John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from West Virginia has the floor. I don't.

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I walked in on the tail end of his remarks, but he and I are going to be on a consistent theme today, and that is, the importance of tax reform. I look forward to reviewing his proposal because we are all on the same side. The current IRS Code is broken. We, the Congress, need to fix it. This last weekend, I was at a small business in Dallas, TX, called the Manda Machine Company. This small employer employs about 20 people in the Dallas area. We talked about the burdens on small businesses that make it harder for them to create jobs. In particular, we talked about the IRS Code and the importance to make it fairer, simpler, and flatter. Common sense also tells us we need to make the IRS Code a whole lot more transparent; in other words, ``readily understood,'' ``clear,'' ``easily detected'' or ``perfectly evident,'' which is the dictionary definition of ``transparent.'' But according to that definition, it is clear the IRS Code fails the transparency test. Now, I believe we ought to continue to let in a little bit more sunshine in how the Government operates and how the people's money is being spent. I think we also need to add a little bit of sunshine to how the Federal Government taxes the American people. The Federal Government should not be playing a game of ``gotcha'' with the owners of the American Government; and that is, we the people. For example, the vast majority of Americans now require professional assistance to help fill out tax documents. Why it is the Code is so complex is simply beyond me. Even taxpayers who want to try to figure out how to do the right thing have a hard time doing it on their own and require the assistance of lawyers and accountants to try to figure out how to comply with the law. Six out of every 10 taxpayers in America today require the help of an outside expert to figure out how to do their duty when it comes to paying taxes. Families and entrepreneurs alike spend billions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to figure out how to comply with the IRS Code. In fact, it is estimated taxpayers in America will spend 6 billion hours complying with the IRS Code at an estimated compliance cost of $265 billion. This has more than doubled in just over the past 10 years, and estimates are it will continue to increase at a faster rate in the future. This is a statistic that is staggering. The number of pages in the Federal tax rules has exploded by more than 50 percent in the last decade alone. In fact, since the last major reform effort in 1986, there have been more than 14,000 changes to the IRS Code. The Federal Government and Congress in particular should not be in the business of picking winners and losers when it comes to taxpayers in this country. But that is what an exceedingly complex IRS Code does. It provides exemptions, credits to a variety of different taxpayers under a variety of different circumstances, picking winners and losers in the process. That is not what the IRS Code should be doing. Changes, we all know, are long overdue. There can be no doubt the IRS Code and accompanying forms are burdensome, onerous, and unduly complicated. The complicated system comes at a cost. Every year, the National Taxpayer Advocate highlights this complexity in one way or another as one of the top 10 problems that taxpayers face when trying to figure out how to comply with the law. The IRS Code, as I indicated a moment ago, is full of special interest loopholes. With every year that passes, American taxpayers spend more and more time to try to figure out how to comply with these burdensome provisions. Taxpayers will also work longer this year to pay for the government--a total of 120 days of their income will be used to fund the government. In other words, Tax Freedom Day will not come until the end of April. That means for the first 120 days of the year we all work for Uncle Sam, and then we get to the fruits of our labor thereafter, where we get to keep it, use it on our families, or save it, however we may see fit. But this year, taxpayers will work longer to pay for Government than they will work to provide for food, housing, and clothing combined, which is 105 days, for those three essentials of life--food, housing, and clothing. Taxpayers will work longer to pay their Federal taxes--79 days--than they will work to pay for housing, which is roughly 62 days. For health and medical care, the estimate is, it takes 52 days to work to provide for those essentials. Transportation is 30 days, and clothing is 13 days. Whatever our tax system, be it a flat tax, sales tax, or income tax, it ought to be based on three fundamental ideas: simplicity, fairness, and transparency. I think these simple ideas should be our guide in reforming and simplifying our tax laws. While comprehensive tax reform may not be right around the corner, the last thing we should do is to raise taxes on families and entrepreneurs and let the tax relief Congress passed in 2001 and 2003 expire. So until we come to the time that we can actually simplify and make the IRS Code fairer, the last thing we ought to do is raise taxes on the American people. But the truth is that is what the new majority in Congress, elected last November, decided to do a month ago. The Senate passed a 5-year budget, with Democrats carrying the day, that effectively raises taxes, over the next 5 years, by over $700 billion. Unfortunately, this is the kind of tax increase that is the most odious and the most regrettable because it will not even require Members of Congress to come on the floor and vote for the tax increase so they can then be held accountable at the polls. Instead, what Democrats have chosen to do is to have silent tax increases so that when the tax relief that was passed in 2001 and 2003 expires, we will see taxes go up higher than they ever have before at one time in our Nation's history. I guess it is not good enough that those who are in the top 40 percent pay 99.1 percent of all income taxes, and that in 2004, the top 10 percent paid 70.8 percent of all income tax--an increase from their share of 48.1 percent in 1979. Instead, Democrats in Congress want to see everybody end up paying more. If this trend continues--in a perverse way, the only way Democrats will be able to pay for their plans to grow the Federal Government is for the rich to grow richer. Instead of raising taxes, we should make the President's tax relief passed by a majority of Congress a permanent part of the IRS Code. If Congress fails to make the tax relief permanent that has been the driving force in the economy, helping to create 7.9 million new jobs since August 2003--if Congress fails to make this tax relief permanent, a family of 4 making $65,000 a year would see their tax bill increase by 58 percent. Small businesses that file as individuals would see their taxes increase by 13 percent. Things such as the $1,000 child tax, relief from the marriage tax penalty, and the new low 10-percent tax bracket put money back into the pockets of working parents, while small business expensing and dividend and capital gains tax relief have helped America's entrepreneurs expand their businesses and create jobs. Then there is perhaps the ugliest tax of all, which is the death tax. This is double taxation, because we all know we pay taxes on income as earned. But the death tax, set to rear its ugly head in 2011, will hit family businesses, farmers, and ranchers alike, forcing many to sell their farm to pay the IRS. Death should not be a taxable event. The numbers speak for themselves in terms of the progrowth, low-tax policies: 21 consecutive quarters of growth, unemployment at historic lows--4.4 percent--and 7.9 million new jobs over the past 3\1/2\ years. We should remember the words of former Chief Justice John Marshall, who said: The power to tax is the power to destroy. The last thing we should do is to destroy this great economy, which is literally the goose that has laid all of the golden eggs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the introduction of S. 1096 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jack Kammerer be granted the privilege of the floor during the course of debate on the Intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the past several months, our Nation has focused on the tragic stories of the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers have faced as outpatients in Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and the stories of the difficulty they faced as they tried to navigate the military and veterans health care and benefits systems following their return from Afghanistan and Iraq. This morning, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member--the committee on which I serve--as well as the Veterans' Affairs Committee had further hearings and detailed the work we have to do to bring down another wall, and that is the wall that separates our wounded warriors from the benefits they have earned by their noble service. Today I introduce the Veterans Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 that will provide immediate and tangible assistance to our wounded servicemembers and their families by strengthening our current law. This legislation provides explicit VA housing and automobile grant eligibility to servicemembers