John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time remains on this side of the aisle?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for those who supported the Klobuchar amendment, here is your last chance to make sure more money under the Debbie Smith Act is appropriated and directed toward solving the 400,000 untested rape kits backlogged in this country that is nothing short of a national scandal. We know the people who commit these sexual assault crimes are serial offenders. If we don't catch them early, more people are going to get hurt. The best way to catch them is to collect this DNA, match it against banked DNA, and take them off the street, and to exonerate those who may be under suspicion but who are innocent. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It has the support of the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, and it has administrative subpoenas to track down unregistered sex offenders who are more likely to commit crimes against children and other innocent victims. Please vote for this amendment. It will strengthen the Violence Against Women Act and you can be proud of your vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. The Violence Against Women Act will be reauthorized, at least in the Senate, by bipartisan consensus today. There are some different versions that will be offered. I am sure each side thinks theirs is an improvement over the alternative, and I will leave to Senator Hutchison and Senator Grassley to address the improvements they have made over the bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee and the alternative they have proposed. Amendment No. 2086 (Purpose: To amend title 18 of the United States Code and other provisions of law to strengthen provisions of the Violence Against Women Act and improve justice for crime victims)

Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield to Senator Hutchison 2 of these 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. CORNYN. I wish to talk about one aspect of Senator Hutchison's legislation that is also included in my stand-alone amendment. This is the administrative subpoena authority. Because this has been taken out of the Klobuchar alternative, it is not in underlying Leahy bill. What happens is sex offenders are required to register. If they do not register, they are much more likely to commit future acts of sexual assault and abuse, particularly against children. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest indicators that someone is likely to reoffend is when they do not register. So what the Hutchison bill does, what my bill does, is give U.S. marshals the administrative subpoenas to collect records and information to help identify these unregistered sex offenders and to protect future victims from their sexual assault. Because if they are registered, if they are identified, they are much less likely to reoffend and commit further acts of sexual abuse. We all want to see this legislation pass. But I would just reiterate for my colleagues' benefit, the letter we received from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network that said the alternative to my amendment that will be offered--that the alternative is largely symbolic and will not have the impact of reducing the impact we find in the Cornyn amendment. I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment and to support certainly Senator Hutchison's amendment. I commend her for her great work on this subject. Exhibit 1 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2012. Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hutchison: As you know, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) addressed the issue of sentencing for federal child pornography crimes in our testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011. The 1.4 million reports to NCMEC's CyberTipline, the Congressionally-authorized reporting mechanism for online crimes against children, indicate the scope of the problem. These child sex abuse images are crime scene photos that memorialize the sexual abuse of a child. Those who possess them create a demand for new images, which drives their production and, hence, the sexual abuse of more child victims to create the images. Despite the heinous nature of this crime, the federal statute criminalizing the possession of child pornography has no mandatory minimum sentence. This, combined with the advisory nature of the federal sentencing guidelines, allows judges to impose light sentences for possession. Congress passed mandatory minimum sentences for the crimes of receipt, distribution, and production of child pornography. We don't believe that Congress intended to imply that possession of child pornography is less serious than these other offenses. NCMEC feels strongly that possession of child pornography is a serious crime that deserves a serious sentence. Therefore, we support a reasonable mandatory minimum sentence for this offense. As we have previously testified, child protection measures must also include the ability to locate non-compliant registered sex offenders--offenders who have been convicted of crimes against children yet fail to comply with their registration duties. The U.S. Marshals Service is the lead federal law enforcement agency for tracking these fugitives. Their efforts would be greatly enhanced if the had the authority to serve administrative subpoenas in order to obtain Internet subscriber information to help determine the fugitives' physical location and apprehend them. Thank you for your efforts to protect our nation's children. Sincerely, Ernie Allen, President and CEO.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have offered, and I ask unanimous consent at this time to call up amendment No. 2086 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. That is correct.