John Cornyn

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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Unless we act promptly, we are going to find out our troops are not going to get their paychecks, and the services that are available for our military families are going to be denied unless Congress acts. So why would we engage in this kind of delay? Finally, the Graham-Burr bill does provide for the full cost of a 4- year public school education in my State of Texas, which costs roughly $55,000 a year. This bill provides $58,000 a year worth of benefits and added to items such as the Hazlewood Act, which allows tuition forgiveness, is a good benefit and one certainly deserved by the veterans who take advantage of their GI benefits in my home State, and I am proud to support them.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is exactly right. We need to have a fair debate and fair opportunity for a vote on these competing proposals, both of which I say, again, were borne out of the best of intentions, and that is providing educational benefits for our military servicemembers and their families. But I have to add that calling into question Senator McCain's commitment to veterans is laughable. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. No one serving in the Congress and few serving anywhere in the United States have given more to support our military servicemembers, both active and retired, and, obviously, Senator McCain himself is a war hero. To me, that is the kind of phony ad that I think causes most people simply to dismiss it because there is just no basis for it. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this procedure, whereby we are asked to vote on what started out to be an emergency funding bill to support our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq, has now been larded up with a bunch of pet projects and other spending which have nothing to do with supporting our troops in harm's way. Congress, by engaging in this sort of conduct, is actually slowing down delivery of the money to the troops who need it. We have been told by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration--particularly the Secretary of Defense--that unless we act----

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from South Carolina for their leadership, but I also wish to congratulate Senator Webb, the Senator from Virginia. I do believe that all of these Senators, and those of us who join them, are operating with the best of intentions, and that is how do we modernize the GI bill that helped provide my father an education after he left the Air Force after World War II? How do we modernize the GI bill and provide the maximum benefit we can but also make sure it provides for benefits to military families by allowing for transferability to spouses and children under some circumstances? And, I would think, fundamentally to our national security, how do we preserve and protect the All-Volunteer military force? I know it is not his intention, but Senator Webb's bill actually would encourage people not to reenlist by providing a perverse incentive to leave early in order to obtain the benefits they would receive after 3 years of service. We need to make sure we encourage continuation of service, retention in the military in the best interests of our All-Volunteer military force. To me, it is ironic--I remember the Senator from Virginia had an amendment where we would restrict the amount of time a servicemember could be deployed and then provide for a minimum time they had to be back home before they could be deployed again. Again, it was a noble aspiration that he had but, unfortunately, because our forces were spread too thin because we had allowed the end force, the end strength of our military to degrade over time, we had to, as a matter of our national security and success in our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, ask these servicemembers to return to service without an adequate dwell time. Perversely, I think the Senator's bill, by encouraging early exit from the military and hurting retention, according to the CBO, by some 16-percent, would actually be at cross-purposes with the very proposal he advanced earlier about allowing our military more time at home because it would reduce the number of people in our All-Volunteer military and make it necessary that they be deployed more often and at greater sacrifice. I do believe we ought to reward those who continue to serve. We ought to reward the families by allowing transferability of the benefit upon continued service to spouses and children. I can tell my colleagues, speaking to groups in Texas this last weekend, that one feature was something they very much appreciated. We ought to do everything we can to strengthen and nurture our All- Volunteer military force and not to cause a 16-percent decline in retention rates. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. I yield to him for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am aware of the ad. I have to say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, it is not the first time I have seen a phony ad on television. Of course, as he suggests, there is no basis for it.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we reached a milestone in Congress, because on Monday it was the 500th day since our friends on the other side of the aisle took control of both the Senate and House following the 2006 election. In those 500 days, we have seen congressional approval rating, according to Rasmussen Surveys, drop to 13 percent of the respondents who believe that Congress has performed in a good or excellent fashion. I believe one reason why we have seen this drop in Congress's public approval rating is because we have failed to address some of the biggest concerns that confront the American people. Here is a chart. Four of the concerns are depicted here. The first number I mention here is the 96 days that Congress--specifically the House of Representatives--has failed to act to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, of course, is the law that allows our intelligence community to listen to telephone conversations between foreign terrorists to learn of attacks being planned, so as to not only detect them but also to deter them and defeat our enemies. Why Congress would fail to act to reauthorize this important piece of legislation for 96 days, I think, can only cause us to scratch our heads and wonder what could possibly justify that effective blinding of our intelligence community to new threats and the kinds of threats that could make us safer, if detected, deterred, and defeated, and could make us safer here at home and make our troops safer in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, we have been waiting 547 days for Congress to take up and pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This is important to our Nation and it is important to my State. Last year alone, Texas sold $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to Colombia, a large nation in South America. Because of tariffs that are currently imposed on those goods that are sold from Texas to Colombia, or from the United States to Colombia, it actually discriminates against my small business man and woman, against the manufacturer, against the producer of farm goods; whereas, Colombian goods coming into the United States because of another agreement have no similar tariff or financial discrimination. If the Speaker of the House would take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we could restore a level playing field and create more jobs in the United States because we would be creating more goods here in America to sell in Colombia. Free trade is something that, amazingly, this Congress seems more and more afraid of, when, in fact, I think it is one of the ways out of our current economic doldrums. If we continue to create new markets for our goods and services across the world, that creates jobs at home. If there is anything like a stimulus package Congress could pass, free- trade agreements, such as the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is one of them. It is more important than that because Colombia, of course, is one of our very best allies in Latin America, sitting right next door to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, someone who is not our friend and has declared us his enemy. I have to think that Raul Castro and Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela are sort of