and veterans with burn injuries, enhanced eligibility for grant assistance during the Department of Defense-to- Veterans' Administration transition, and requires the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration to report on possible improvements to the current law that would cover others with special disabilities, such as those with traumatic brain injuries. I am pleased to say the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Danny Akaka, and the ranking member, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, as well as my senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. I grew up in a military family. My dad served for 31 years in the Air Force. I saw firsthand the importance of treating our veterans in a fair and equitable manner. The sacrifices our men and women in uniform make every day must not be forgotten when they take that uniform off or when they leave their active-duty military service. No veteran should ever be left behind. The fundamental agreement--I would say even sacred covenant--between our men and women in uniform and our Government does not end when a servicemember is wounded or separates from the active- duty military service and becomes a veteran. Let there be no question about it, the conditions of these outpatient housing facilities at Walter Reed were absolutely unacceptable. But perhaps the story of that unacceptable condition has led us to finding a way to serve our wounded warriors and their families better. The U.S. military and the Department of Veterans Affairs must conduct a top-to- bottom investigation of our entire military health system and take immediate steps to address any and all problems that might exist. It is sobering to know--as Senator Craig quoted during this morning's hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee--that the conclusions reached by GEN Omar Bradley some five decades ago were not fundamentally different from those that are tentative conclusions today about how we can improve that transition, and still we know problems exist. The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Veterans, led by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, is an important component of this ongoing effort, which will not be a task for the short-winded. We have an obligation and a duty to ensure that the men and women who are serving and who have served in our military are receiving the very best treatment and benefits for themselves and their families. We cannot and we should not tolerate anything less. We have to do whatever it takes, including providing both the necessary resources and cutting the bureaucratic redtape, to best meet the medical and other needs of those who have so nobly defended our Nation's freedom. In my State of Texas, my home of San Antonio, Brooke Army Medical Center stands at the forefront of modern army medicine, second to none in the world. Without a doubt--and this is a personal judgment, and I know my colleagues will indulge me--it is Brooke Army Medical Center that is the crown jewel of modern military medicine. I have seen firsthand the magnificent job our men and women are doing at Brooke Army Medical Center to care for our servicemembers, and they deserve all the credit and our firm support. When I made my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, on March 10, I had the chance to not only visit soldiers and their families but I chaired a roundtable of hospital administrators, veterans service organizations, and veterans themselves because I wanted to learn from them what we needed to do here in Washington, DC to craft the laws and policies of this Nation to serve them better. I appreciate the strong opinions and advice expressed by these people who participated in the roundtable, and others who have been a source of information and feedback to me as I try to do what I can in my capacity as their elected representative to accomplish these goals. The care and support our Nation provides to these wounded warriors is a direct reflection of the level of respect we have for both our military, our military families, and our veterans, and will, in many ways, shape the armed services, the all-volunteer services, for many years to come. They depend not only on recruitment but retention. In conjunction with my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, I heard from many soldiers, families, and veterans about their individual experiences, as I know the current occupant of the chair has when he has traveled back to Colorado, and as all of us have when we go back to learn more from our constituents about how we can improve our response. I learned in particular of challenges that burn victims and their families have faced because they have not received enough special care and assistance for that particular type of injury in the area of VA housing grants and automobile enhancements. In particular, I want to recognize two women, heroes in my eyes, and I am sure in the eyes of their families, people such as Christy Patton, whose husband, U.S. Army SSG Everett Patton, is undergoing treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center. He was wounded and badly burned by an IED, an improvised explosive device, in Iraq while with the 172nd Stryker Brigade from Alaska. The Pattons have five children. Then there is Rosie Babin, whose son Alan, a corporal, a medic, was shot while serving in the 82nd Airborne combat team in 2003, now medically retired and living at home with his parents outside Austin, TX. These two women--Christy Patton, who sought me out and explained to me the difficult challenges that her husband and her family of five children are having transitioning and dealing with these wounds and transitioning from the military medical care into retirement and the veterans system; as well as Rosie Babin, on behalf of her son Alan--are the most fervent and effective advocates anyone could ever want to have on your side. They have helped me a great deal as I have tried to craft legislation which I have introduced today to help not only them, because I know they didn't come to me advocating just for a solution for their husband or their son, they came to me because they thought we could craft a solution for wounded warriors and their families yet to come. These families, though, are facing unique challenges as they deal with the injuries of their loved ones, and we have a responsibility to ensure they do not go it alone and that they get all the resources and assistance our country can offer them so they can recover to the maximum degree possible. The intent of the legislation which I have introduced today, along with my cosponsors, is pretty straightforward. Let me describe briefly what it does. It would strengthen the present code to provide for the specific needs of burn victims for housing and automobile grants. It would ensure that wounded servicemembers and veterans with other specific needs, such as traumatic brain injuries, are also covered by these kinds of grants, if required. It would further strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans' Administration transition. As the occupant of the chair knows, that has been one of the real problems we have identified early on, is transitioning people from active-duty military service into the Veterans' Administration, with the duplicate bureaucracies and redtape and the different standards for disability determination and the like. But this bill, in particular, would strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans Administration transition by providing partial housing grants for those veterans residing with a family member to cover servicemembers still on active duty awaiting their final VA disability rating. I have to say a word here about the family members. When I have been to Walter Reed and when I have been to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, I have seen young spouses, mostly women, who are attending to their injured warrior husbands, or in the case of Rosie Babin, a mother, a loving mother attending to the needs of her son, who was also injured in 2003. It was brought home to me on a very human level what these wounds mean not just to those who receive them but to the family members, who basically sacrifice everything in order to attend to and care for their loved ones. So we ought to do everything we can for our warriors, such as Alan Babin, who are living in their parents' home, to make sure these housing grants will cover servicemembers still on active duty who are awaiting their Veterans' Administration disability rating. This legislation will also require the Veterans' Administration to report on the need for a permanent housing grant for wounded veterans who reside with family members; and, finally, it will adjust current law to provide home improvements and structural alteration housing grants to Department of Defense servicemembers who are awaiting final VA disability ratings. As a direct result of the care and concern of military family members, such as Christy Patton and Rosie Babin, we now have a concrete response to the very real concerns they have raised and ways that we can, working together, strengthen the current law. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation so we can work together on a bipartisan basis, in unison, to support our wounded servicemembers and their families better, particularly people such as the Babins and the Pattons. With continued attention to our veterans, we can fashion a revised system that best supports them and their families. I know we all agree that they deserve nothing less. They are the very finest our Nation has to offer.