John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I highlight an innovative and incredible education program started by science teacher Brett Williams from Fredericksburg High School in Fredericksburg, TX. The SystemsGo Aeroscience program promotes engineering, strong workforce skills, and improved academic performance by teaching high school students how to design, develop and launch rockets. The program is a 2-year, junior/senior program in which first-year students design and develop remotely operated vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles for research or industrial applications. Second-year students design and fabricate rockets for testing at altitudes from 80,000 feet to 100,000 feet. Through successes and failures, students picked up valuable life skills such as problem solving, testing, analysis, documentation, reporting, project management, teamwork, and communication. We are facing shortages of high-skilled workers in our country. The S&P, Standard & Poor's, top 500 companies alone report over 140,000 vacancies for these positions. By developing workforce skills in tandem with engineering studies, the SystemsGo Aeroscience programs is training the next generation of scientists that will keep our country globally competitive. More than a decade after Mr. Williams and his students launched their first rocket, Fredericksburg High School has received many accolades including being the first high school to design and develop rockets exceeding Mach 2. However, the statistic I find most impressive is that 80 percent of students in the aeroscience program continue to pursue degrees in engineering in college. By inspiring the next generation of scientists, we are not only investing in individual students' success but also to the overall wellbeing of our economy. America's most valuable asset is her human capital. It is critical that we continue to encourage exceptional teachers like Mr. Williams, and programs such as the SystemsGo Aeroscience in order to maintain our global leadership in innovation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I take it from the answer of the assistant majority leader that his answer is no.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I just ask the distinguished assistant majority leader if he and the Democratic majority would agree to an amendment designed to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump for the American consumer, and whether they would agree to allow us to file that amendment, debate that amendment on this bill, and then have an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor?

Mr. CORNYN. I take it that they would not allow us to offer an amendment on this bill that would be designed to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump by opening America's natural resources to development and production.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. That is why 74 Senators--I believe 74--voted for the motion to proceed, so that we could get on the bill, so we could offer amendments, and we have a list of amendments we wish to offer. We wish to have debate on those amendments because we think the impact of this proposal would be dramatic on the American people and on the economy and would, in all likelihood, not accomplish the goal Senator Boxer professes to want to accomplish. If in fact we impose this Draconian bureaucracy and this huge expense on the American people, and our competitors in China and India are not going to do it, we are going to put people out of work in Texas while people in China and India are going to continue to do what they are doing now and enjoying the prosperity caused by their access to the energy which they need to grow their economy. This bill would do nothing to impose the same restrictions on them, the same high prices on them that the Congress proposes to impose on the American people, including my constituents. So rather than increasing gas prices by 147 percent, I would hope our friends on the other side of the aisle would reconsider and let us take up that most urgent issue in the minds of most of our constituents: How do we bring down the price of gas at the pump? I suggest the first thing we should do is take advantage of the natural resources God has given this great country of ours, which Congress has put out of bounds because of the moratorium on that development going back to, I believe, 1982. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Alabama, again he is correct. I think what it demonstrates is that the professed desire to actually do something about this important issue is, in fact, nothing more than a political game. Because I predict what will happen is that because he is blocking any amendments and an open debate about the bill, we will have a vote on the cloture motion, it will fail, and then the majority leader will attempt to pull this bill from the floor and consideration. I hope Members of the Senate will prevent that from happening by denying cloture on any future motions to proceed to other legislation. I think it is important that we have the kind of debate that a bill of this import and this size deserves. If I can refer my colleagues to this chart, which is produced, I believe, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Senator Dorgan, the Senator from North Dakota, the other day said this bill pales in comparison to ``Hillary Care'' in terms of its complexity. I remember seeing the charts at the time of the huge bureaucracy that would have been created by that