chuckling to themselves, seeing how America is treating one of our very best allies in Latin America. In fact, it is President Uribe in Colombia who has been heroic in his fight against the narcoterrorists, known as the FARC, who recently, we found out, were not only in cahoots with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez but planning a lot of no good--buying arms, buying military materiel from Russia and other places right in our backyard, in Latin America. Why we would stiff-arm President Uribe in Colombia, one of our very best allies in Latin America, when it is in our self-interest to create more markets to sell American goods and services, frankly, is beyond me. The next number is 692 days. This is how long some judicial nominees, nominated by President Bush, have been waiting for Senate confirmation. We know the majority leader pledged to confirm at least three circuit court nominees before the Memorial Day break. We only have 2 more days left to go. Obviously, we are not going to meet that pledged goal. So 692 days with nominees waiting for a vote with no real end in sight. It is clear what is happening. It is an attempt to drag this out until the election is nigh upon us and then the majority leader can say: We can't get any more judges confirmed because we are going to have to wait for the Presidential election to see who will fill those vacancies. But to wait 692 days without even giving these nominees simply the courtesy of a hearing or an up-or-down vote is inexcusable. There is just no reason for it. The last number on this chart is 758 days. That is the period of time since Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House, pledged to come up with a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline. Mr. President, 758 days later, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, with no end in sight, and the price of oil, which makes up 70 percent of the cost of gasoline, is going through the roof, with no end in sight. We have on this side of the aisle offered what I believe to be a very constructive plan to produce more American energy and rely less on imported energy from other parts of the world, and that was rebuffed by the majority. I am left to wonder, if the majority refuses to take advantage of American natural resources and reduce our dependency on imported oil from our enemies at the price of $3.75 a gallon, I wonder if they would reconsider when the price hits $4.75 a gallon or $5.75 a gallon? At what price will we finally wake up in Congress and recognize that the moratorium we passed some 30 years ago which banned the exploration for oil and gas on our Outer Continental Shelf, when oil was $7 a barrel and now is $127 a barrel, when will we reconsider that policy and decide it is in our national interest--our national security interest and our economic interest--to depend more on what God gave us in America, our natural resources, which can be developed in a way that is consistent with a good environment and in a way that is responsible? It is irresponsible to simply ignore reality or to imagine that we in Congress can suspend the economic laws of supply and demand. As we have seen oil consumption worldwide go to about 85 million barrels a day, we know that countries such as China and India, with growing economies, are using more and more of that oil. So we are competing for a fixed supply of oil, and the law of supply and demand says: If you have a fixed supply but increasing demand, the price is going to continue to go up. But somehow Congress feels as if we can ignore that law or we can defy that law. We can no more defy the law of supply and demand than we can the law of gravity. I think the American people understand that, and I think they are bewildered, as I am, why Congress continues to defy this basic law of economics. The bill that will be before the Senate today is a very important piece of legislation which bears further witness to why Congress is held in such low regard by the American people. It is because this bill which was designed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations to help fund our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq has become a political football and a lot of unrelated projects have been added to this bill, which has caused the President to threaten to veto it, which the majority understands will simply slow down the process of getting these necessary funds, getting this necessary equipment that these funds would pay for, to our troops in harm's way. Twenty-five days from now--Deputy Secretary Gordon England said that absent additional congressional action, ``the Army will run out of military personnel funds by mid-June and operation and maintenance funds by early July.'' In 25 days, unless Congress acts, the military will run out of personnel funds--that means money used to pay the military their paychecks each month--and will run out of operation and maintenance funds by early July. I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that as we approach Memorial Day, the men and women of our military are left to wonder whether we will meet our obligation to make sure there is enough money available to pay their paychecks so their families can be provided for after June. While we all have talked about supporting our troops--and that is very important--how much more basic a way is there to support our troops than to make sure they are paid the money they are entitled to on a timely basis and not left to wonder whether Congress will meet that simple obligation? Talk is one thing; action, which would send a different message altogether, is another. It is indisputable that these men and women in our U.S. military have made tremendous sacrifices for all of us. They have given not only their precious time, some have even given their lives to protect our way of life. Many of them have spent months, if not years, away from their families, missed birthdays, missed births, all in fulfillment of this noble duty to help keep the oppressed free and to protect our national security. Now they are left to scratch their heads and wonder what is going on again in Washington and whether politics is interfering with Congress's willingness to simply do its duty while they discharge their duties abroad. This critical funding includes not only vital pay and allowances but also the tools our troops need to ensure they have safe passage through neighborhoods they patrol in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am referring to, in part, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, or the CERP. When I was in Baghdad and other places in Iraq in January, the commanding officers said that these are some of the most useful funds we have made available to them. Secretary Gates has called it ``the single most effective program to enable commanders to address local populations' needs. . . .'' These CERP funds will come to a standstill. Unless Congress acts on a timely basis without loading down this bill with a lot of pet projects and pork, it will come to a standstill. Why would we want to hamstring our commanders in the field in working with local populations to try to win their hearts and minds? As Secretary Gates pointed out, CERP is the key in the effort to get potential insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan off the streets and into jobs. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged the importance of CERP funding. However, despite this acknowledgment, Congress has provided less than a third of what has been requested, and now providing those funds at all is left in some doubt. According to the Department of Defense, unless we provide the remaining $1.2 billion in CERP funds, the program will grind to a halt. What more important thing could we be doing in Iraq than trying to win the hearts and minds of former insurgents and get them deployed so that they lay down their guns and their bombs and engage in not only the political process but in the economic revitalization of that war-torn country. We all agree the Iraqis need to take more responsibility for rebuilding their country, and that is what these CERP funds are designed to ensure. Why in the world would we slow them down or fail to see that they are delivered? Beyond CERP funds and troop paychecks, the lack of funding begins to also impact other areas. We will see furloughs of civilian employees of the Department of Defense if Congress does not act promptly. Unfortunately, this includes staff members at facilities such as child development centers which many of our troops depend on for daycare for their young ones. It would detrimentally impact services provided to troops and their families at military installations across America and around the world. It is sad to note this is not the first time Congress has put our troops in this position. Once again, while our troops are waiting for critical funding, needed not only for their own well-being but for the completion of their mission, some of my colleagues will try to use this supplemental funding bill to advance pet projects or to resurrect a tired agenda. Once again, we have seen there will be an attempt to force yet another vote on the precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq; that is, based on a political timetable handed down here in Washington rather than conditions on the ground which will lead to the likelihood of stability and ultimate success. Despite the countless debates we have had on this issue and despite the clear and undisputable evidence of both military and political progress in Iraq, my colleagues will again refuse to pass a clean supplemental bill to support our troops. This debate, of which we know the outcome, will do nothing but delay those funds going to our troops. It is becoming increasingly evident that American troops and our Iraqi allies are making great progress in areas that were formerly labeled as hopeless. In the New York Times today, there is a story on the front page about how Sadr City, which was basically a no-man's zone, has now been stabilized by Iraqi troops themselves. Violence is down, and communities are fighting back against extremism. Life is slowly returning to normal. Refugees who previously fled that country are returning home. What better could we hope for than to see these sorts of developments? Of course, this is thanks in large part to the sacrifices of our military and our military families. We also need to acknowledge the great strides being made by the Iraqi Government. By reasonable estimates, the Iraqis have now met 12 of the 18 benchmarks Congress set for them, and they have begun to fight against extremism and senseless violence without regard to affiliation or sectarian identification. The recent initiative that Prime Minister Maliki undertook in Basra is a good example of taking the initiative, of doing what we had hoped for, and that is taking the training that America and our coalition partners have provided and using that training to fight for themselves. The more the Iraqis stand and fight for themselves, the more American and coalition troops can stand down and ultimately come home. I think it is important to point out to the American people that what was supposed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations bill is not limited to war-related measures, and this is designed to slow down this important piece of legislation. We know that not only are other pet projects and unrelated spending measures included, there are $10 million in unrelated emergency spending measures that perhaps might be justified in some other context, but we need to have this bill passed cleanly so we can get the money to the troops and so we can debate the merits of these various other programs at a later time. We should not use this bill for controversial policy measures. Our troops, as well as the American people, deserve more open debate about complex issues--and here are four of them we need to act on--but we should not use this bill to try to get provisions passed without either adequate debate or adequate scrutiny. Things that could not be passed in the light of day should not be passed on this vehicle, this must-pass vehicle. The men and women who have made tremendous sacrifices to serve our country deserve more than to have to be asked to carry on their backs the political agendas of a few of their elected representatives. Despite the looming shortfalls for military paychecks, the Senate does not seem all that concerned. Despite warnings by the Deputy Secretary of Defense that Congress must act before the Memorial Day recess, the majority leader recently told people it was no big deal if Congress did not. I respectfully beg to differ. Failing to supply a paycheck to our brave soldiers is an incredibly big deal. Playing politics at a time when our soldiers are being left to wonder whether they will be able to pay for their food bill, their gasoline bill, their health care or other items while Congress engages in this sort of gamesmanship is simply inexcusable. So I think we could improve congressional approval ratings above the 13 percent who think we are doing a good or excellent job if we would simply act on this list of items which has been waiting, some for as many as 758 days, without a response from the Congress and if we would simply quit using something such as an emergency funding bill for our troops in harm's way in order to pass other unrelated pet projects or to try to impose other political agendas. I think if we acted responsibly, in a bipartisan way, to try to solve some of these problems, the American people would respond favorably. That would be good for them, that would be good for the country, and that would be good for the Senate and the Congress, generally. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to honor one of Texas' most famous leaders, President Lyndon B. Johnson. This year will mark the 100th anniversary of his birth, and the LBJ Foundation has chosen this week to honor his service to America in Washington, DC. Texas has a rich history of men and women--often from humble beginnings--who work to accomplish great things. Lyndon Johnson was no exception. Johnson was born near Stonewall, TX, nearly 100 years ago, to Texas legislator and poor farmer Samuel Johnson, Jr., and Rebekah Baines. Johnson was a natural public servant. In his early days he studied at then Southwest Texas University's teaching college. One of his first teaching jobs was at a small school in Cotulla Texas for Mexican- American children. His work with those students would forever shape his dedication to those in need. ``[They] had so little and needed so much,'' he once remarked. ``I was determined to spark something inside them, to fill their souls with ambition and interest and belief in the future.'' This eagerness to help others would be a noble and defining characteristic of Lyndon B. Johnson. While he spent time teaching at several schools across Texas, it was not long before Lyndon Johnson took his first foray into public politics. Johnson quickly worked his way through the Texas State Legislature and into the U.S. House of Representatives, and eventually into the U.S. Senate. The seat he took, I should note, is the same seat once held by another very famous Texan, Sam Houston. That same seat now carries a long and honored lineage, and it is my privilege to now serve in this esteemed seat. Early on, Senator Johnson made a name for himself as a man of action, who would work across the aisle to pass important legislation, and who held an incredible power of persuasion. He quickly became majority whip, and eventually majority leader of the Senate. I know that one of his greatest accomplishments in the U.S. Senate was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957--a landmark bill to help ensure the right of all people to vote. Of course, Johnson's legacy as a staunch defender of civil rights would not end there. Of course, Lyndon Johnson's presidency would come in the wake of national tragedy. Despite the conditions under which he took office, President Johnson helped console a nation in mourning, and ensure that America would recover--both physically and emotionally. President Johnson continued the same fervent defense of Civil Rights in America that he had begun early in his life. He helped enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the famous Voting Rights Act. At the same time, Johnson worked tirelessly to ensure a better education for all American children, and was a key proponent of NASA and the space race. Despite the turbulent times under which he served this country, President Johnson did his best to unite our country and promote a freer, more equal society. He will long be remembered for his great advances for the sciences, education, and civil rights--to name just a few accomplishments. It is my pleasure to stand today and honor President Johnson for his service, not only to Texas, but to our Nation as a whole. In his service to our country he never forgot the many Texas values with which he was raised, and as such he and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, became iconic figures in Texas History.