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have letters in support of the legislation we have talked about, the SAFER amendment, the alternative to the Klobuchar amendment, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, from Arrow Child and Family Ministries, from the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, and from PROTECT. I ask unanimous consent that all those letters be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I will not read the whole letter, which is addressed to me, but I will read parts of it: I am writing to express RAINN's concern with the draft VAWA amendment by Sen. Klobuchar. Unlike the Cornyn amendment, we do not believe this draft amendment will make effective or positive improvements to the Debbie Smith Act. Indeed, they conclude later in the letter: Overall, we believe this amendment is largely symbolic and will not have the impact in reducing the backlog that we find in the Cornyn amendment. Very quickly, there is no requirement in the Klobuchar amendment that audits actually have to be conducted. So, to me, that seems like a case of willful blindness to the size and scope of the backlogs and the problems. There is no requirement in the Klobuchar alternative for a registry. In other words, there is no way the Department of Justice can make sure the money granted to law enforcement is actually used for the purpose for which the grant was intended, by creating a registry. In fact, the Klobuchar amendment actually diverts some of the funds from the core purpose of the Debbie Smith Act for the purpose of testing this critical evidence. It takes out a provision for administrative subpoenas to track unregistered sex offenders. It cuts some of the sentencing provisions in my amendment for people guilty of interstate child sex trafficking--children under 12 years of age--and it eliminates the sense-of-the- Senate provision that I worked on with Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois condemning a Web site known as backpage.com, which has been identified in the New York Times and other places as a source of advertising for underage prostitution--something certainly worthy of our condemnation as a Senate. So I will come back to talk about other aspects of this, but I hope my colleagues will look at the letter from RAINN, the largest antisexual violence organization in the United States, which says they believe the Klobuchar amendment is largely symbolic and does not do as much as the Cornyn amendment would to get at these perpetrators and to identify them for what they are. Exhibit 1 Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, Washington, DC, April 26, 2012. Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Sen. Cornyn: I am writing to express RAINN's concern with the draft VAWA amendment by Sen. Klobuchar. Unlike the Cornyn amendment, we do not believe that this draft amendment will make effective or positive improvements to the Debbie Smith Act. The Klobuchar amendment adds an additional purpose area to the Debbie Smith Act promoting inter-agency communication, potentially at the expense of reducing the backlog. Funds used for this section have the potential to be used for radios and other communication tools. While we can't speak to the need for such spending, we do know that this would not have a direct impact on the backlog and would not aid in solving cases. Unlike the Cornyn amendment, which nearly doubles the percentage of Debbie Smith funds that are spent on casework, this provision would divert money from labs and go against the congressional intent of the original bill. In addition, this draft would allow the Justice Department to fund backlog audits, but would not designate funds specifically for that purpose. It would not establish a registry to allow the collection of data; would not establish any process for transparency; and would not provide the kind of comprehensive information that is needed to efficiently target Debbie Smith funds to the areas of greatest need. Finally, it strips out a number of provisions that were included at the request of law enforcement agencies, in order to ensure that their compliance would not be burdensome. The SAFER Act section of the Cornyn amendment has none of these defects, and has safeguards to ensure that funds spent on an audit and registry will not take away from funds spent on testing DNA evidence. Overall, we believe this amendment is largely symbolic and will not have the impact in reducing the backlog that we find in the Cornyn amendment. RAINN is the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization. RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotlines (800.656.HOPE and rainn.org), which have helped more than 1.7 million people since 1994. RAINN also carries out programs to prevent sexual assault, help victims, and ensure that rapists are brought to justice. For more information about RAINN, please visit www.rainn.org. I appreciate your work on this issue, and encourage you to continue to push for adoption of the Cornyn amendment, which will make real, positive changes in the lives of victims. Sincerely, Scott Berkowitz, President and Founder.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we have not yet concluded the postal reform bill, but I come to the floor to speak on an amendment I intend to offer on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The amendment I intend to offer is one that enjoys bipartisan support, and I hope as more Senators learn about the content of this amendment and how it will strengthen the Violence Against Women Act, they will join me and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, Senator Bennet of Colorado, as well as Senator Vitter from Louisiana. I believe it will strengthen the Violence Against Women Act we will vote on, presumably later today, but probably tomorrow. I am also happy to have the support of the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network--RAINN--PROTECT, and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, as well as Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed, whose office is in San Antonio, TX. She has worked with us on this amendment, and we have benefited from her counsel and that of her staff. We have the support as well of San Antonio Police Chief William McManus. At its core, this amendment would help end the nationwide rape kit backlog while improving law enforcement tools to crack down on violent criminals who target women and children for sexual assault. To give a little context, in the course of an investigation, law enforcement officials will collect DNA evidence in something called a rape kit. These are generally bodily fluids that can be tested, because of their DNA signature, against a bank of DNA evidence for a match. In fact, this is a very powerful tool for law enforcement because it will literally identify someone from this DNA match in a way nothing else can. This DNA evidence can also, for those who care, as we all do, about making sure the innocent are not held in suspicion or convicted for crimes they didn't commit, be so powerful as to literally exclude, in some instances, suspects of criminal conduct. The nationwide rape kit backlog is a national scandal--one that many people don't know very much about--and it has serious consequences for sexual assault victims. The truth is we don't know about the full scope of the problem, but one estimate is there are as many as 