government-run health care system proposed by Senator Clinton when she was the First Lady of the United States. I think it was back in 1993. But this chart, produced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reflects all of the regulations and mandates of the Boxer climate tax and it indicates the complexity of what has been proposed here, and why I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the pricetag comes in at $6.7 trillion, and where the Federal Government, through a growth in the bureaucracy, an intrusion in the freedom and lives of the American people and small and large businesses alike, will be the one that will choose the winners and losers in this system, who gets the goodies and who does not; who gets permission to operate their powerplant and who does not. That is why the price of gasoline, that is why the price of electricity is expected to go through the roof as a result of this bill. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Corker, who called this bill the ``mother of all earmarks.'' There has been a lot of discussion about earmarks here and lack of transparency in the way Congress spends money. Well, this bill, if it is passed and signed by the President of the United States, would empower the Congress to dole out earmarks with a complete lack of transparency, in a way that would allow massive Government intrusion in the free market system. That is why the Wall Street Journal dubbed this bill ``the biggest government reorganization of the economy since the 1930s.'' The National Association of Manufacturers has estimated the economic impact on my State, the State of Texas. We are fortunate now. While some parts of the country are suffering through a headwind when it comes to the economy, we are doing pretty well, relatively speaking. Unemployment is at 4.1 percent. A lot of new jobs have been created, a lot of opportunity. We have seen a lot of growth in the population because people are moving to where the jobs and the opportunities are. But under the Boxer climate tax bill that we have before us on the floor of the Senate, it is estimated that 334,000 of my constituents would lose their jobs. Why would they lose their job? Because this bill would be like a wet blanket on the economy, raising electricity prices, raising gas prices on everything from agriculture to small businesses, and it is estimated that it would cost the average Texas household $8,000 in additional costs. Now, that is on top of the $1,400 that most Texas households are currently having to pay because of increased gas prices due to the obstruction of Congress in failing to allow development of American natural resources, an American solution to our energy crisis. It would be a $52 billion loss to the Texas economy. As you see here, it is estimated that electricity prices would go up 145 percent and gasoline prices 147 percent. I am sorry the assistant majority leader refused to allow us to offer an amendment designed to lower gas prices, because I can't think of any more urgent, any more targeted relief we could offer the American people today than to provide some relief for the pain at the pump. I think that should be our highest priority as we go about the process of developing a clean energy future for this country, as we transition out of an oil-based economy into one for renewable forms of energy and increased nuclear capacity, and one that will improve the climate at the same time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Alabama that he is exactly right. To come out here on the floor, as the assistant majority leader has done this morning, and say, Oh, we are interested in full debate and amendments and we regret the delay that occurred yesterday from the reading of the bill, yet at the same time to say no Member of the Senate can offer an amendment because of the actions of the majority leader, unless the majority leader gives the green light, is at odds with that claim. It is not a demonstration, from my perspective, of a desire to have an open debate and an amended process.

Mr. CORNYN. I will yield.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is a bill where we are actually on our third version, I believe. The fourth version of the bill. I stand corrected by the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe. The last one I saw went from 342 pages to 491 pages. That was the one that was read yesterday. I daresay that not many, if any Senator who is going to be called upon to vote on that legislation, had a chance to read it yet in detail. So I don't think it was a wasted exercise to have the clerk read the bill yesterday to give people a chance to understand what is in it. When you look at a piece of legislation that comes with a $6.7 trillion pricetag, and one that will raise and not lower the price of gasoline and electricity, will depress the American economy and literally put people out of work, I think we need to know what is in it and we need to debate it. We need to offer amendments to hopefully improve it. There is not one among us who does not care about the environment. I don't know any person of good will alive who doesn't care about the quality of the air we breathe and the cleanliness of the water we drink. So I think those who would suggest that because there are questions about this huge bill, this huge tax increase, this huge increase in the cost of energy, that if you are asking questions and want to offer amendments to improve it suggests you don't care about the environment is demonstrably false.