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the past several months, our Nation has focused on the tragic stories of the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers have faced as outpatients in Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and the stories of the difficulty they faced as they tried to navigate the military and veterans health care and benefits systems following their return from Afghanistan and Iraq. This morning, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the ranking member--the committee on which I serve--as well as the Veterans' Affairs Committee had further hearings and detailed the work we have to do to bring down another wall, and that is the wall that separates our wounded warriors from the benefits they have earned by their noble service. Today I introduce the Veterans Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 that will provide immediate and tangible assistance to our wounded servicemembers and their families by strengthening our current law. This legislation provides explicit VA housing and automobile grant eligibility to servicemembers and veterans with burn injuries, enhanced eligibility for grant assistance during the Department of Defense-to- Veterans' Administration transition, and requires the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration to report on possible improvements to the current law that would cover others with special disabilities, such as those with traumatic brain injuries. I am pleased to say the chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Danny Akaka, and the ranking member, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, have joined me as original cosponsors of this legislation, as well as my senior Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. I grew up in a military family. My dad served for 31 years in the Air Force. I saw firsthand the importance of treating our veterans in a fair and equitable manner. The sacrifices our men and women in uniform make every day must not be forgotten when they take that uniform off or when they leave their active-duty military service. No veteran should ever be left behind. The fundamental agreement--I would say even sacred covenant--between our men and women in uniform and our Government does not end when a servicemember is wounded or separates from the active- duty military service and becomes a veteran. Let there be no question about it, the conditions of these outpatient housing facilities at Walter Reed were absolutely unacceptable. But perhaps the story of that unacceptable condition has led us to finding a way to serve our wounded warriors and their families better. The U.S. military and the Department of Veterans Affairs must conduct a top-to- bottom investigation of our entire military health system and take immediate steps to address any and all problems that might exist. It is sobering to know--as Senator Craig quoted during this morning's hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee--that the conclusions reached by GEN Omar Bradley some five decades ago were not fundamentally different from those that are tentative conclusions today about how we can improve that transition, and still we know problems exist. The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Veterans, led by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala, is an important component of this ongoing effort, which will not be a task for the short-winded. We have an obligation and a duty to ensure that the men and women who are serving and who have served in our military are receiving the very best treatment and benefits for themselves and their families. We cannot and we should not tolerate anything less. We have to do whatever it takes, including providing both the necessary resources and cutting the bureaucratic redtape, to best meet the medical and other needs of those who have so nobly defended our Nation's freedom. In my State of Texas, my home of San Antonio, Brooke Army Medical Center stands at the forefront of modern army medicine, second to none in the world. Without a doubt--and this is a personal judgment, and I know my colleagues will indulge me--it is Brooke Army Medical Center that is the crown jewel of modern military medicine. I have seen firsthand the magnificent job our men and women are doing at Brooke Army Medical Center to care for our servicemembers, and they deserve all the credit and our firm support. When I made my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, on March 10, I had the chance to not only visit soldiers and their families but I chaired a roundtable of hospital administrators, veterans service organizations, and veterans themselves because I wanted to learn from them what we needed to do here in Washington, DC to craft the laws and policies of this Nation to serve them better. I appreciate the strong opinions and advice expressed by these people who participated in the roundtable, and others who have been a source of information and feedback to me as I try to do what I can in my capacity as their elected representative to accomplish these goals. The care and support our Nation provides to these wounded warriors is a direct reflection of the level of respect we have for both our military, our military families, and our veterans, and will, in many ways, shape the armed services, the all-volunteer services, for many years to come. They depend not only on recruitment but retention. In conjunction with my most recent visit to Brooke Army Medical Center, I heard from many soldiers, families, and veterans about their individual experiences, as I know the current occupant of the chair has when he has traveled back to Colorado, and as all of us have when we go back to learn more from our constituents about how we can improve our response. I learned in particular of challenges that burn victims and their families have faced because they have not received enough special care and assistance for that particular type of injury in the area of VA housing grants and automobile enhancements. In particular, I want to recognize two women, heroes in my eyes, and I am sure in the eyes of their families, people such as Christy Patton, whose husband, U.S. Army SSG Everett Patton, is undergoing treatment at Brooke Army Medical Center. He was wounded and badly burned by an IED, an improvised explosive device, in Iraq while with the 172nd Stryker Brigade from Alaska. The Pattons have five children. Then there is Rosie Babin, whose son Alan, a corporal, a medic, was shot while serving in the 82nd Airborne combat team in 2003, now medically retired and living at home with his parents outside Austin, TX. These two women--Christy Patton, who sought me out and explained to me the difficult challenges that her husband and her family of five children are having transitioning and dealing with these wounds and transitioning from the military medical care into retirement and the veterans system; as well as Rosie Babin, on behalf of her son Alan--are the most fervent and effective advocates anyone could ever want to have on your side. They have helped me a great deal as I have tried to craft legislation which I have introduced today to help not only them, because I know they didn't come to me advocating just for a solution for their husband or their son, they came to me because they thought we could craft a solution for wounded warriors and their families yet to come. These families, though, are facing unique challenges as they deal with the injuries of their loved ones, and we have a responsibility to ensure they do not go it alone and that they get all the resources and assistance our country can offer them so they can recover to the maximum degree possible. The intent of the legislation which I have introduced today, along with my cosponsors, is pretty straightforward. Let me describe briefly what it does. It would strengthen the present code to provide for the specific needs of burn victims for housing and automobile grants. It would ensure that wounded servicemembers and veterans with other specific needs, such as traumatic brain injuries, are also covered by these kinds of grants, if required. It would further strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans' Administration transition. As the occupant of the chair knows, that has been one of the real problems we have identified early on, is transitioning people from active-duty military service into the Veterans' Administration, with the duplicate bureaucracies and redtape and the different standards for disability determination and the like. But this bill, in particular, would strengthen the Department of Defense-to-Veterans Administration transition by providing partial housing grants for those veterans residing with a family member to cover servicemembers still on active duty awaiting their final VA disability rating. I have to say a word here about the family members. When I have been to Walter Reed and when I have been to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, I have seen young spouses, mostly women, who are attending to their injured warrior husbands, or in the case of Rosie Babin, a mother, a loving mother attending to the needs of her son, who was also injured in 2003. It was brought home to me on a very human level what these wounds mean not just to those who receive them but to the family members, who basically sacrifice everything in order to attend to and care for their loved ones. So we ought to do everything we can for our warriors, such as Alan Babin, who are living in their parents' home, to make sure these housing grants will cover servicemembers still on active duty who are awaiting their Veterans' Administration disability rating. This legislation will also require the Veterans' Administration to report on the need for a permanent housing grant for wounded veterans who reside with family members; and, finally, it will adjust current law to provide home improvements and structural alteration housing grants to Department of Defense servicemembers who are awaiting final VA disability ratings. As a direct result of the care and concern of military family members, such as Christy Patton and Rosie Babin, we now have a concrete response to the very real concerns they have raised and ways that we can, working together, strengthen the current law. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation so we can work together on a bipartisan basis, in unison, to support our wounded servicemembers and their families better, particularly people such as the Babins and the Pattons. With continued attention to our veterans, we can fashion a revised system that best supports them and their families. I know we all agree that they deserve nothing less. They are the very finest our Nation has to offer.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my heartfelt appreciation to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, for working diligently, creatively, and in a very determined way to try to solve a problem that has previously existed in this area that has made it difficult, if not impossible, for some of us to support the expansion of embryonic stem cell research because we were concerned that a very important moral line would be crossed. I, for one, strongly support medical research, development, and innovation to combat disease and develop effective treatments to improve the quality of health for all Americans, and I am sure we all feel the same way. During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support legislation that promoted expansion of stem cell research without harming or destroying human embryos, and today I am proud to join Senators Coleman and Isakson in cosponsoring the HOPE Act, the Hope Offered Through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research bill. This HOPE Act advances stem cell research, while respecting life and focusing on cures by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish guidelines for research on embryos that have died from natural causes. The bill directs HHS, Health and Human Services, to prioritize research likely to produce the greatest results in the near term, and authorizes Federal funding for research only if such lines have been derived in such a manner that it does not harm or kill a living human embryo. Finally, it directs the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study to delve further into the possibilities of amniotic and placental cell bank programs, areas which I understand from my reading have a lot of promise. I am also encouraged by the scientific advances made in the roughly $3 billion of Federal money put into stem cell research since about 2001 that have created real advances in adult and cord blood stem cell research, and I strongly support efforts to build upon these promising therapies which are already being used in medical treatments for a variety of reasons. Current Federal stem cell policy funds research using established embryonic stem cell lines, thus taxpayers are not forced to support research that would require the use and destruction of human embryos at the earliest stage of development. It is essential to note that there is no law that prohibits embryonic stem cell research in this country. I think, unfortunately, this has been misportrayed and misunderstood in many quarters. In fact, this administration is the first one to support federally funded embryonic stem cell research within parameters. But the issue before us is solely an issue of whether American taxpayers will be forced to fund research that many of them oppose on fundamental moral grounds. It creates a slippery slope when human life is sacrificed for medical experimentation. The current Federal policy does not forbid others from conducting such research on lines other than those approved by the President, provided it is funded from sources other than the Federal taxpayer. There are States, I think notably California and others, that have voted to spend their own taxpayers' money for that purpose but not the Federal taxpayers' money. Adult stem cells--and this is again one of those areas where, when you mix science and politics, I fear always the science suffers--and this is part of the good news of this research, this $3 billion invested in stem cell research since 2001--the good news is that adult stem cells are treating real patients who suffer from more than 70 different diseases and disorders right now. I think many people would be surprised to learn that embryonic stem cells have had few modest successes in animal trials and so far have produced zero treatments for human beings. I think many people would be surprised because of the overhyped and oversold story about embryonic stem cell research. I think our job ought to be to try to come up with a reasoned piece of legislation based on the facts, not based on hype. I think that is what Senator Isakson and Senator Coleman have done. All of us have deep sympathy for parents, for children, for families who continue to struggle with painful, serious diseases. I continue to study this issue with great care. I remember every year the parents of children who suffer juvenile diabetes coming to my office along with their children. It really tugs at your heartstrings to see these parents wanting their children to be cured from this terrible disease. We all hope and pray that someday they will be. I have been encouraged by recent reports from America's scientific community which revealed that great potential exists for obtaining embryonic-like stem cells without creating and then harming human life. At the beginning of this month there were 1,373 publicly available clinical trials related to adult stem cells--1,373 publicly available clinical trials related to adult stem cells--including 671 that are currently recruiting patients. In my State of Texas, for example, 93 adult stem cell clinical trials are currently being conducted on everything from brain injuries to different forms of cancer to heart disease. I am proud to say that medical research in my State has been at the forefront of the adult stem cell research field. For example, the Texas Heart Institute reported evidence of the effectiveness of treating congestive heart disease with the patient's own stem cells. Heart disease, as we all know, is the No. 1 killer in the United States. Yet the researchers at the Texas Heart Institute are finding that adult stem cells injected directly into the heart are not only improving blood flow and blood vessel formation, but they are even growing new heart tissue. Another clinical trial in Texas, started this last year at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston and Memorial Hermann Children's Hospital, is among the first to apply adult stem cells to treat traumatic brain injury. The researchers in this trial are using children's own bone marrow stem cells to treat brain trauma. This is an especially important area to see adult stem cell research branching out into because of the devastating effect that brain injuries have had on survivors' lives. These trials and others like them are bringing us new treatments all the time for real patients right now. I will continue to support the expansion of research that may lead to the improved treatment of disease without compelling taxpayers to fund destruction of human embryos, a procedure that many find morally objectionable. Let me say in conclusion, again, how much I appreciate the creativity and determination of my two colleagues who have led the effort on this important legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it, proud to support it. I think generations yet unknown will continue to benefit from the kind of medical research that we will approve if we pass this bill and when it is signed by the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation from last Congress--the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act of 2007 or the ``SKIL Act of 2007''. In the past two years, there has been so much focus by this Congress and this Administration on restoring America's competitive advantage. The President has proposed the America's Competitiveness Initiative. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Protecting America's Competitive Edge bills and the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006. In the 110th Congress, I have cosponsored along with 44 other Senators the America COMPETES Act. This is a bipartisan legislative response to recommendations contained in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate America'' report. The one thing we have learned through the process of retaining America's competitiveness is that everyone has to do their part to keep our country's economy strong and viable. Currently, we are working very hard on comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased to be a part of that process. However, our country, right now, is losing its competitive edge in the global market. Why? Because our immigration policies prohibit us from retaining some of the ``best and brightest'' students currently graduating from U.S. colleges and universities-- especially those with advanced degrees in science and technology. We also continue to lose highly qualified and highly skilled workers to foreign competitors because of our failed immigration system. Recently Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates made it clear the dire situation we are faced with today in terms of high-skilled labor shortages: ``For generations, America has prospered largely by attracting the world's best and brightest to study, live, and work in the United States. Our success at attracting the greatest talent has helped us become a global innovation leader, enriched our culture, and created economic opportunities for all Americans. Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most . . . Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well- trained, highly skilled individuals--many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities--that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message. This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains.'' The U.S. Department of Labor projects that between 2002 and 2012 there will be 2 million U.S. job openings in the fields of computer science, mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences. The SKIL bill would retain foreign students educated in the U.S. to ensure continued competition in the global market. As I have stated before, a critical part of America's economy is our ability to innovate but our current immigration policies are threatening future growth. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's recent announcement that the 2008 cap for H-1B workers was met in one day makes clear that we urgently need to reform our policies for highly-skilled workers in the scientific and technology fields. Because the U.S. has already met the cap for H-1B visas, foreign students graduating from our universities this spring are virtually shut out of the U.S. job market. This situation is unprecedented. If we don't act, America's technology companies will be harmed and our economy will suffer. The SKIL bill will allow the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy. The SKIL bill promotes competitiveness and allows the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy. While I encourage and intend to be a part of the continued dialogue on overall immigration reform, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this issue.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation from last Congress--the Securing Knowledge, Innovation, and Leadership Act of 2007 or the ``SKIL Act of 2007''. In the past two years, there has been so much focus by this Congress and this Administration on restoring America's competitive advantage. The President has proposed the America's Competitiveness Initiative. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Protecting America's Competitive Edge bills and the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006. In the 110th Congress, I have cosponsored along with 44 other Senators the America COMPETES Act. This is a bipartisan legislative response to recommendations contained in the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the Council on Competitiveness' ``Innovate America'' report. The one thing we have learned through the process of retaining America's competitiveness is that everyone has to do their part to keep our country's economy strong and viable. Currently, we are working very hard on comprehensive immigration reform and I am pleased to be a part of that process. However, our country, right now, is losing its competitive edge in the global market. Why? Because our immigration policies prohibit us from retaining some of the ``best and brightest'' students currently graduating from U.S. colleges and universities-- especially those with advanced degrees in science and technology. We also continue to lose highly qualified and highly skilled workers to foreign competitors because of our failed immigration system. Recently Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates made it clear the dire situation we are faced with today in terms of high-skilled labor shortages: ``For generations, America has prospered largely by attracting the world's best and brightest to study, live, and work in the United States. Our success at attracting the greatest talent has helped us become a global innovation leader, enriched our culture, and created economic opportunities for all Americans. Unfortunately, America's immigration policies are driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most . . . Moreover, the terrible shortfall in our visa supply for the highly skilled stems not from security concerns, but from visa policies that have not been updated in over a decade and a half. We live in a different economy now. Simply put: It makes no sense to tell well- trained, highly skilled individuals--many of whom are educated at our top colleges and universities--that the United States does not welcome or value them. For too many foreign students and professionals, however, our immigration policies send precisely this message. This should be deeply troubling to us, both in human terms and in terms of our own economic self-interest. America will find it infinitely more difficult to maintain its technological leadership if it shuts out the very people who are most able to help us compete. Other nations are recognizing and benefiting from this situation. They are crafting their immigration policies to attract highly talented students and professionals who would otherwise study, live, and work here. Our lost opportunities are their gains.'' The U.S. Department of Labor projects that between 2002 and 2012 there will be 2 million U.S. job openings in the fields of computer science, mathematics, engineering and the physical sciences. The SKIL bill would retain foreign students educated in the U.S. to ensure continued competition in the global market. As I have stated before, a critical part of America's economy is our ability to innovate but our current immigration policies are threatening future growth. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service's recent announcement that the 2008 cap for H-1B workers was met in one day makes clear that we urgently need to reform our policies for highly-skilled workers in the scientific and technology fields. Because the U.S. has already met the cap for H-1B visas, foreign students graduating from our universities this spring are virtually shut out of the U.S. job market. This situation is unprecedented. If we don't act, America's technology companies will be harmed and our economy will suffer. The SKIL bill will allow the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy. The SKIL bill promotes competitiveness and allows the U.S. to remain competitive in this global economy. While I encourage and intend to be a part of the continued dialogue on overall immigration reform, I urge my colleagues to act quickly on this issue.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, listening to the distinguished Senator from Utah, I could not help but agree with him that it is refreshing to go back to our States to talk to people whose priorities are different from those in Washington, DC, and to sort of decompress a little bit and get in touch with reality once again. Washington, DC is a fascinating place, but it is kind of like coming to Disneyland in some ways. It is not real in many respects, although as we all know, important decisions are made here that affect the lives of all 300 million people in the United States and people all across the world. It is one of those decisions, or should I say nondecisions, that I will rise to speak on briefly this morning. It is more in sorrow than in anger, but I am speaking specifically of the fact that it has been more than 60 days since the President sent up an emergency war spending bill to Congress. Now 60 days, more than 60 days, have passed, and the troops still do not have the money and the House of Representatives has yet to appoint conferees so we can move forward on getting that money to our troops. In fact, the House is in recess for an additional week. Our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, do not have the liberty of taking a recess in the middle of the battle they have so nobly and valiantly committed themselves to fight. While they are living up to their responsibilities, I think it is important for Congress to live up to its responsibilities too. Of course, the message they are seeing is more than a little bit confusing, and I regret that, honestly, because while the Senate majority leader, Senator Reid, at one point has said we are not going to do anything to limit funding or to cut off funds--he made that comment on November 30, 2006--on April 2, 2007, he made the announcement that, in fact, he was going to cosponsor Senator Feingold's legislation that would do exactly what he said he wouldn't do a few short months before; that is, cut off funds to support the troops. Notwithstanding that position, we did, in fact, pass the funding bill, but, unfortunately, it contained unnecessary spending and in effect a surrender date for our enemy to see. I cannot bring myself to understand how someone can say they support the troops with the surrender date or porkbarrel spending necessary to secure the votes to pass it, because it could not pass on its own merits. I have, in fact, joined the rest of the Senate and House Republican leadership in sending a letter to Speaker Pelosi, urging her to call the House back into session immediately so Congress can finish its work on this important emergency spending bill. Keep in mind, funding for these troops has been pending since February 5, and because of the unnecessary strictures on the President's authority as Commander in Chief, where Congress has, in effect, deemed to act like an armchair general, all 535 of us, to dictate the tactics of the battle 6,000 miles away, the President said he is likely to veto the bill unless it is changed substantially through a conference committee. The Senate, of course, appointed conferees on March 29, but the House never did, despite passing the bill a week earlier. Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said he hoped the conference committee would begin on March 30, but, unfortunately, that hasn't happened, and again our troops still do not have the resources they need. Lest there be any doubt, this is what the Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker, has said: Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly Draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families. Secretary of Defense Gates also emphasized the danger of delay. He said: This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. Some have suggested this is all a bluff, and that our military can wait until July to get the funding from this emergency supplemental. That is simply not correct. As a matter of fact, Secretary Gates listed the specific cuts the Army would be forced to consider in the upcoming months. He said: If the supplemental is not passed by April 15, the Army--which has the majority of all forces in Iraq--could have to curtail and suspend home station training for National Guard units, slow the training of units headed to the wars, stop paying for facilities upgrades at home bases, and stop repairing gear needed for predeployment training. He said: If May 15 comes and goes without passage and seeing the funds go to the troops, even more devastating cuts would result, including a slowdown in depot repair work, slowing brigade combat team training, which would force the extension of units in theater--in other words, the troops could not rotate back on a timely basis as they and their families expect they will--and it would cause the implementation of a hiring freeze, among other moves. I cannot understand how we can claim to support our troops and yet put them in increased jeopardy as a result of our failure to act. That is why I believe it is so important that we get these funds to the troops as soon as we can, stripped of these extraneous strictures on our troops, artificial deadlines sending a white flag of surrender, letting our enemy know when we are going to quit. It needs to be stripped of those provisions as well as the porkbarrel spending our troops ought not to have to bear, in addition to the other burden they and their families bear on our behalf. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2007, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. This bipartisan bill I introduce today is the same legislation I introduced in the 109th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more that $15 billion. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer, and arthritis. Reports also show that only about 15 percent of adults perform the recommended amount of physical activity, and 40 percent of adults do not participate in any physical activity. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving. With this in mind, I am introducing the WHIP Act. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees. The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Additionally, it will help relieve pressure on a strained health care system and correct an inequity in the current tax code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2007, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. This bipartisan bill I introduce today is the same legislation I introduced in the 109th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more that $15 billion. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer, and arthritis. Reports also show that only about 15 percent of adults perform the recommended amount of physical activity, and 40 percent of adults do not participate in any physical activity. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving. With this in mind, I am introducing the WHIP Act. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees. The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Additionally, it will help relieve pressure on a strained health care system and correct an inequity in the current tax code. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Wyoming in addressing the pending business of the Senate, which is the emergency supplemental to help fund our troops who are serving in harm's way. The problem with this particular legislation is it does more than that. In fact, contrary to its advertised purpose of supporting the troops, it undermines the ability of our commanders on the ground to actually succeed in the goal they volunteered to achieve and which we have asked them to do because it sets artificial timelines and attempts to micromanage the fighting of the war on the ground. It ultimately jeopardizes the ability to get funds for the troops, to provide the necessary equipment, to provide the replenishment of used- up resources that are necessary as we rotate troops who are in the battlefield today. It would ultimately make it more likely that troops who are already there--who sacrificed a lot, along with their families--are going to have to sacrifice even more because the troops necessary and the equipment necessary to actually rotate in and relieve them of their responsibilities will not be available. The other thing that is so unseemly, to me, about this whole process is, because this is the train leaving the station and colleagues know that this bill needs to pass, or at least some version of it--emergency spending to support our troops--that the House, in particular, and now the Senate has joined in a similar manner in larding this appropriations bill with various pork projects. My colleague from Wyoming has pointed out that the nature of emergency spending means this money goes straight to the deficit. In other words, the bill is passed on to the next generation and beyond and not paid for. We just went through an elaborate process in passing a budget resolution. Time and time again, the new majority has said they want to engage in some budget and fiscal discipline, but that stated goal, to try to deal with taxpayer dollars responsibly, to find offsets for spending and have pay-as-you-go rules is completely belied by the actions reflected in this particular appropriations bill. The fact is, we did debate this issue just 2 weeks ago with regard to artificial timelines and micromanaging the war. The Senate voted 48 to 50 not to approve cloture on S.J. Res. 9, which was an effort by our Democratic colleagues to micromanage and set artificial timelines. They lost that vote by 48 to 50. Now they are back again, trying it another time. Giving the enemy a timetable when American troops will withdraw from Iraq without regard to conditions on the ground, without regard to the early signs of progress that we are making, only helps the enemy plan on how to establish and accomplish their goals, not our goals. Our focus should be on how to succeed in Iraq, not how to tie the hands of our troops, jeopardize the funding that is necessary for their success, and to micromanage something that we have no business micromanaging from the Halls of Congress, thousands of miles away from the battlefield. The tragedy of this is it now represents 18 different proposals by the Democrats in Congress on how to lose in Iraq and not a single proposal on how to succeed. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve has pointed out that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 al-Qaida operatives now in Iraq. To pass legislation which sets an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing our combat forces without defeating al-Qaida makes no sense, no sense at all. It will create a power vacuum, much as Afghanistan was after the fall of the Soviet Union, which then gave rise to a failed state and a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We need to do everything in our power to prevent that from happening again and not forget the lessons of 9/11 and allow it to be repeated in Iraq. The Iraqis know our commitment there is not open ended, and they understand the future of Iraq is in their hands. But to pass legislation that micromanages how our troops should fight the enemy and essentially allow the creation of safe havens for terrorists is the height of irresponsibility. We pointed out before, but it is worth pointing out again, we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, the architect of the counterinsurgency plan currently being carried out in Baghdad. He does not need the armchair generals in the Senate dictating military tactics to him. If the Members of this body really support the troops, we will provide, unencumbered, the resources necessary for our troops to accomplish the goals which they so valiantly and bravely volunteered to do, under the leadership of great generals such as GEN David Petraeus. We all want our troops home as soon as possible. We all share that goal. But any decision to withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqis themselves are able to stabilize their country, with our help, to allow them to govern and defend themselves, will not heighten America's national security but, rather, will jeopardize it. We have had 18 proposals to date from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Every attempt they have had to try to pass one of these proposals has failed. But as Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Here we go again. We just voted last week 48 to 50 against legislation that would impose a deadline. I hope we will not have to continue to debate this over and over again and continue to send the message to our enemies: Yes, you are that much closer to breaking America's will in this contest of wills in something that is so important to our national security. We need to get this legislation passed and passed soon, so our troops do not have to guess whether the funding necessary to carry out their mission will be forthcoming. Using the supplemental appropriations to play political games and to pay off domestic priorities, such as peanut subsidies and spinach subsidies, is not in the best interests of our men and women in uniform. That is why the President has threatened to veto this bill, due to the pork and the timelines that are included in it. I encourage my colleagues to think long and hard before moving forward in a way that would compromise the mission of our troops who are serving to protect all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the consequences of playing politics with this important funding for our troops is simply the wrong strategy; that what we have is a game of chicken between the House of Representatives, which is larding up a supplemental appropriations bill with a bunch of extraneous pork, and the President, recognizing that there are nonsecurity provisions in that supplemental appropriations, has said if that and the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is included as part of this emergency supplemental, he will veto it. So this is a high-risk game of chicken, with the impact of delaying passage of the supplemental being felt directly by our troops on the ground, if that is in fact the result. Last week, Secretary Gates made clear the consequences of not quickly passing the supplemental funding necessary to support our troops. The downstream effects will directly impact our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. By not moving expeditiously to pass a clean supplemental bill that can pass the Senate and be signed by the President, the majority risks extending the tours of our troops scheduled to come home from Iraq and slowing the repair of equipment necessary to equip them, as well as the training of Iraqi soldiers who are designed to replace them. Any delay in funding will not prevent a buildup of security forces in Iraq but, instead, threaten to dramatically impact forces already on the ground. Secretary Gates has said this kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. So I can't imagine why in the world our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the new majority, would want to risk that. This supplemental is necessary to pay for training and equipping the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If approved, the supplemental will pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, repairing and replacing equipment damaged or destroyed in combat, and new technologies to protect U.S. servicemembers. This last provision includes a new generation of body armor, better armored vehicles, and countermeasures against improvised explosive devices. IEDs have caused about 70 percent of the casualties in Iraq. The supplemental also will provide funding for training and equipping the Iraqi and Afghan security forces. If this supplemental appropriations bill is not passed by April 15, the military will be forced to consider the following: curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; cutting the funding for upgrading and renovating the barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for our troops and their families; and stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support predeployment training. This is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said on March 22, 2007. If the supplemental is not passed by May 15, the military will be forced to consider the following: reducing the repair work done at Army depots; delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams to their training rotations. This, in turn, will cause additional units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not ready to take their place. Delaying the formation of new brigade combat teams; implementation of civilian hiring freeze; prohibiting the execution of new contracts and service orders, including service contracts for training events and facilities; and, finally, holding or canceling the order of repair parts to nondeployed units in the Army. All of these, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, on March 22, 2007. When the new majority took over Congress, they promised change. In fact, the first bill passed in the Senate was an ethics bill that, in part, helped improve transparency in the way we spend taxpayers' money in Washington. While that ethics bill remains in limbo, the 110th Congress has returned to the tried-and-true technique of inserting mystery earmarks that have nothing to do with funding our troops or fighting the war on terror into a war supplemental bill. During the election season, many on the other side called the 109th Congress the ``do-nothing'' Congress. The 110th Congress is quickly becoming the ``say anything and do-nothing Congress'' when it comes to fiscal discipline. Last week, when the Senate debated the budget, the majority spoke of the need for fiscal discipline, even as it passed the $700 billion tax hike for taxpayers over the next 5 years. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee was quoted as saying: We have a responsibility to govern, and you can't govern without a budget. But governing takes more than simply passing a budget. Governing also includes the discipline to live within a budget. Unfortunately, both the Senate and the House failed in their first test by including billions more in the war supplemental than the President requested. As I mentioned, President Bush has already threatened to veto the House bill; not all because of the timetable it imposes for our troops' withdrawal from Iraq but also because the bill is full of pork. In today's edition of the Politico, they did a fine job of identifying some of the most egregious examples of pork included in the House bill. They highlighted $5 million for tropical fish breeders and transporters for losses from a virus last year; $25 million for spinach that growers and handlers were unable to market, up to 75 percent of their losses; $60.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service to be distributed among fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses, and other persons for assistance to mitigate the economic and other social effects by a commercial fishery failure. It also includes $74 million for the payment of storage, handling, and other associated costs for the 2007 crop of peanuts to ensure proper storage of peanuts for which a loan is made, and the House bill also includes $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries to cover consequences of Hurricane Katrina. Now, I have to confess, even though I like to fish a little myself, I had never even heard of menhaden, so I went on the Internet to something called the Menhaden Fact Sheet. This is, if you will recall, $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries to cover consequences of Hurricane Katrina. Well, as it turns out, according to the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Internet, the menhaden are fish of the--well, I can't even pronounce the Latin phrase, but they are of the herring family. It says here, describing this menhaden that the taxpayer is being asked to pay $120 million in this emergency war supplemental: to support the gulf menhaden and Atlantic menhaden which are characterized by a series of smaller spots behind the main, humeral spot and larger scales than yellowfin menhaden and finescale menhaden. In addition, yellowfin menhaden tail rays are a bright yellow in contrast to those of the Atlantic menhaden, which are grayish. Menhaden range in weight up to 1 pound or more. At sea, schools of Atlantic menhaden may contain millions of members. Common names for Atlantic menhaden are mossbunkers and fatback. In Florida, yellowfin menhaden are called pogies, and are the preferred species for use as strip bait. This is important. It talks about the range, since this is supposedly done as part of the Hurricane Katrina relief measure. It says gulf