400,000 untested rape kits currently sitting in labs and on police station shelves across the Nation, each one of them holding within itself the potential to help solve a serious crime and, in the process, take a rapist off the streets and provide a victim with the justice they deserve. Take, for example, the case of Carol Bart. Carol is from Dallas, TX. In 1984, Ms. Bart was kidnapped and raped at knife point outside her Dallas apartment. Although she submitted herself for rape kit testing immediately following the crime, her kit was not tested until 2008--24 years later. When it was tested 24 years after the rape kit specimens were collected, it yielded a match for a serial sex offender who had attempted to rape another woman only 4 months later after he raped Ms. Bart. This is one of the most important reasons why this evidence is important, because the fact is people who commit sexual assaults are not one-time offenders. They do it many times, and often they do it until they are caught. But because the rape kit in Ms. Bart's case was not tested for 24 years after the crime, the statute of limitations had run, meaning that her attacker could not be brought to justice for that particular crime. Statutes of limitations serve a worthwhile purpose under ordinary circumstances. They are designed to make sure charges are brought on a timely basis, while witnesses' memories are fresh and they can identify the perpetrator and the like. But in this instance, what it concealed was an injustice because, in fact, this late testing--24 years after the fact--meant her attacker could not be brought to justice for that particular crime. Take also the case of Helena Lazaro, who was raped outside of Los Angeles in 1996 when she was just a teenager. Ms. Lazaro's rape kit sat untested for more than 13 years after her assault. When it was finally tested in 2009, it yielded a match to a repeat offender who had raped several women at knifepoint in Indiana and Ohio. There are countless, I am sorry to say, examples of similar tragedies across the country, only a handful of which are actually reported on the front pages of our major newspapers. And some of these victims, of course, have merely suffered in silence in towns and communities across our country. One thing is clear: While DNA evidence is powerful evidence, we have not yet adapted our administration of testing nor the capacity to inventory these kits in a way to make sure they are tested on a timely basis, and we have not kept up with that. But that is what this amendment hopes to do. According to a 2011 report by the National Institute of Justice: [c]urrent Federal programs to reduce backlogs in crime laboratories are not designed to address untested evidence stored in law enforcement agencies. As a matter of fact, one of the problems in requiring an inventory of these untested rape kits is often the National Institute of Justice and law enforcement personnel don't even categorize a rape kit as untested until it actually is in the hands of the laboratory. So many of them sit in evidence lockers, never making their way to the labs, and are not identified as backlogged. So there are two distinct types of rape kit backlogs: the well-known backlog of untested rape kits that have already been submitted for testing and the hidden backlog of kits in law enforcement storage that have not been submitted for testing, as you can see, sometimes over a span of 13 years in one case and 24 years in the next. This amendment would help us learn more about this hidden backlog and ultimately help State and local law enforcement officials to end it. One of my experiences during the 4 years I was attorney general of Texas was that many local jurisdictions simply did not have the expertise or experience or the knowledge to deal with new technology, whether it is Internet crimes or whether it is this new, powerful DNA tool. It is not so new now, and in urban areas it is not as big of a problem. In New York City, for example, I am sure they are quite sophisticated when dealing with this sort of evidence but less so in smaller towns and communities across the country. The justice for victims amendment would reserve 7 percent of existing Debbie Smith Act grant funding for the purpose of helping State and local governments to conduct audits of their rape kit backlogs. In my hometown of San Antonio, the police department recently conducted such an audit of their evidence storage facilities using similar grant funding from the State of Texas. They identified more than 5,000--and that is just in San Antonio alone--untested sexual assault kits, of which 2,000 they determined should be submitted promptly for testing. My amendment would use existing appropriations to encourage more audits like this. The amendment would also add accountability to the audit process by requiring grantees of these funds to upload critical information about the size, scope, and status of their backlog into a new sexual assault evidence forensic registry. This valuable information would also help the National Institute of Justice better target the approximately $100 million of existing appropriations already available for this type of testing. In the spirit of open government, the amendment would also require the Department of Justice to publish aggregate, non-personally identifying information about the rape kit backlog on an appropriate Internet Web site. To ensure that these audit grants do not take resources away from actual testing, my amendment would increase the amount of Debbie Smith Act appropriations required to be spent directly on laboratory testing from the 40 percent currently in the underlying Leahy bill, which will be the base bill, to 75 percent. So what it will do is it will actually take more of the funding that Congress intended be used to process rape kits and do actual testing and return it to that core function. A comprehensive approach to crime prevention and victims' rights also requires updated tools for Federal law enforcement officials to target fugitives and repeat offenders. My amendment addresses this need by including bipartisan language authored by Senator Jeff Sessions that would authorize the U.S. Marshals Service to issue administrative subpoenas for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders and would actually be limited to that narrow purpose. This provision would allow the Marshals Service to swiftly obtain time-sensitive tracking information, such as rent records and credit card statements, without having to go through the grand jury process, which may or may not be necessary depending on the circumstances. Such authority is