Mr. CORNYN. I will yield.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in invoking the memory of Craig Thomas. On our side of the aisle, there was nobody more dependable, more loyal, or more of a team player. Whenever there was an important issue, particularly one concerning Wyoming or concerning energy, he would be down here talking about it and he would be enlightening the debate, and we miss him. I can't help but think he would be down here on this particular piece of legislation, as Senator Enzi has alluded, in talking about what is obviously a game of ``gotcha.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains in morning business for this side of the aisle?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I first wish to raise the concern I have that this extraordinarily complex piece of legislation, I have been advised that this 342-page bill we have on our desks that we all assumed was the working document to which we have been drafting amendments, is actually not going to be the document we are going to be working from as early as this afternoon. I have been informed--and I ask colleagues whether this is, in fact, the case--that there is actually another bill, not 342 pages long but 491 pages long, that will be laid down this afternoon by Senator Boxer. It is very difficult for any of us to be prepared when the target continues to move. To those who are concerned, as the Senator from California and the majority leader have been about the speed with which we address this bit of legislation, this does nothing but slow us down and make our job harder. I hope that is not the case, but that is what I am reliably informed. To me, it is counterintuitive to say the least that we would undertake to pass legislation with a pricetag of $6.7 trillion that will actually raise gas prices by 147 percent when families in my State and across the country are already paying an extra $1,400 a year for gas prices as a result of congressional inaction. Actually, I guess it is wrong to say congressional inaction because Congress has actually acted to impose a barrier to developing America's natural resources right here at home to the tune of roughly 3 million barrels of oil a day which, if it was made available and Congress would simply get out of the way, that would be additional supply which would bring down the price of oil which would give us some temporary relief as we transition to a clean energy future for our country and for the world. By that I mean by developing things such as greater use of nuclear power, using good old-fashioned American ingenuity, research and development to develop clean coal technology and the like. In the near term, I think we all have to acknowledge the obvious fact that oil is going to continue to be part of our future, but hopefully it will be a bridge to a future of clean energy independence, but not unless Congress acts. Congress is the problem. I suggest when we look around for the causes of our current energy crisis that Congress simply look in the mirror because we are the problem. It is unfortunate that when the Senate had an opportunity recently to vote on the American Energy Production Act that only 42 Senators voted for it. That was when gas was about $3.73 a gallon. Today the average price of a gallon of gas is $3.98 a gallon. I asked the question then, and I will ask it again today: Is the Senate going to reject an opportunity to develop America's natural resources and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump when gasoline is at $3.98 a gallon? How about when it is at $5 a gallon or $6 a gallon? Where is the tipping point at which Congress is finally going to wake up and realize it is the reason Americans are paying too much at the pump? Instead of dealing with that urgent need that affects every man, woman, and child in this country, this Congress has decided to head down another path, and that path is bigger Government, more taxes, higher energy costs for electricity and gasoline, and with the uncertainty that any of this will actually have an impact on climate, especially given the fact that countries such as China and India, of a billion people each, are not going to agree to impose this on themselves. So America is going to do this, presumably, while our major global competitors are not, and we are going to suffer not only those higher prices but job losses, reduction in our gross domestic product, and a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Why would we do that to ourselves? At the same time, we see this Rube Goldberg bureaucracy that would be created. Yesterday, Senator Dorgan said this bureaucracy would make HillaryCare pale in comparison with its complexity as reflected on this chart. This is the kind of huge expansion in Government power over our lives and over the economy that is unprecedented in our country, and I suggest is the wrong solution, is the wrong answer to what confronts us today. In my State in Texas, it has been estimated under that Boxer climate tax legislation that as many as 334,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the increased costs and taxes associated with this bill, with a $52.2 billion loss to the Texas economy, and an $8,000 additional surcharge on each Texas household. That is over and above the $1,400 that each Texas family is already paying because of congressional inaction on oil and gas prices. Electricity costs, 145 percent higher; gasoline, 147 percent higher. I don't know why, at a time when the American people and the American economy are already struggling with a soft economy in many parts of the country, why we would do this to ourselves. It simply does not make any sense to me. I would like to have an explanation from our colleagues who are advocating this particular legislation how they can possibly justify this bill. What could be the possible rationale for legislation that would do this to my State and have this sort of Draconian impact on the economy of our country? I have heard some talk that said that gas prices have increased during the time President Bush has been in office. This is what has happened since our friends on the other side of the aisle have controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We see there is a huge spike in gas prices during a Democratic-controlled Congress. But this should not be a partisan issue. This is a matter of the welfare of the American family and of the American economy. Why in the world would we not want to work together to try to develop the natural resources that God has given us to create that additional 3- million-barrel supply of oil so we can reduce our dependence on imported oil from foreign sources? The alternative proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, OK, we are going to impose higher taxes on the oil industry which, of course, would be passed along to consumers and raise the price of gasoline even more or they say we are going to have another investigation into price gouging when the Federal Trade Commission has investigated time and time again and found no evidence to justify a charge of price gouging when it comes to gasoline prices or they say we are going to sue OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has to be the most boneheaded suggestion I have heard because, of course, what in the world would you ask the judge to order if you were successful in suing OPEC? I presume to open the spigot even wider so we would be more dependent on foreign oil and not less. It is time for a real solution. This bill is not it. I call on my colleagues to do what we can to open America's natural resources to development and bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first half of our morning business time, the 30 minutes, be divided equally among myself, Senator Chambliss, and Senator Sessions.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, this is a brand new substitute bill comprised of 491 pages that very few people have even had a chance to see. I think this is an opportunity for us to learn what is actually in the legislation so that we can do our job and consider it and vote accordingly. I do object.