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, from May 3-5, 2008, more than 1,200 students from across the country visited Washington, DC to take part in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution National Finals. We the People is the most extensive educational program in the country developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. While in Washington, the students took part in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluated, assumed, and defended positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that results of independent studies of this nationally acclaimed program reveal that We the People students have knowledge gains that are superior to comparison students. Students also display a greater political tolerance and commitment to the principles and values of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than do students using traditional textbooks and approaches. With many reports and surveys indicating the lack of civic knowledge and civic participation, I am pleased to support such a superb program that is producing an enlightened and engaged citizenry. I am proud to announce that a class from Elkins High School in Missouri City, represented the State of Texas at this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capital and compete at the national level. Mr. President, the names of these outstanding students from Elkins High School are: Krystal Castillo, Andrea Cavazos, Deborah Choate, Andrew Cockroft, Lucretia Eiler, Jimmy Guerrero, Josh Hanks, Lara Hogue, Nick Johnson, Tiffany Kell, Curtis Kelso, D.J. Kinneman, Matt MacKo, Colton Mendez, Jonny Murthy, Olusola Oyewuwo, Tej Pandya, Bryan Philpott, Justina Rodriguez, Deepa Sabu, Nick Shipman, Piarose Siaotong, Ivette Soto, Achal Upadhyaya, Courtney Wiliams, Angela Wu, and Arif Yusuf. I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Marilyn Ellington, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the National Finals. Also worthy of special recognition is Jan Miller, the State coordinator who is responsible for implementing the We the People program in my State. I congratulate these students on their exceptional success at the We the People national finals.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act. The Bill promotes transparency and court oversight in the selection and compensation of class counsel in securities class action litigation. As a result, this legislation helps to ensure that the lawyer for shareholder plaintiffs in securities class action lawsuits truly and faithfully represents the interests of the entire class, and not just their own interests and those of the large investors who are the lead plaintiffs. It has been said that the lead attorney in a class action suit serves a quasi-governmental role in that he seeks to enforce the law on behalf of a broad group of ordinary citizens and the investor community at large. Bringing transparency and accountability to securities class action litigation is important to protect the rights and interests of every American who owns stock. When a class action lawsuit is brought against a company for defrauding shareholders, one of the first steps is the selection of the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is the shareholder who will actually sit in the courtroom and represent the interests of all of the shareholders in the litigation. The lead plaintiff selects the lawyer who will represent the class in the lawsuit, subject only to approval by the court. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the lead plaintiff is supposed to be the shareholder ``that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.'' 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA creates a presumption that, in general, the lead plaintiff should be the plaintiff with the ``largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.'' 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(bb). The theory behind this rule is that the party with the most at stake will most vigorously defend the interests of the entire class. In general, this theory has proven true, and the PSLRA is a substantial improvement over the law before the PSLRA, in which the lead plaintiff was generally whoever first filed the lawsuit. However, as recent events have shown, the PSLRA has itself proven subject to abuse. The Bill that I introduce today has been made necessary by recent scandals in which lawyers entered secret arrangements with lead plaintiffs to keep an unfair amount of the lawsuit's proceeds between them, while shutting out ordinary investors. Essentially, the lead plaintiff agreed to an unreasonably high attorneys' fee, with the understanding that the law firm would funnel a portion of that fee back to the lead plaintiff. Thus, the lawyers were overcompensated and the lead plaintiffs received a disproportionate share of the proceeds of the lawsuit. Ordinary investors, who the class action system is designed to protect, bore the costs of these illegal arrangements. Today, William Lerach, once a name partner at the law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP, reports to the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, after pleading guilty to entering into this type of illegal kickback arrangement with lead plaintiffs. Next month, his former law partner Melvyn Weiss will be sentenced for the same crime. But there is reason to believe that this criminal activity is not limited to a few bad actors. Indeed, Mr. Lerach, unrepentant about having defrauded thousands of investors out of millions of dollars, has tried to defend himself on the basis that ``everybody does it.'' ``Believe me,'' Mr. Lerach told the Wall Street Journal, ``it was industry practice.'' There have been many calls for reform to address this potentially widespread criminal practice. Last month, The Washington Post editorialized in response to the Milberg Weiss scandal that ``What is needed now is a sober discussion about how best to achieve a fairer, more balanced legal system through comprehensive tort reform.... Smart and ethical businesspeople and lawyers--and, yes, there are many who fit the bill--would be wise to start working together to craft such a fix.'' This bill opens that discussion. The bill that I introduce today seeks to prevent securities litigation abuse by making two major reforms that directly address the two core problems that have led to this scandal--the potential for backdoor arrangements between lead plaintiffs and class counsel, and the resulting risk that lead plaintiffs will enter fee agreements that pay the lawyers more than the market rate. The bill would require sworn certifications from lead plaintiffs and their attorneys disclosing: (a) any payments or promises of payment made by the attorney to the plaintiff in connection with the action; (b) any other legal representations of the plaintiff by the attorney; (c) any campaign contributions the attorney has made to any elected official with authority to retain counsel for the plaintiff; and (d) any other conflicts of interest. This disclosure would put an end to secret agreements where plaintiffs' lawyers pay kickbacks to the lead plaintiffs who retain them. These secret arrangements divorced the interests of both the lawyers and the lead plaintiffs from the interests of the class as a whole. Full disclosure will prevent this situation from recurring. The bill would also require courts to employ a competitive bidding process as one of the criteria in the approval of the lead class counsel. In current practice, courts usually defer to the lead plaintiff's choice of class counsel after reviewing the prospective lead counsel's prior work on the case, experience, knowledge, and resources. The bill would require that courts also consider the prospective lead counsel's fees, and have courts solicit competitive bids so that those fees are based on market rates. The class members deserve to be represented at a reasonable market rate. Money that goes to the lawyers is money that never makes it to the ordinary shareholders who are the victims of securities fraud. Currently, courts review attorneys' fees for reasonableness before the fees are paid at the conclusion of the case. This provision would allow courts to negotiate a reasonable fee at the threshold of the litigation. Finally, the bill would commission a study of the last 5 years of fee awards in securities class actions to determine the average hourly rate for lead counsel. Courts may be able to use this information to better rein-in excessive attorneys' fees. It is important that corporations be held accountable through securities fraud litigation when they cheat ordinary shareholders out of their hard-earned money. But it is equally important that attorneys be held accountable when they do the same thing. The recent securities litigation kickback scandals ought to spur Congress to action, especially because, at least according to Mr. Lerach, defrauding shareholders has become ``industry practice'' for securities plaintiffs' lawyers. Fortunately, Mr. Lerach and Mr. Weiss have been brought to justice, but their shareholder victims will never see all of the money out of which they were cheated by these attorneys' crimes. The Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act will help prevent these crimes against ordinary Americans from being repeated in the future. I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly convene hearings on this very serious problem and move this new legislation forward.