urgently needed given the long and complicated paper trail that fugitive sex offender investigations often entail. My amendment would also guarantee that we hand down tough punishments--appropriately so--to some of the worst crimes against women and children. For example, it includes enhanced sentencing provisions for aggravated domestic violence resulting in death or life- threatening bodily injury to the victim, aggravated sexual abuse, and child sex trafficking. I think preventing these horrible crimes is at the heart of the purpose of the Violence Against Women Act, and we should take the opportunity to improve the underlying bill by adopting this amendment and send a message to would-be perpetrators and child sex traffickers. If you commit some of the worst crimes imaginable in the United States, you should have the certain knowledge that you will be tracked down and that you will receive tough and appropriate punishment. Finally, thanks to the great work of Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, my amendment would further shed light on one of the greatest scourges of our time; that is, child prostitution and the trafficking that goes along with it. The so-called adult entertainment section of the popular online classified Web site backpage.com is nothing more than a front for pimps and child sex traffickers. A lot has been written in the New York Times on this topic. On this Web site, young children and coerced women are openly advertised for sale in the sex trade. In fact, this Web site has been affirmatively linked to dozens of cases of child sex trafficking. Let me give a few recent examples. Last month, Ronnie Leon Tramble was sentenced to 15 years in prison for interstate sex trafficking through force, fraud, and coercion. Tramble forced more than five young women and minors into prostitution over a period of at least 5 years throughout the State of Washington. He repeatedly subjected his victims to brutal physical and emotional abuse during this time, while using backpage.com to facilitate their prostitution. In February of this year, Leighton Martin Curtis was sentenced to 30 years in prison for sex trafficking of a minor and production of child pornography. Curtis pimped a 15-year-old girl throughout Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina. He prostituted the girl to approximately 20 to 35 customers per week for more than a year and used backpage.com to facilitate these crimes. According to human trafficking experts, a casual review of the backpage.com adult entertainment Web site reveals literally hundreds of children being sold for sex every day. This is absolutely sickening and should be stopped with all the tools available to us. We should no longer stand idle while thousands of children and trafficked women are raped, abused, and sold like chattel in modern-day slavery on the Internet. My amendment would therefore join all 50 State attorneys general in calling on backpage.com to remove the adult entertainment section of its Web site. Again, I would like to thank Senator Kirk for his leadership on this issue. Every case of sex trafficking or forced prostitution is modern-day slavery--nothing more, nothing less--and we should do everything in our power to ensure this practice is eradicated in the United States of America. I believe the justice for victims amendment would reduce the rape kit backlog, take serial perpetrators off the street, and ultimately reduce the number of victims of sex violence. I ask my colleagues to join me in considering this amendment, which already enjoys bipartisan support, and I hope it will get much broader bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will join with me in strengthening the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act by cosponsoring and supporting this amendment. Our constituents and victims of these heinous crimes deserve nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2012, SBTBOR. I am very pleased that Senators Snowe, Hutchison, and Heller are cosponsors of this taxpayer- friendly legislation. As Americans across the country race to meet today's deadline to complete their federal tax return, it is important to note that their tax burden is more than just the amount of tax paid to the federal government. Taxpayers also bear the burden of the cost of complying with the tax code. Analysts predict that taxpayers will spend over $350 billion this year alone to comply with the tax code. In addition, according to a survey by the National Small Business Association, over half of the respondents reported that they spend more than 40 hours a year dealing with federal taxes and spend more than $5,000 each year just on the administration of federal taxes. In addition, a dispute over a complex tax code with the IRS can become an expensive endeavor for small businesses, who have limited resources to fight off frivolous IRS claims. With the passage of the 2010 health care act, this burden is expected to increase in the future. At a time when job creation remains weak, small businesses should be spending their time and resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome IRS red tape. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights seeks to mitigate this problem. It would ensure that small businesses spend less time dealing with the IRS and more time creating jobs. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights, among other things, provides more protections and safeguards for small businesses during administrative procedures with the IRS. It would: lower the compliance burden on small business taxpayers; strengthen safeguards against IRS overreach; increase taxpayer compensation for IRS abuses and; improve taxpayer access to the court system. Amid the weakest economic recovery since World War II, American job creators urgently need such relief. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will reduce the compliance and administrative burdens faced by small business taxpayers when it comes to dealing with the IRS. The bill provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure through which a small business taxpayer may be able to request arbitration with an independent, neutral third party not employed by the IRS. In addition, the bill will make more small businesses eligible to recoup attorney's fees when a court finds that the IRS's action taken against a taxpayer is not substantially justified. The legislation also reinforces the independent nature of the IRS Appeals Office by prohibiting it from discussing the merits of a taxpayer's case with any other department at the IRS, unless the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to participate. Second, the bill will prevent an Appeals Officer from raising a new issue that was not initially raised by the IRS in the examination process. The SBTBOR would help to ensure the Appeals Office remains a neutral entity that effectively facilitates the taxpayer's appeals process. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will make the IRS more accountable to taxpayers by increasing the amount of damages taxpayers may receive for any collection action the IRS takes against them that is reckless, or by reason of negligence disregards the law or its regulations. Second, it increases the amount of damages taxpayers may be awarded when the IRS improperly discloses their tax returns and tax information. Third, the bill raises the monetary penalty on IRS employees who commit certain unlawful acts or disclose taxpayer information. Finally, the legislation will improve taxpayer access to the Tax Court by expanding the role of the current ``small tax case'' procedure--an informal and efficient method for resolving disputes before the Tax Court--to include a wider variety of cases. The bill will permit taxpayers to obtain judicial review from the Tax Court when the IRS fails to act on their claim for interest abatement due to an error or delay by the IRS. Taxpayers whose property has been wrongly seized to satisfy a tax debt will have more time to claim relief and bring a civil suit against the IRS. It also makes procedural improvements for taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief. By requesting innocent spouse relief, taxpayers can be relieved of the responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if their spouse improperly reported items or omitted items on their tax return. Last week, I held an event in Houston, Texas, where I announced my intention to introduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act. The event was held at the headquarters of Forge USA, which is a family- owned, medium-sized open-die forging business. Forging is a process involving the shaping of heated metal parts in which the metal is never completely confined or restrained in the dies. Forge USA has 215 employees and provides high-quality custom forged products for a variety of industries, with about 70 percent of its product going to the oil and gas industry. This is what the owners of Forge USA said about the legislation: ``Senator Cornyn's efforts to improve the rights of small businesses will mean that business owners will be able to spend more time growing their businesses and hiring more workers and hopefully less time talking to the tax man.'' I am grateful for the support of a small business like Forge USA. This legislation is also supported by the Texas Association of Business, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. Small business owners face an especially crushing burden of paperwork, but they lack the key financial and legal resources that multinational corporations do when dealing with the tax code and the IRS. This legislation will provide relief for small businesses and will allow small businesses to spend more time expanding their business and creating jobs and less time dealing with the IRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2012, SBTBOR. I am very pleased that Senators Snowe, Hutchison, and Heller are cosponsors of this taxpayer- friendly legislation. As Americans across the country race to meet today's deadline to complete their federal tax return, it is important to note that their tax burden is more than just the amount of tax paid to the federal government. Taxpayers also bear the burden of the cost of complying with the tax code. Analysts predict that taxpayers will spend over $350 billion this year alone to comply with the tax code. In addition, according to a survey by the National Small Business Association, over half of the respondents reported that they spend more than 40 hours a year dealing with federal taxes and spend more than $5,000 each year just on the administration of federal taxes. In addition, a dispute over a complex tax code with the IRS can become an expensive endeavor for small businesses, who have limited resources to fight off frivolous IRS claims. With the passage of the 2010 health care act, this burden is expected to increase in the future. At a time when job creation remains weak, small businesses should be spending their time and resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome IRS red tape. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights seeks to mitigate this problem. It would ensure that small businesses spend less time dealing with the IRS and more time creating jobs. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights, among other things, provides more protections and safeguards for small businesses during administrative procedures with the IRS. It would: lower the compliance burden on small business taxpayers; strengthen safeguards against IRS overreach; increase taxpayer compensation for IRS abuses and; improve taxpayer access to the court system. Amid the weakest economic recovery since World War II, American job creators urgently need such relief. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will reduce the compliance and administrative burdens faced by small business taxpayers when it comes to dealing with the IRS. The bill provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure through which a small business taxpayer may be able to request arbitration with an independent, neutral third party not employed by the IRS. In addition, the bill will make more small businesses eligible to recoup attorney's fees when a court finds that the IRS's action taken against a taxpayer is not substantially justified. The legislation also reinforces the independent nature of the IRS Appeals Office by prohibiting it from discussing the merits of a taxpayer's case with any other department at the IRS, unless the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to participate. Second, the bill will prevent an Appeals Officer from raising a new issue that was not initially raised by the IRS in the examination process. The SBTBOR would help to ensure the Appeals Office remains a neutral entity that effectively facilitates the taxpayer's appeals process. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will make the IRS more accountable to taxpayers by increasing the amount of damages taxpayers may receive for any collection action the IRS takes against them that is reckless, or by reason of negligence disregards the law or its regulations. Second, it increases the amount of damages taxpayers may be awarded when the IRS improperly discloses their tax returns and tax information. Third, the bill raises the monetary penalty on IRS employees who commit certain unlawful acts or disclose taxpayer information. Finally, the legislation will improve taxpayer access to the Tax Court by expanding the role of the current ``small tax case'' procedure--an informal and efficient method for resolving disputes before the Tax Court--to include a wider variety of cases. The bill will permit taxpayers to obtain judicial review from the Tax Court when the IRS fails to act on their claim for interest abatement due to an error or delay by the IRS. Taxpayers whose property has been wrongly seized to satisfy a tax debt will have more time to claim relief and bring a civil suit against the IRS. It also makes procedural improvements for taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief. By requesting innocent spouse relief, taxpayers can be relieved of the responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if their spouse improperly reported items or omitted items on their tax return. Last week, I held an event in Houston, Texas, where I announced my intention to introduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act. The event was held at the headquarters of Forge USA, which is a family- owned, medium-sized open-die forging business. Forging is a process involving the shaping of heated metal parts in which the metal is never completely confined or restrained in the dies. Forge USA has 215 employees and provides high-quality custom forged products for a variety of industries, with about 70 percent of its product going to the oil and gas industry. This is what the owners of Forge USA said about the legislation: ``Senator Cornyn's efforts to improve the rights of small businesses will mean that business owners will be able to spend more time growing their businesses and hiring more workers and hopefully less time talking to the tax man.'' I am grateful for the support of a small business like Forge USA. This legislation is also supported by the Texas Association of Business, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. Small business owners face an especially crushing burden of paperwork, but they lack the key financial and legal resources that multinational corporations do when dealing with the tax code and the IRS. This legislation will provide relief for small businesses and will allow small businesses to spend more time expanding their business and creating jobs and less time dealing with the IRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express concerns about the rising cost of gasoline and the Obama administration's efforts to further increase the American consumers' pain at the pump. As we all know, the average price of gasoline has now more than doubled since the first week of the President's inauguration in January 2009, from $1.84 a gallon to $3.86. Furthermore, the Associated Press has reported the typical American household spends about $4,155 a year filling up at the pump--an all-time high--and 8.4 percent of the median household income, the highest percentage spent for gasoline since 1981 when oil prices soared due to the crisis in the Middle East. The Energy Information Administration estimates that 72 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline is made up from the cost of crude oil, which is a globally traded commodity. Although some would like to distract from the fundamentals, Congress cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Indeed, President Obama used to agree with us. Last March, for example, he said ``producing more oil in America will help lower oil prices.'' However, his administration has adopted policies that directly conflict with our goal of lowering gasoline prices. To add insult to injury, with the public outcry, the President is out to further confuse the facts and actually take credit for increasing production when those increases have been on private lands outside of his control, and while opposing greater exploration on Federal lands under his purview. At the same time he is even seeking now to push prices even higher by raising taxes in his fiscal year 2013 budget. This week the Senate will be debating a bill by Senator Menendez of New Jersey to increase taxes on oil producers. I don't know of anyone who could reach any other conclusion than that by raising taxes on the people who produce oil and gas, it will raise, not lower, the cost of oil, thus the refined petroleum product known as gasoline. So, actually, by punitively and in a discriminatory sort of way raising prices on an unpopular sector of the economy, we will actually make matters worse, not better. The Tax Code supports the energy sector by providing a number of targeted tax incentives--or tax incentives only available to the energy industry. In addition to targeted tax incentives, there are a number of broader tax provisions that are available for energy- and nonenergy- related industries. For example, the section 199 domestic production deduction incentive is available to most domestic manufacturers with income derived from production property that was manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted within the United States. So this section 199 provision applies to a whole host of American businesses, not just the oil and gas business. Yet the Menendez bill and the Obama administration continue to single out oil producers for tax increases, even though oil-related activities are already limited from claiming the deduction compared to other industries. Analysis by the Congressional Research Service for the energy targeted tax incentives shows that while the majority of U.S. primary energy production comes from fossil fuels, the majority of energy tax- related revenue losses are associated with provisions designed to support renewables. During 2009, 77.9 percent of U.S. primary energy production could be attributed to fossil fuels--77.9 percent in 2009. Of the Federal tax support targeted to energy in 2009, an estimated 12.6 percent went toward fossil fuels. In contrast, in that same year, more than 10 percent of U.S. primary energy sources came from renewable fuels. In other words, just to repeat: 10.6 percent from renewable, 77.9 in that same year from oil and gas, but notwithstanding the fact only 10 percent of energy produced came from renewable fuels, 77.4 percent of energy targeted Federal tax support went toward supporting renewable fuels. If we want to put all these tax provisions on the table, I think we should do that. As a matter of fact, the Simpson-Bowles study identified more than $1 trillion