Mr. CORNYN. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kellen McAnulty, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this work period.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. No, sir.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will restate it. Of the 30 minutes of time for the minority, I asked that it be divided between the Senator from Ohio and me.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our 30 minutes be allotted so that there is 15 minutes for me and 15 minutes for the Senator from Ohio following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Yes, with our 30 minutes being equally divided between the Senator from Ohio and myself.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I heard the distinguished majority leader criticize the Republicans for wanting to have a debate on this piece of legislation. Frankly, I think we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't discuss this important piece of legislation, as complex and difficult a topic as it is and, frankly, ask questions that I know our constituents would ask of us were we to vote for or against this particular legislation. I, for one, make no apologies for doing what I consider to be my duty, and I think all of us would do well to ask questions about this legislation, which proposes a $6.7 trillion pricetag--that is trillion; not billion, not million but trillion, $6.7 trillion. We talk about what Congress has been doing. Let me mention what Congress has not been doing and what the Senate has not been doing. It has been 109 days since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was not reauthorized, which has hampered our ability to listen in on terrorist-to-terrorist communications. We have spent 560 days since American businesses and farmers have been disadvantaged by not taking up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For my State alone, it is roughly $2.3 billion a year. But my producers, farmers, and manufacturers are disadvantaged by tariffs on those goods when they are imported into Colombia, even though Colombian goods bear zero tariffs coming into the United States. We ought to fix that. So it has been 560 days since that condition has existed. It has been 705 days since some judicial nominees have been waiting for a vote. It has been 771 days since Speaker Pelosi went campaigning before the 2006 election and said, if elected, the Democrats would deliver a commonsense solution to the price of gasoline and the pain consumers were feeling at the pump. That was 771 days ago. Yet there has been no proposal by our friends in the majority to actually come up with a commonsense solution to help ease the pain at the pump. Instead, we have a bill which--while I don't question the motivation for the bill since we are all concerned about the environment, I do think it is important that we ask questions about a bill that carries such a high pricetag and which will have the impact of actually increasing the cost of energy--gasoline and electricity--rather than reducing it. I must say that last week, like all the rest of my colleagues, I went back home and had a chance to visit with a number of my constituents. Of course, high gasoline prices was the No. 1 issue on their minds. Even though my State is doing relatively well compared to the rest of the country, with about a 4.1-percent unemployment rate, we have seen some softening in the housing market, but generally speaking, my State is prospering. We are grateful for that. But even people who have jobs and feel as though they are doing pretty well otherwise are still feeling their paychecks shrink as a result of rising energy costs. I am wondering why we are now on a piece of legislation that, rather than reducing the cost of their gasoline or electricity, will actually increase it. Right now, the average price of a gallon of gasoline across the country is right at $4 per gallon. As I talked to my constituents last week around the State, they asked me: What is Congress going to do to finally take action to lower those prices? Well, unfortunately, I had to tell them we only got 42 votes on a provision on a bill--the Domenici amendment--which would actually have increased our use of American energy and reduced our dependency on imported oil from some of our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and Ahmed Amadi Nejad from Iran, which are part of OPEC. By our inaction in Congress, we are driving up that cost because, since 1982, we have been putting vast American reserves of energy out of bounds through a moratorium that was enacted on the Outer Continental Shelf, through our unwillingness to explore and develop oil shale in the West and our unwillingness to allow the State of Alaska to develop its own energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. So it is easy for me to understand, seeing that disconnect between what my constituents are concerned about--high prices of energy, including gasoline--having to come back and debate a bill that will drive up those costs even further--it is easy to see why more and more people believe Congress is totally disconnected from reality. Congress appears to have very little relevance to the issue that concerns the American people the most, and that is the family budget. I want to be clear about one matter though. The debate about our environment is one well worth having. Of course, we can all do better and should do better in being good stewards of the environment, conserving energy and reducing waste. Reducing dependency on foreign oil and bringing down prices at the pump are needed too. My fear is that this important issue is rapidly becoming just another tired political game. Taking care of the environment is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. It should not be about partisan politics. Haven't we learned by now that the American people are fed up with the games in Washington and want real solutions? Well, yesterday, the majority leader