ruling, the Court acknowledged that ``it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B,'' and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only ``for public use.'' Yet the Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development. This is an alarming decision. As the Houston Chronicle editorialized this past weekend: It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week. Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes and businesses so that other private entities can develop the land into enterprises that generate higher taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to express strong support for S. 1181, concerning the Federa1 Freedom of Information Act--or FOIA. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Leahy--with whom I am pleased to be working on a number of FOIA issues--as well as by Senators Alexander, Feingold, Isakson, and Specter. I am pleased that S. 1181 enjoys strong bipartisan support and the support of numerous organizations across the ideological spectrum. I can't imagine a more commonsense, good government bill. It should not be controversial. I am aware of any opposition to it. I am informed that the administration has no concerns about it. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the measure by voice vote on June 9, and I am hopeful that the Senate will take up this matter shortly. On February 16, shortly before the President's Day recess, the Senator from Vermont and I introduced the OPEN Government Act of 2005, S. 394--bipartisan legislation to promote accountability, accessibility, and openness in government, principally by strengthening and enhancing the Federal law commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act. On March 15, the Terrorism subcommittee convened a hearing on that legislation. Like S. 1181, the OPEN Government Act is a good bill to strengthen and enhance FOIA. But I recognize that the OPEN Government Act will take some time to work through. When I served as attorney general of Texas, it was my responsibility to enforce Texas's open government laws. I am pleased to report that Texas is known for having one of the strongest set of open government laws in our Nation. And since that experience, I have long believed that our Federal Government could use ``a little Texas sunshine.'' I am thus especially enthusiastic about the OPEN Government Act because that bill attempts to incorporate some of the most important principles and elements of Texas law into the Federal Freedom of Information Act. And I am gratified that Senators Alexander, Feingold, Isakson, and Nelson of Nebraska are cosponsors of this bipartisan Cornyn-Leahy legislation. The OPEN Government Act is the culmination of months of extensive discussions between the offices of Senators Cornyn and Leahy and members of the requestor community. It is supported by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and a broad coalition of organizations across the ideological spectrum, including: American Association of Law Libraries; American Civil Liberties Union; American Library Association: American Society of Newspaper Editors; Associated Press Managing Editors; Association of Alternative Newsweeklies; Association of Health Care Journalists; Center for Democracy & Technology; Coalition of Journalists for Open Government; Committee of Concerned Journalists; Common Cause; Defenders of Property Rights; Education Writers Association; Electronic Privacy Information Center; Federation of American Scientists/Project on Government Secrecy; Free Congress Foundation/Center for Privacy & Technology Policy; Freedom of Information Center, Univ. of Mo.; The Freedom of Information Foundation of TX; The Heritage Foundation/Center for Media and Public Policy; Information Trust; League of Women Voters of the United States; Liberty Legal Institute; Magazine Publishers of America; National Conference of Editorial Writers; National Freedom of Information Coalition; National Newspaper Association; National Press Club; National Security Archive/Geo. Wash. Univ.; Newspaper Association of America; OMB Watch; One Nation Indivisible; OpenTheGovernment.org; People for the American Way; Project on Government Oversight; Radio-Television News Directors Association; Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Society of Environmental Journalists. I am particularly pleased to report the recent endorsements of three conservative public interest groups--one devoted to the defense of property rights--Defenders of Property Rights, led by Nancie G. Marzulla--one devoted to the issue of racial preferences in affirmative action programs--One Nation Indivisible, led by Linda Chavez--and one devoted to the protection of religious liberty--Liberty Legal Institute, led by Kelly Shackelford. This broad and diverse support across political parties and across the ideological spectrum is important because it demonstrates that the cause of open government is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue-- neither a conservative nor a liberal issue. Rather, it is an American issue. Accordingly, I look forward to future Senate action on the OPEN Government Act. In the meantime, S. 1181 should be very easy for the Senate to approve today. It simply implements section 8 of the OPEN Government Act. It would simply help to ensure an open and deliberate process in Congress by providing that any future legislation to establish a new exemption to the Federal Freedom of Information Act must be stated explicitly within the text of the bill. Specifically, any future attempt to create a new so-called ``(b)(3) exemption'' to the Federal FOIA law must specifically cite section (b)(3) of FOIA if it is to take effect. The justification for this provision is simple: Congress should not establish new secrecy provisions through secret means. If Congress is to establish a new exemption to FOIA, it should do so in the open and in the light of day. FOIA establishes a presumption of disclosure. But if documents are to be kept