of tax expenditures. But let's not just pick out one sector of the economy and, in the process, raise taxes and increase the price of gasoline at the pump as an unintended but clearly likely outcome. We know the Menendez bill is not about tax reform. This is about mixing the message and trying to drive a wedge between the American people and the people who actually create jobs. Unfortunately for the administration, raising taxes will, in fact, translate into higher prices. It is a fair question to ask whether this administration can defend its policies, such as their budget proposal to raise taxes where they argued these tax provisions should be repealed because they ``encourage overproduction of oil'' and are thereby ``detrimental to long-term energy security.'' I am not sure most Americans understand that the official policy of this administration is that tax deductions should be removed because they encourage overproduction of oil in America. I thought the goal-- one of our goals--was to produce more at home so we would depend less on imported energy from abroad. Then there is the Keystone Pipeline, which is well-known. The President is the primary obstacle to the completion of that pipeline which will create more than 20,000 new jobs and produce 700,000 barrels of oil at refineries in the United States from a safe and friendly source--the nation of Canada. Because the President is blocking completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline, they are looking for alternative customers. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Canada has visited China to prospect that potential purchase. What is worse, it is not just that the President hasn't acted, it is that the President has actually lobbied in the Senate to defeat efforts to bypass his obstruction to the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Well, the President must be feeling the heat because he showed up in Cushing, OK, to celebrate and to say he would expedite about one-third of the pipeline, which, ironically, doesn't require him to do anything. It certainly doesn't turn on the spigot in Canada to get the oil in that pipeline to come from Canada down to the United States. So we can see our Nation has no coherent energy policy. We see that not only is this an area that has been neglected to the detriment of the American consumer, but actually the sorts of policies being pursued by the administration--particularly with regard to the Keystone XL Pipeline and raising taxes on domestic oil producers--are designed to make matters worse for American consumers at a time when they are struggling to recover from this recession, with historically high rates of unemployment and too few jobs. Looking at all the evidence on energy prices, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that high energy prices are part of President Obama's plan. The policies he has put in place have intentionally elevated the price of gasoline, much to the detriment of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Is the Senator aware the very same arms merchant, Rosoboronexport, has also been documented selling weapons to Iran and Venezuela? As a matter of fact, according to one published report, as late as 2005, Rosoboronexport sold Iran 29 Tor-M1 anti-air missile systems worth $700 million. And Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps successfully tested this anti-air missile system in 2007. It is also reported that in 2012, Russia will deliver T 72 tanks, BMP3 infantry fighting vehicles, and BTR 80A armored personnel carriers to Venezuela--just at our back yard in South America. Also, in the last 5 years in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, a dictator with strong ties to Cuba and Fidel Castro, bought $11 billion worth of arms through Rosoboronexport. I wonder if the Senator finds that surprising or alarming.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would also ask the distinguished majority whip whether he is aware of the testimony within the last couple of weeks before the Armed Services Committee of Secretary Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The testimony focused a lot of attention on Iran, the principal state sponsor of international terrorism in the world today, and its destabilizing influence in the Middle East. Iran is seeking, as they are, a nuclear weapon which would at the very least create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and a consequential destabilizing effect in that region. I know the Senator is aware that Syria is one of the principal proxies for Iran. General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta both said if Syria were to go by the wayside, as various other countries have in the Arab spring, that it would be a serious blow to Iran's aspirations for hegemony in the Middle East and something that is dangerous to the peace and stability of that important region. I know the Senator is aware of the close relationship between Syria and Iran, and I wonder if the Senator cares to comment on that connection.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know Senator Durbin, Senator Ayotte, and others will be coming to the Senate floor, but let me get it started. According to the United Nations, more than 8,000 Syrians have been murdered in attacks by the desperate regime of President Bashar al-Asad of Syria. We continue to receive press reports on a daily basis about Asad's forces summarily executing, imprisoning, and torturing demonstrators who want nothing more than what we take for granted, which is to live in freedom in a democracy. This week we learned that dozens of Syrian women and children--some infants as young as 4 months old--were stabbed, shot, and burned by government forces in Homs. I know it is difficult for most of us to comprehend--and most of us would be so repulsed by it, we would not want to comprehend the kind of brutality Asad is perpetrating against his own people. Yet in the face of these atrocities, Russia continues to prop up the Asad regime by providing arms that are being used to slaughter these innocent Syrian civilians. Russia is the top supplier of weapons to Syria and reportedly sold Syria up to $1 billion or more worth of arms just last year. Western and Arab governments have pleaded with Russia to stop supplying these weapons to the Asad regime, but it has refused so far. Russia is not just passively supplying weapons to the Asad regime, it has recently admitted to having military weapons instructors on the ground in Syria training Asad's Army on how to use these weapons. Russian weapons, including high-explosive mortars, have been