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act. The Bill promotes transparency and court oversight in the selection and compensation of class counsel in securities class action litigation. As a result, this legislation helps to ensure that the lawyer for shareholder plaintiffs in securities class action lawsuits truly and faithfully represents the interests of the entire class, and not just their own interests and those of the large investors who are the lead plaintiffs. It has been said that the lead attorney in a class action suit serves a quasi-governmental role in that he seeks to enforce the law on behalf of a broad group of ordinary citizens and the investor community at large. Bringing transparency and accountability to securities class action litigation is important to protect the rights and interests of every American who owns stock. When a class action lawsuit is brought against a company for defrauding shareholders, one of the first steps is the selection of the lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff is the shareholder who will actually sit in the courtroom and represent the interests of all of the shareholders in the litigation. The lead plaintiff selects the lawyer who will represent the class in the lawsuit, subject only to approval by the court. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the lead plaintiff is supposed to be the shareholder ``that the court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.'' 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). The PSLRA creates a presumption that, in general, the lead plaintiff should be the plaintiff with the ``largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.'' 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(bb). The theory behind this rule is that the party with the most at stake will most vigorously defend the interests of the entire class. In general, this theory has proven true, and the PSLRA is a substantial improvement over the law before the PSLRA, in which the lead plaintiff was generally whoever first filed the lawsuit. However, as recent events have shown, the PSLRA has itself proven subject to abuse. The Bill that I introduce today has been made necessary by recent scandals in which lawyers entered secret arrangements with lead plaintiffs to keep an unfair amount of the lawsuit's proceeds between them, while shutting out ordinary investors. Essentially, the lead plaintiff agreed to an unreasonably high attorneys' fee, with the understanding that the law firm would funnel a portion of that fee back to the lead plaintiff. Thus, the lawyers were overcompensated and the lead plaintiffs received a disproportionate share of the proceeds of the lawsuit. Ordinary investors, who the class action system is designed to protect, bore the costs of these illegal arrangements. Today, William Lerach, once a name partner at the law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP, reports to the United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, after pleading guilty to entering into this type of illegal kickback arrangement with lead plaintiffs. Next month, his former law partner Melvyn Weiss will be sentenced for the same crime. But there is reason to believe that this criminal activity is not limited to a few bad actors. Indeed, Mr. Lerach, unrepentant about having defrauded thousands of investors out of millions of dollars, has tried to defend himself on the basis that ``everybody does it.'' ``Believe me,'' Mr. Lerach told the Wall Street Journal, ``it was industry practice.'' There have been many calls for reform to address this potentially widespread criminal practice. Last month, The Washington Post editorialized in response to the Milberg Weiss scandal that ``What is needed now is a sober discussion about how best to achieve a fairer, more balanced legal system through comprehensive tort reform.... Smart and ethical businesspeople and lawyers--and, yes, there are many who fit the bill--would be wise to start working together to craft such a fix.'' This bill opens that discussion. The bill that I introduce today seeks to prevent securities litigation abuse by making two major reforms that directly address the two core problems that have led to this scandal--the potential for backdoor arrangements between lead plaintiffs and class counsel, and the resulting risk that lead plaintiffs will enter fee agreements that pay the lawyers more than the market rate. The bill would require sworn certifications from lead plaintiffs and their attorneys disclosing: (a) any payments or promises of payment made by the attorney to the plaintiff in connection with the action; (b) any other legal representations of the plaintiff by the attorney; (c) any campaign contributions the attorney has made to any elected official with authority to retain counsel for the plaintiff; and (d) any other conflicts of interest. This disclosure would put an end to secret agreements where plaintiffs' lawyers pay kickbacks to the lead plaintiffs who retain them. These secret arrangements divorced the interests of both the lawyers and the lead plaintiffs from the interests of the class as a whole. Full disclosure will prevent this situation from recurring. The bill would also require courts to employ a competitive bidding process as one of the criteria in the approval of the lead class counsel. In current practice, courts usually defer to the lead plaintiff's choice of class counsel after reviewing the prospective lead counsel's prior work on the case, experience, knowledge, and resources. The bill would require that courts also consider the prospective lead counsel's fees, and have courts solicit competitive bids so that those fees are based on market rates. The class members deserve to be represented at a reasonable market rate. Money that goes to the lawyers is money that never makes it to the ordinary shareholders who are the victims of securities fraud. Currently, courts review attorneys' fees for reasonableness before the fees are paid at the conclusion of the case. This provision would allow courts to negotiate a reasonable fee at the threshold of the litigation. Finally, the bill would commission a study of the last 5 years of fee awards in securities class actions to determine the average hourly rate for lead counsel. Courts may be able to use this information to better rein-in excessive attorneys' fees. It is important that corporations be held accountable through securities fraud litigation when they cheat ordinary shareholders out of their hard-earned money. But it is equally important that attorneys be held accountable when they do the same thing. The recent securities litigation kickback scandals ought to spur Congress to action, especially because, at least according to Mr. Lerach, defrauding shareholders has become ``industry practice'' for securities plaintiffs' lawyers. Fortunately, Mr. Lerach and Mr. Weiss have been brought to justice, but their shareholder victims will never see all of the money out of which they were cheated by these attorneys' crimes. The Securities Litigation Attorney Accountability and Transparency Act will help prevent these crimes against ordinary Americans from being repeated in the future. I urge my Senate colleagues to quickly convene hearings on this very serious problem and move this new legislation forward.