secret pursuant to a future act of Congress, as is sometimes appropriate and necessary, we should at least make sure that that act of Congress itself not be undertaken in secret. I want to be clear: This bill does not affect current law in any way, and it does not affect the executive branch in any direct way. It only applies to the process through which Congress must enact any FOIA exemption in the future. For those who are interested in the technical aspects of this bill, I will point out that this provision is modeled after other Federal laws--such as the War Powers Resolution--50 U.S.C. Sec. 1547(a)--and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act--5 U.S.C. Sec. 3347--which also require Congress to act in an explicit fashion in order to carry out particular objectives. Think of it as a direction to the courts--a canon of interpretation, advising on how to construe future acts of Congress. Senator Leahy and I firmly believe that all of the provisions of the OPEN Government Act are important--and that, as a recent Cox News Service report demonstrates, section 8 in particular is a worthy provision that can and should be quickly enacted into law. July 4 is the anniversary of the 1966 enactment of the original Federal Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, we have devoted our efforts this month to getting section 8 approved by Congress and submitted to the President for his signature by that anniversary date. Toward that end, we ask our Senate colleagues to support this measure. And we look forward to working with our colleagues in the House-- including Representatives Lamar Smith and Brad Sherman, the lead sponsors of the OPEN Government Act in the House, H.R. 867; Chairman Tom Davis, who leads the House Committee on Government Reform; Chairman Todd Platts, who leads the House Government Reform Subcommittee that recently held a hearing to review the Federal FOIA law; and Representatives Henry Waxman and Edolphus Towns, the ranking members of the committee and subcommittee. S. 1181 is a commonsense, uncontroversial provision that deserves the support of every Member of Congress. I hope that it can be enacted into law quickly, and that Congress will then move to consider the other important provisions of the OPEN Government Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the news report I previously mentioned be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to add my support to the Domenici amendment No. 891. However, before I proceed, I want to extend my gratitude and congratulations to the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for their hard work in producing this Senate energy bill. 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. It is toward this same goal that I support this amendment that would share a portion of the revenues generated by off-shore oil and gas operations with coastal producing States. As we work to address our Nation's growing energy needs and to increase our domestic production of oil and gas, there will be enormous pressures placed on the communities along our coasts that serve as a platform to these operations. These pressures take a variety of forms and present a number of challenges. By giving coastal States an arrangement that States with in-land development already have by sharing some of these oil and gas revenues, we can mitigate some of these pressures. This includes assistance with conservation of critical coastal habitats and wetlands to providing coastal communities with help for infrastructure and public service needs. There has been a significant amount of discussion on the issue of coastal erosion in Louisiana, but I want the Senate to know that parts of Texas are experiencing some of the very same problems. I also appreciate the comments and reservations expressed by the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee. As a member of the Budget Committee, I recognize the significance and implications of waiving the Budget Act. However, in this case, the budget resolution does contain a specific reserve fund to accommodate spending in the energy bill. This amendment does not cause the bill to exceed the funds provided in the resolution for the bill and is fully within the amount of money Congress set aside for the energy bill. 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. This amendment is a reasonable proposal to address an issue of basic fairness. This will demonstrate to those communities along the coast that are so vital to the production of oil and gas for the Nation that they are valuable, important, and supported. Amendment No. 891

Mr. CORNYN. I say to the distinguished assistant majority leader that any lawyer--and we are likely to get a lawyer nominated for this important job on the Supreme Court--is going to have taken on behalf of a client, someone they have represented, or if they have taught, as the question suggests, during the course of their academic musings, programs, or writings, in Law Journal articles or otherwise, they are going to engage in the kind of intellectual exercise speculating perhaps about the limits of the law or what the law would or would not be under a particular set of circumstances. It is simply unreasonable to ascribe to those nominees, let's say, the views of someone they are defending in a criminal case because they have volunteered to serve pro bono to defend somebody accused of a crime, or to ascribe to them as their own personal beliefs or ones they will actively seek and enforce from the bench or what they have written in academic writings on perhaps the limits of the Constitution or what would or would not stand up in a particular court decision. I agree we should be fair to the nominees. We should require they rule in accordance with precedent and the intent of Congress when it comes to interpreting acts of Congress. But we should not try to mischaracterize them or paint them as out of the mainstream by viewing in isolation some of these writings or representations in their legal practice.