found at the site of atrocities in Homs. This picture taken by Al Arabiya and Reuters reads: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, why don't you visit Homs to see your weapons and their effectiveness in the bodies of our children! The Syrian people recognize Russia's role in their current misery, as reflected by this picture and by this statement to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Rosoboronexport is Russia's official arms dealer. This company handles about 80 percent of Russia's weapons exports, according to its Web site, and it is spearheading Russia's continuing effort to arm the Asad regime, which, in my mind, makes them an accessory to mass murder. I see the distinguished majority whip has come to the floor, and I want to give him a chance to make any appropriate remarks he cares to make and engage in a colloquy with him. First, let me close my comments on this concern I have. Not only is Russia selling arms to Syria to kill innocent civilians, but you can imagine my shock and dismay when I found out that our own Department of Defense has a no-bid contract with this same Russian arms merchant that is helping arm the Asad regime. This is a no-bid contract to provide approximately 21 dual-use Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan military. As I said, this is a no-bid Army contract that was awarded last summer that is reportedly worth as much as $900 million. So the only thing I can conclude is that the U.S. taxpayer is providing money to a Russian arms dealer to purchase Russian helicopters for the Afghan military, and the very same arms merchant is arming President Asad's regime and killing innocent Syrians. I, along with 16 of my colleagues, have sent a letter to Secretary Panetta expressing our alarm and concern over these arrangements, asking for further information and urging them to reconsider this contract with Rosoboronexport. I want to stop on this point: We must keep the pressure on the Department of Defense to reconsider this contract and on the Russians to cease all arms sales to the Asad regime. I am hopeful that the upcoming debate on the repeal of Jackson-Vanik will provide an opportunity for the Senate to further examine these serious issues. Again, let me state my appreciation to Senator Durbin, the distinguished majority whip, for his participation in expressing alarm and concern over these circumstances and ask him to make any comments he cares to make.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know there are other Senators and signatories of this letter who may well be coming to the floor to talk more about this issue, but I wish to express my gratitude to Senator Durbin. It is important that the United States speak out on behalf of people who have no real voice in defense of their most basic human rights. I would point out that President Asad and his regime are not only killing innocent civilians, but also are being supplied by Russia, who also--maybe not coincidentally--vetoed the sanctions the U.N. was considering with regard to Iran. So it is very important that we not only speak up on behalf of the people who have no voice and no defense, but also make sure the U.S. Government, at a very minimum, isn't doing business with the very same arms merchants that are supplying weapons to President Asad with which to kill innocent Syrians. I am advised that Senator Ayotte was planning on coming. She is a signatory to this letter and a member of the Armed Services Committee who shares many of these same concerns. However, she is not going to be able to come at this time. I am sure she will be coming to speak on this later. So with that, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I can't recall whether I asked unanimous consent, but if I haven't done it up to this point, I ask unanimous consent that the letter we are referring to that 17 Senators sent to Secretary Panetta be printed in the Record at the close of these comments.

Mr. CORNYN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak until noon in a colloquy with the distinguished majority whip. Senator Ayotte and a number of other Senators will join us during the next 30 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I come to floor to express concerns about the transportation bill recently voted on by the Senate. My State of Texas is the fastest-growing State in America, and our economic success has made us a national model and a magnet for talent. But rapid population and economic growth means an ever-increasing strain on our infrastructure. This legislation takes several positive steps such as consolidating programs, improving project delivery, and expanding the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, also known as TIFIA, which has been successful in addressing various infrastructure needs in Texas and across our Nation. Unfortunately, the bill is also deeply flawed. First, it is a 2-year proposal. Changing policy for such a short period of time does not give States like Texas the certainty they need to undertake meaningful long- term transportation projects. In addition, the Senate bill uses 10 years' worth of revenue to pay for 2 years of spending. This is the type of budget gimmickry that makes Americans suspicious of Washington. So we have legislation that is short-sighted and relies on accounting tricks. But the problems don't end there. The bill also moves us away from the user-pay principle. While this might work in the short term, closing a large funding gap with non-user tax revenues would ultimately destroy the Highway Trust Fund's protected budget status. The legislation also does not address the Trust Fund's long-term insolvency problem. Instead, it spends down the balance in the Trust Fund leaving a substantial deficit starting in fiscal year 2014. Finally, Texas receives significantly less from the Highway Trust Fund than it pays in. In 2009, Texas had the lowest Trust Fund return ratio in the country, according to a Heritage Foundation study. Congress simply must address the equity issue rather than rewarding a few States based on their previous share of highway funding. I know there are those in my State who favor this legislation, and I share their commitment to finding solutions to our transportation challenges. But I believe the people of Texas and the people of America deserve a better approach. I hope that we can improve the bill during the conference process. Our challenges are difficult, but they are not insurmountable, and there is no reason we can't make 21st-century American infrastructure the very best in the world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.