menhaden range from the Yucatan Peninsula to Tampa Bay, FL, with finescaled menhaden from the Yucatan to Louisiana--I guess we are getting a little closer now to where Hurricane Katrina hit--yellowfin menhaden from Louisiana to North Carolina, the Atlantic menhaden ranges from Jupiter Inlet, FL, to Nova Scotia. The various species of menhaden occur anywhere from estuarine waters outward to the Continental Shelf. It says that menhaden are essentially filter feeders, straining microscopic plankton, algae, et cetera, from the water they swim through open-mouthed. Unlike mullet, they are not bottom feeders. Due to their feeding habits, they must be caught by cast netting to be used as live bait. This is the most interesting part of the article. It says: menhaden are not used for human consumption. Most recently, menhaden has begun to be exploited as a source of omega-3 fatty acid fish oil for commercial human consumption, further threatening menhaden populations. I certainly don't know what the purpose is of this $120 million for shrimp and the menhaden fishing industries, but I can't see in this description, or anywhere else in this legislation, why this is an emergency or why it ought to be included in an emergency war supplemental. If anything, the inclusion of this kind of appropriation in this emergency war supplemental in the House bill trivializes the importance of providing the money that will help our troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq in harm's way. Here is what the Senate bill included: $24 million for funding of sugar beets; $3 million funding for sugar cane, all of which goes to a Hawaiian cooperative; $100 million for dairy product losses; an additional $31 million for a 1-month extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract Program; 13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention Program; $115 million for the conservation security program; $100 million for small agricultural dependent businesses; $13 million for mine safety technology research; $50 million for fisheries disaster mitigation fund. There is so much pork included in this supplemental appropriations bill, both in the House version and in the Senate proposal, that it warranted a front-page story and editorial in USA Today. An editorial in USA Today questioned: Which is worse: Leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or Members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts. The editorial went on to conclude: These provisions demean a bill that, if enacted, would affect the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the balance of power in the Middle East and America's long-term security. In short, what we have is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to put money into pet projects--which may or may not be worthy endeavors, we will never know--and yet are unwilling to adequately fund the needs of our military. For all their talk of earmark reform and transparency earlier this year, my colleagues seemed to have forgotten all of that when they put together the supplemental appropriations bill. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund and the finance committee to report a bill that reauthorizes SCHIP, a program that covers kids first. It emphasizes helping low-income kids, increases State flexibility, and eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse. This vote is the Senate's opportunity to make sure the original intent of the SCHIP program remains intact. This is about helping low-income kids first. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is one that I offered during the Budget Committee's deliberations. Unfortunately, the majority did not support this important amendment that reduces our Nation's debt, the bill that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren. My amendment reduces the debt by instructing the Senate Finance Committee to find approximately $34 billion in savings over the next 5 years, and this is out of almost a $3 trillion budget. Two years ago, Congress made some progress in getting a handle on mandatory, or entitlement, spending by passing the Deficit Reduction Act, using the reconciliation process, I believe, for the first time since about 1997. The Deficit Reduction Act reduced the rate of growth in spending. I will say that again because it is important. It reduced the rate of growth of spending--it did not represent an actual cut in the way most Americans would think about a cut--by nearly $100 billion over the next decade. It was a very good first step in getting our fiscal house in order but, clearly, more needs to be done. Today, the Federal budget is already heavily weighted toward entitlement spending, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which takes up some two-thirds of all Federal spending, which is literally on autopilot because it grows at roughly 8 percent a year. As people live longer--as we hope we will continue to do--and the baby boom generation starts to retire, entitlements will continue to eat up a larger share of our budget and we will consume more of the economy. In the most recent long-term projections prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined are projected to increase to 10.5 percent of our GDP by 2015--an increase of about 2 percentage points of GDP in less than a decade. By 2030, according to the CBO, outlays for those three programs will reach about 15 percent of GDP. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee held a number of hearings on this fiscal timebomb earlier this year. Our Committee has received testimony from the Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Secretary, the General Accounting Office, the Comptroller, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and a number of think-tank representatives, and all, without regard to partisan stripe or affiliation, have highlighted the need for us to get a handle on our mandatory budget or entitlement spending. The chairman of the Federal Reserve noted that these rising entitlement obligations will put enormous pressure on the Federal budget in the coming years. In fact, if we do nothing over the next 30 years, we would not have a dime to pay for anything except for four areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and part of the interest on the debt. We will not have the resources for other important priorities, including fighting the global war on terror, securing our borders, veterans health care, and education. As we all know, the President's budget includes a number of proposals to slow down the rate of growth in entitlement spending. I think this is a good place for the Senate Finance Committee to look at reducing the debt. If the majority has ideas that will also help reduce the debt, my amendment gives them the opportunity to put it in action because it is an instruction to the Finance Committee to come up with a way, in their wisdom, that they believe they can accomplish this important goal. Last year, I offered a similar amendment on the floor. Some on the other side noted how my amendment may be a little unpopular back home. That is what happens when you go on a budget. We have been on a binge, with no limitation on spending, and it is time for the Federal Government, similar to the American family, to get on a budget. No one likes budgets, but it is the responsible thing for us to do. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to find savings in the amount of $34 billion out of the growth of entitlement spending over the next 5 years given that under the budget during that period of time, the Federal Government will spend some $15 trillion. In other words, we are looking for $34 billion in savings over the same period of time the Federal Government will spend $15 trillion. As Chairman Bernanke said in his written testimony to our committee: Addressing the country's fiscal problems will take persistence and a willingness to make difficult choices. The Comptroller General of the United States, in his written testimony to the Budget Committee, said: We owe it to our country, children and grandchildren to address our fiscal and other key sustainability challenges. As I said, this is not a partisan issue, or certainly should not be. Our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has been eloquent on this subject. We see on this chart, he said on February 7, 2007: I have said I am prepared to get savings out of long-term entitlement programs. Unfortunately, the number reflected at the bottom of this chart is the number of savings from entitlement programs in the budget he has proposed. It is a big fat goose egg. I think we can do better. I heard time and time again Members on a bipartisan basis say this is one area where we ought to work together to try to solve this problem for our children and grandchildren so we don't pass our debt to them for what we are spending today in these entitlement programs. But I ask: If not us, then who? And if not now, then when? I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Budget chairman has said repeatedly, this does not direct the Finance Committee how to do this or to consider specific proposals. But I do believe the reforms the President has put on the table would be a good place to start looking. We know a fiscal tsunami is coming. We all talk about the wall of debt, but now is the time to act by passing this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.