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, why in the world would we want to do anything that discriminates between those military members who serve for 3 years and then decide to leave and those who decide to make the military their career? Why would we want to discriminate against their families, who might benefit from the transferability option contained in this alternative legislation which I am supporting? Why would we want to do anything that would actually damage our ability to encourage people to stay in the military should they choose that for themselves and for their families? I believe this legislation is important not only to our Nation, it provides an important benefit to our military and their families. It encourages retention and continuation of service, facilitates those who do want to stay longer, and creates an enhanced benefit for them. In a State such as Texas where 1 out of every 10 people in uniform calls our State home, this is very important to my State and my constituents. But I will tell you, this is even more important to our Nation in encouraging that our strong, all-volunteer military force remain strong and that we meet our commitment to make sure they receive the benefits they need and they deserve and are not limited only to the servicemember but can also be extended to family members as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is my understanding our side has 32 minutes remaining. I wish to yield myself up to 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday the people in my home State of Texas will join to celebrate Armed Forces Day and, of course, shortly thereafter Memorial Day. These are the days we set aside to honor the men and women who have worn the uniform of the U.S. military, to honor them for their service and particularly remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedom. As I prepare to go home this weekend to join my fellow Texans in celebrating this important event, I am reminded of the immense debt we all owe those who have worn the uniform. Of course, this is a debt we know we can never repay. From a personal perspective, my father served as a B-17 pilot in World War II, and served honorably for 31 years in the U.S. Air Force. He was shot down and spent 4 months in a German prisoner-of-war camp before General Patton and his army came along and liberated him and his fellow POWs. Of course he, like so many of that generation, came back to his home and took advantage of the GI bill in order to get an education so he could then become the foundation upon which America would continue to build itself in those postwar years and beyond. The GI bill has done an incalculable benefit not only to the individual veterans who received those educational benefits but to our country as well. It is important now, many years later, in 2008, that we focus our efforts on modernizing that GI bill to make sure the benefits I know we all want to see directed toward our men and women in uniform are available to allow them, when they return home from the fight, to take their uniform off, to get an education, and to achieve their dreams. Because I believe we need to modernize the GI bill of rights, when it comes to educational benefits for our veterans, I have chosen to cosponsor a bill called S. 2938, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment Through Education Act. Sadly, and for some inexplicable reason, we saw that bill tabled by the Senate. I do not know why, at a time when we ought to be talking about and acting on our appreciation for our men and women in uniform, the Senate decided to table this important piece of legislation. But I wish to talk about it for a minute, to explain to my colleagues what is contained in this important piece of legislation. This bill would help our military personnel with an extended range of options under the GI bill to ensure that they get the benefits they deserve. It immediately increases education benefits for active-duty personnel to $1,500 a month and, to encourage retention and continuation of service in the military, it gradually increases the education benefits to $2,000 a month after 12 or more years of service. It expands the authority for servicemembers to transfer--and this is one of the most important elements of this legislation--it allows them to transfer their educational benefits to members of their family, a spouse or a child. After 6 years of service, half of that benefit can be transferred, and after 12 years of service, 100 percent of the benefit can be transferred to a child, to a spouse, or some other loved one. It increases from $880 to $1,200 per month the education benefits for Guard and Reserve members called to active duty since September 11, 2001. It allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. bill education benefits to repay student loans, and it provides access to Montgomery GI bill benefits to service academy graduates and senior reserve officers' training corps officers who continue to serve beyond their initial commitment. This legislation is offered as an alternative to S. 22, a bill produced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, and actually cosponsored by our other distinguished colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner. I believe both of these bills are born out of the noblest of aspirations and intentions, but I do believe the alternatives offered in the bill that has been laid on the table here a moment ago would actually provide a better range of services to more of our troops as well as their families. Simply put, I do believe it is a better fit for our Nation and a better fit for the people of my State of Texas. I mentioned the issue of transferability. This is something not found in the Webb bill that is found in the alternative. To begin with, Senator Webb's bill fails to recognize the enormous sacrifices our military families make in support of their loved ones who wear the uniform of the U.S. military. Talk to any sailor, soldier, airman, or marine and they will tell you that being able to transfer their GI educational benefits to their spouses or their children is enormously important to them. At a time when we depend on an all-volunteer military, isn't it important that we provide the maximum range of benefits not only to our veterans but also to the military families, the people who stay behind while their loved ones are deployed and whose support they need and depend on, and frankly whose support our Nation depends on--our military families? According to all the service chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, transferability of this benefit is their No. 1 priority and something wholly missing from the Webb bill. As I mentioned, my father served as a bomber pilot in World War II. I have experienced, as have other military family members, the joint commitment military families make in support of their loved one in the military. In addition to the other benefits, I think this particular provision of transferability recognizes a fundamental fairness issue and impacts directly on our ability to retain our servicemembers. Obviously, we would not want to do anything intentionally which would encourage people to leave the military after 3 years of service. It is in the best interests of the United States of America, our strength and security--it is in the best interests of our all-volunteer military force to actually encourage and facilitate service of our active-duty military beyond just an initial tour of 3 years of service. While we applaud and honor those who serve any period of time in our military, we do need to make sure we do not create an incentive for people to leave early in order to get a benefit under this bill. That is why, under the legislation I am cosponsoring--Senator Graham's bill, also cosponsored by Senator Burr, Senator McCain, and others--our career military will receive additional GI bill benefits to reward them for their continued service. This bill clearly recognizes you do not have to get out of the military to be able to continue your education. Like the Webb bill, troops will be eligible for up to $1,500 monthly benefits after 3 years of service. However, in order to recognize our career troops as well, benefits would increase to $2,000 a month after 12 years of service-- clearly providing both a benefit and incentive for people to continue in military service and not to feel as if they have to leave after 3 years in order to take advantage of this benefit. Unlike the Webb bill, which caters to those who choose to remain in the service for only 3 years--whose service we earnestly appreciate--the Graham bill I believe provides short-term rewards and also rewards our career troops as well. According to the RAND Corporation study conducted in January, 2008, Senator Webb's bill would: . . . reduce first-term Army reenlistment by about 12 percentage points from the current rate of 40 percent to about 28 percent. This is an important point. The unintended effect of Senator Webb's bill would actually be to reduce retention from 40 percent to 28 percent. Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes by unanimous consent.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to join others of my colleagues in helping the nation of Israel celebrate its 60th anniversary. The nation of Israel was founded, of course, on May 14, 1948. I think it is appropriate that we honor this ally of the United States and reaffirm the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between our two countries. This alliance, this friendship, has never been more important to the mutual security and safety of our people than it is today. This friendship, of course, spans oceans and is based on shared values. I was pleased when Congress recently reaffirmed our commitment to preserving and strengthening that alliance by passing a concurrent resolution honoring Israel and recognizing its important mission and its history. In the face of common threats, our relationship with Israel today is as important as ever. We have mutual goals in defeating radical Islamic terrorism, fostering Middle East stability, and promoting freedom. Israel has shown an unwavering conviction in democracy, justice, security, and peace. The nation of Israel and its people deserve not only our friendship and our support but our admiration as well. I extend my warmest congratulations to the State of Israel and the Israeli people for this important anniversary.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to turn to an important vote that we had yesterday in the Senate. Unfortunately, yesterday morning, we saw only 42 Senators voted to do anything significant about the high price of gasoline at the pump. This is just the latest example, I am afraid, of congressional intransigence and turning a deaf ear to the cries of the American people for Congress to do something to help bring relief at the gas pump. Unfortunately, it is just the latest example. I know most of us came to Washington to serve in the Congress to try to solve problems. Unfortunately, the mentality inside the beltway seems to be that we ought to spend more time shooting at each other on a partisan political basis and not working together to solve problems. Unfortunately, there are more examples than just high gas prices to demonstrate this mentality. I will just point to four areas where we have seen significant delays in congressional action that have had tremendous consequences on the American people. First and foremost is on our national security. It was 89 days ago that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically expired. The most recent authorization would have allowed us to continue to listen in to foreign terrorists communicating with each other on the telephone in a way that would allow us to detect and deter terrorist activity and defeat terrorist activity. Why the House of Representatives and Speaker Pelosi would refuse to allow this important piece of legislation to come to the floor after it passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote is, frankly, beyond me. But it has been 89 days now since we have had the ability to detect new terrorist threats, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act basically went dark and expired. Secondly, it has been 540 days since we have failed to act on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Free-trade agreements should not be partisan affairs. It is good, in fact, for us to have free-trade agreements because it opens markets to American farmers and American manufacturers and producers for their goods in other countries. In fact, Colombia does about $2.3 billion in trade with the State of Texas each year, which is very important to my State. Unfortunately, when Texas sells goods and produce to Colombia, they carry large tariffs, which disadvantages my manufacturers, my producers, and my farmers in Texas, while Colombian goods that are sold in the United States, because of other agreements, basically come in duty free. Why Speaker Pelosi would fail to allow this important free-trade agreement to be taken up and voted on in the House of Representatives, again, escapes me. This is in the best interest of the United States. It is in the best interest of my State and the people who work there. At a time when we are dealing with stimulus packages because we are concerned about the softening of our economy, what better stimulus could we enact than to pass this free-trade agreement, which would strengthen the robust markets in Colombia for American goods and produce? But here we are 540 days later, and it is bogged down in partisan disagreements. The next number is another important number. I think one of the most important jobs the Senate has is to take up and consider the nominations of individuals who have been proposed for service on the Federal bench and to serve in that important branch of Government. But we have seen that because of inaction in the Judiciary Committee, on some nominees such as Peter Keisler--nominated more than 685 days ago-- and we have seen nominees out of North Carolina pass the 300-day mark without even so much as a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. This is another example of partisan delays that, frankly, I think frustrates the American people. It certainly frustrates me. It is an example of where we ought to act and find an opportunity to come together to solve a problem, and the problem is particularly in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where many litigants simply cannot find access to the courts because there are not enough judges sitting on those benches to listen to cases. Whether you are a crime victim or a small business man or woman or whether you are just a regular citizen in that Fourth District, we have a judicial emergency with about one- third of the seats vacant. Frankly, that creates a lack of access to justice. So, again, it has been 685 days without a vote on some of the nominees in the Judiciary Committee. We need to do better. Of course, it was 751 days ago when Speaker Pelosi,--then running for election, and before the 2006 election, where Democrats were given the majority status in both the House and Senate, said: Elect us and we will produce a commonsense plan to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, the price of gasoline at about the time that she took office as Speaker of the House was about $2.33 a gallon, I believe. And now, of course, it is about $3.75 a gallon. Yesterday, as I mentioned, we had an opportunity to help provide relief for American families, to help them deal with their family budgets when it comes to the cost of gasoline. But I think we took a half step that did not do very much. What I mean by that is we did vote to quit filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but if you look at how much oil that represents that would then be available in the open market, it is roughly 70,000 barrels of oil a day. Now, 70,000 barrels of oil a day sounds like a lot of oil, unless you consider the amount of oil consumed globally by all the countries on the planet. That is 85 million barrels of oil a day. How much of an impact do you think it will have on gasoline at the pump to provide an additional 70,000 barrels of oil, when worldwide consumption is 85 million? You don't have to be a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure that out. It will not be big. As a matter of fact, it will be minuscule--not completely insignificant but not very much. On the other hand, we had an opportunity to vote to reduce our dependence upon imported oil and gas from dangerous enemies of the United States, countries such as Iran and Venezuela, both of whom are members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Unfortunately, the Senate turned down that opportunity to produce as much as 3 million barrels of oil a day from the U.S. reserve because we would not allow or authorize Alaskans to produce oil in Alaska. We would not authorize the States along the Outer Continental Shelf to be able to develop their oil reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf, and