Mr. CORNYN. As the distinguished assistant majority leader knows, there has been a mischaracterization of the record of many nominees who have come up in recent times and one I hope we do not see repeated when we have this Supreme Court vacancy to consider, the President's nominee. But we have not had a good record recently of treating these nominees respectfully, understanding that these are people who are subjecting themselves to this process and public service at some personal sacrifice. I worry if this process becomes too mean and too unfair that we will simply see people who will not answer the call when the President requests they serve as a judge. We have seen those kinds of characterizations and attacks, as the assistant majority leader described them. It is my hope, and I know his, that we will not see a repetition of that, but we will see a respectful process. We will see one where the Senate does its job. We ask tough questions. We do a thorough investigation. But at the end of the day, we do not try to paint these nominees as something they are not and that we have an up-or-down vote on these nominees, as we have had for more than 200 years.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to an amendment I have filed to address the Bureau of Land Management's policy toward development of much needed oil and gas resources in the potash reserve. Notwithstanding the strong bipartisan consensus that the U.S. must expeditiously develop its readily available domestic oil and gas resources, for decades the Bureau of Land Management has restricted development of large volumes of oil and gas located in the Known Potash Leasing Area near Carlsbad, NM. BLM has authority to permit compatible oil and gas development in conjunction with potash mining in the area, but the agency has failed to do so due to asserted concerns with adverse impact on potash mining reserves and mine safety. For a long time the oil and gas industry has had the technical ability to drill in the potash region without creating any such threat to these potash mining interests. Concerns with BLM's administration of the Interior Secretary's October 1986 order have been raised with Congress over many years. However, given the Nation's continuing economic stress due to the oil and gas price and supply situation, and the policy imperative underlying the current energy bill debate to facilitate resource development on Federal lands where Federal rules or policies have unnecessarily inhibited such activity, the time has come to expeditiously resolve the administrative problems that have impeded reasonable oil and gas development in the Nation's potash reserve. The BLM has denied approximately 190 applications for drilling permits and applicants strongly believe that their permits have been denied without appropriate consideration of their technical ability to develop oil and gas in the potash area while not creating any safety risks to potash mining or jeopardizing economically recoverable potash reserves. My amendment would address this disadvantage for oil and gas drilling permits in the potash area, insuring that BLM allows drilling compatibly with the interest in maintaining potash reserves and mining in the area. Specifically, my amendment would still allow BLM to deny permits out of concern for adverse impact on potash mining, but only if the agency could specify with particularity the reasons why approval of the oil and gas permit would jeopardize potash mining safety or threaten recoverable potash reserves the value of which exceeded the value of the recoverable oil and gas associated with the relevant permit. I understand that the chairman is well aware of the protracted history of this problem and has directed his staff to investigate the situation with BLM. Indeed, this week my staff attended a meeting with the BLM State director and the Chairman's staff to discuss this issue. I certainly could offer the amendment for a vote at this time, but may I first inquire of the chairman whether he shares my concern with the BLM policy regarding the amount of oil and gas drilling being permitted in the potash region?

Mr. CORNYN. I share the Chairman's views and would furthr inquire whether the chairman would be willing to work with me through the course of the conference on the energy bill to assure that this problem with BLM policy is properly addressed?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chairman.