and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, were criticizing the fact that we wanted to use some of the time today to ask questions about this important legislation so that we could educate ourselves and our constituents about what is in this very complex piece of legislation. But I do have some questions I hope will be answered in this week's debate. First of all, how much will this bill cost? I have read estimates that this bill's pricetag is somewhere in the $6.7 trillion range. I fear that if that is correct, this is simply too costly of a burden to put on the American people. This is especially true when I believe more cost-effective solutions are available. I think we should balk at any piece of legislation that carries a pricetag of $6.7 trillion. Perhaps I have not been in Congress long enough to be jaded by such talk, and I hope I never am, but I still have trouble grasping the enormity of a number like $1 trillion. Now we are talking about $6.7 trillion. People in Congress tend to toss those numbers around like it is pocket change. But this is real money coming out of the budgets of real people--the American people. I would like to know why $6.7 trillion, and what is that money going to be spent for? Why do we have to opt for a cost in that range when there are more cost-effective solutions available, such as tax credits for developing renewable energy, clean energy, like solar energy and wind energy? Why aren't we doing more to develop our nuclear energy capacity to create electricity, which is carbon free? Why aren't we doing that instead of spending $6.7 trillion? I want to know what the impact of this legislation would be on our economy and on the family budget. Already we have seen--as a result of the inaction of Congress over this last 771 days, since our Democratic colleagues said they had a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump--the average American family lose $1,400 in increased gasoline costs as a result of the rise in gasoline prices over that same period of time. Now, some estimates are that Texas families--my constituents--would pay an additional $8,000 if we pass this piece of legislation. That includes, some estimates say, a 145-percent increase in electricity costs and a 147-percent increase in gasoline costs. That is at least $5.30 a gallon at a time when gasoline is $3.98 a gallon. Is it really true the proponents of this legislation want to raise that to $5.30 a gallon? It seems to me we are going in the wrong direction, not the right direction. At the same time, it is estimated this legislation, if passed, would actually cause more than 300,000 Texans to lose their jobs. Overall, estimates indicate this bill could cost the economy in my State--one of the States that is actually doing very well from an economic point of view--more than $50 billion in additional costs. Mr. President, we cannot afford another wet blanket on our economy caused by higher taxes and more expenses coming out of the family budget and more pressure on our job creators that provide people an opportunity to put food on the table. Another question I have is, if the United States of America decides to impose this costly burden on ourselves, will China and India likewise impose the same burden on their energy industry? Of course, booming industrial giants such as China and India both have 1 billion- plus people. We know we are increasingly in a global competition and not only with India and China but the entire planet. Why in the world would we impose a costly piece of legislation in the amount of $6.7 trillion on the American people and raise electricity costs and gasoline costs and depress the gross domestic product of this country, putting people out of work, if our major global competitors are going to get off scot-free and not likewise constrain their economy by imposing these sorts of burdens on themselves? Finally, Mr. President, I would like to know on what basis do the proponents of the legislation believe this bill will have its intended effect? If human beings contribute to climate change, which I will not debate--I assume we do in some way or another--why have these targets been proposed? What is the science to justify those? What if those targets are reached, albeit at a cost of $6.7 trillion, with rising gas and electricity costs and a depression effect on our gross domestic product? How do we know, and where is the science that says, this bill will actually have its intended effect, particularly if China and India, our global competitors, don't participate? The Wall Street Journal has dubbed this legislation ``the most extensive Government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.'' It seems to me this is something we should debate and examine and we should ask questions about so that we will know what the effect of this bill will be if it is passed. We have already seen that Congress is not exactly omniscient when it comes to the energy area, where we have subsidized corn-based ethanol as an alternative to renewable sources of energy. The fact is, we found there are unintended consequences when we use food for fuel. How do we know this particular bill, the Boxer climate tax bill, will not have unintended consequences? I fear it may not have the intended effect of reducing carbon emissions, and it may have some of the unintended and disastrous side effects I have already outlined. If we are certain this is the right approach to protecting the environment, where is the evidence? Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and today the majority leader, complained about the fact that we want to use some time today to ask these questions and get answers. We should not be asked nor should the American people be asked to accept this on faith: Don't worry, trust us. It reminds me of the most fearsome words in the English language: We are from the Government, and we are here to help. If that is true, the American people ought to see the evidence that will justify this huge expenditure of their money, the huge increase in prices of energy, and the depressing effect on the economy, why that is necessary, and whether it will actually work as intended. Where is the evidence? Senator Boxer, the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the rising cost would not be a problem because of tax offsets she has included in this bill. She assured us this bill contained almost $1 trillion of tax relief, so that if we do see some of the increases in energy costs in the early years-- electricity, for example--we can offset that. It almost boggles the imagination that the primary author of this legislation, Senator Boxer, would essentially concede that there will be rising energy costs as a result of this legislation and say we ought to spend $1 trillion more of the taxpayers' money to provide offsets for relief. This huge, complex bill deserves all the scrutiny we can give it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the right to participate in democratic elections and vote for candidates of your choice is fundamental to the American experience. That right to vote is safeguarded by our men and women in uniform, often at great personal cost to them and their loved ones. As the Global War on Terror continues, the need for overseas service by our troops is unlikely to let up any time soon. They routinely find themselves deployed to far-away battlefields in the Middle East, on ships at sea all across the globe, or assigned to overseas postings in Korea, Europe, or elsewhere. What's more, the decisions of elected leaders of the Federal Government impact our troops often in a very direct and personal way. As a result of decisions made by those elected leaders, our troops can be called to deploy to a combat zone at virtually any time. Statistics on overseas military voting in the 2006 election, compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, show that there is clearly a problem of disenfranchisement of our troops. It is absolutely despicable that, of our overseas troops who asked for mail-in ballots for 2006, less than half, 47.6, percent of their completed ballots actually arrived at the local election office. Many of those arrived too late, and were therefore not even counted. To me, that is an appalling failure of our current absentee voting system. We need to take action now, before the problem rears its ugly head again, to safeguard the right of our troops to vote and have their votes count. I believe Congress has a duty to ensure these men and women in uniform, selflessly serving abroad, have a voice in choosing their elected leaders. They serve not only in the defense of freedom and the American way of life, but also in defense of the very system of government in which I and my Senate colleagues have the honor to serve. These military service members have already given up so much for this country--often being apart from their families, living in the face of constant danger, and standing on the front lines of our defense. We must not allow one of their most fundamental rights as Americans to fall victim to an antiquated and inefficient system of absentee voting and slow--sometimes painfully slow--methods of delivering their marked ballots. One of the biggest problems in absentee balloting for our overseas troops has been this inadequate delivery system for completed ballots. The simple fact is that, for many overseas military voters, their marked ballots arrived at the local election office too late to be counted. There is no excuse for allowing inefficiency to disenfranchise our military men and women serving abroad. That is why I have decided to introduce the Military Voting Protection Act of 2008, or MVP Act. This bill will improve the absentee voting system for our overseas troops by expediting the delivery of their marked ballots to ensure they are delivered in a timely manner and, at the same time, electronically tracked to provide accountability and allow for verification that completed ballots actually arrived at their local election office. First and foremost, this bill would expedite the process by directing the Pentagon to make use of express delivery services, which many of us use on a regular basis, to get the completed absentee ballots of our overseas troops to election officials here at home. At the same time, it would require the DOD to take a more active role in organizing the collection, transportation, and tracking of these ballots. We have at our disposal the tools necessary to more efficiently collect and deliver our troops' ballots to help make their votes count. We simply need to start utilizing more capable and expedited delivery methods to ensure that our troops' voices are heard. This bill also urges the DOD to make better use of modern technology to improve the ability of our troops to participate in elections. At the same time, the bill recognizes the clear importance of preserving the privacy and integrity of the voting system by calling on DOD to focus its efforts on secure, efficient systems that would also achieve these important goals. In this day and age, it is inexcusable for our troops to be shut out of the democratic process merely because they are far away from their homes as a result of their military service. We should not sit idly by and watch another election pass with a large portion of our brave military men and women being left out of our democratic process. For far too long in this country we have failed to adequately safeguard the right of our troops to participate in our democratic process. We have allowed slow delivery methods, confusing absentee voting procedures, and myriad other obstacles to disenfranchise many of our overseas troops. We must put those days behind us. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in addressing this important issue and protecting for our troops the very rights they fight to safeguard for us. Join me in cosponsoring the MVP Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important bill quickly.