we would not allow States in the West to develop the oil shale that could produce massive amounts of oil right here in America, reducing our dependency on imported oil from dangerous countries such as Iran and Venezuela. What I don't understand is, if our friends across the Senate--and I believe there was only one vote against the decision to stop putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But if everybody in the Senate virtually agrees that adding 70,000 barrels of oil to the worldwide supply of oil would help bring down the price of gas at the pump-- however minuscule that figure may be--how much more would it be likely to bring down the price of gas at the pump to add 3 million additional barrels to worldwide supply? Of course, this would not be from Saudi Arabia or Iran or Venezuela. It would be from the good old USA. Again, how many new jobs would that create at home, when our economy has turned soft? It would create a lot of jobs in Texas. I know it would create jobs in Louisiana and, frankly, all over the country. Instead of taking an opportunity to take a bold move on a bipartisan basis to increase the supply of American oil and gas, we find ourselves with half steps and relatively insignificant votes to increase production. I am glad that, finally, the Congress has recognized that the laws of supply and demand are not inapplicable in the District of Columbia. As a matter of fact, for a long time, it seemed that we outright refused to recognize the economic laws that apply across the planet right here in Washington, DC. So I ask my friends and colleagues, if you are unwilling to allow us to open American oil reserves when the price of gasoline is $3.75 a gallon and the price of a barrel of oil is $125, will you allow us to do it when gasoline hits $4 a gallon? How about when it hits $4.50 a gallon or $5 a gallon or $10 a gallon? How about when the price of oil hits $150 a barrel or $200 or $250? We know because of the geopolitical situation with countries such as Iran, which are no friend to the United States and are major oil producers and are part of OPEC, that causes speculation on the spot market to push the price of oil higher. I believe it would have a dramatic impact on those prices and, ultimately, because oil represents 70 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, I believe it would ultimately bring down the price of gasoline and provide some much needed relief to the average American family. Congress's failure to act on a strong bipartisan basis to do it is, frankly, inexplicable to me, just as it is inexplicable to me why we would not allow our intelligence officials to listen to the conversations of new targets of foreign terror surveillance, and why we would continue to let American businesses and farmers be disadvantaged by tariffs on goods and produce sold to the nation of Colombia, and why we would wait more than 685 days to consider the nominations of judicial nominees and allow crime victims and small businesses and others to go without their day in court. Just for the same reasons those delays are inexplicable, why are we still waiting 751 days after Speaker Pelosi made the statement that she would produce a commonsense plan to bring down the price at the pump? It is inexplicable to me why we have to wait with no real solutions in sight. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one thing has been accomplished by the debate leading up to this morning's vote; that is, Congress finally-- finally--has acknowledged the existence of the law of supply and demand. If we look at these two votes we are going to have this morning, first is the McConnell-Domenici amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, which would produce, if implemented, potentially up to 3 million additional barrels of oil a day from the United States of America--3 million--making us less dependent on imported oil from some of our Nation's enemies, countries such as Iran and Venezuela that are part of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Alternatively, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed--and I will vote for it--a temporary suspension of putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But how much does that represent? It represents 70,000 barrels of oil that would not be put in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and would be available on the open market as an additional supply of oil, which is then available to be refined into gasoline. I suspect it will have some modest impact on the price of gasoline at the pump, maybe 3 to 5 cents a gallon. But if we think 70,000 barrels of additional oil into the open market will be beneficial in terms of bringing down the price of gasoline, how much more beneficial would it be to have 3 million additional barrels of oil produced from our country out on the open market available for refining into gasoline to help bring down the price of gas at the pump? I am pleased that our colleagues have recognized the importance of the law of supply and demand, something Congress has turned a blind eye to for lo these many years as we put so much of America's natural resources out of bounds when it comes to developing those resources, and, of course, we know what the consequences of that have been, with $3.71 average price for gasoline in America today and the price of oil on the spot market bouncing up around $125 a barrel. I don't know whether this amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, could produce ultimately 3 million new barrels of American oil each day. I don't know whether it will get the requisite 60 votes. But if it does not, when gasoline is $3.71 a gallon and oil is $125 a barrel, I wonder if the same vote, if we have it again when gasoline is $4 a gallon and oil is $150 a barrel or when gasoline is $4.50 a gallon and the price of oil is even higher, at what point the Congress, the Senate is going to listen to the American people and say: We need some help; we need some relief. Now that Congress has acknowledged the importance of additional supply in terms of bringing down the price at the pump, ultimately it is my hope our colleagues will vote, at least 60 of us, for the Domenici-McConnell amendment. I think the American consumers would be the beneficiary of that. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, so far, the 110th Congress has failed to address some of the biggest problems confronting our Nation today. While some may be content to simply point the finger of blame, I think it is time for the Senate to take a long, hard look in the mirror. I was struck by a poll I read which I would like to share with my colleagues dated April 9, 2008. This is a Rasmussen poll which said that just 13 percent of likely voters believe Congress is doing a good or excellent job--13 percent. The respondents to the poll were also asked whether they thought Congress had passed in the last year any legislation that was designed to make their life a little bit easier. Incredibly, only 12 percent of these likely voters said Congress had passed any legislation to improve life in America during the last year. Fifty-nine percent said we had not. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents said Congress had not passed any legislation in the last year that had made their life better. This is quite an indictment. Frankly, I think we are going to have a chance tomorrow morning to demonstrate that either these respondents to this poll had gotten it all wrong or we are going to prove them exactly right, depending on the vote we have tomorrow morning on this important energy legislation I want to talk about in a moment. But first I wish to offer some suggestions on why it is that Congress is so poorly thought of by the American voter. Frankly, I think there are a number of examples. I have four examples of inexplicable delays in how Congress has failed to take care of the Nation's business. First of all, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Certainly, one of the most important jobs of the Federal Government is to make sure the American people are safe and secure. Our national security is job No. 1 for the Federal Government. Over a year ago, our intelligence community alerted us to the fact that an outdated foreign intelligence surveillance system was causing our intelligence gatherers to operate essentially blind to new threats. Despite this urgent plea from the intelligence community, the Speaker of the House has denied an opportunity for the House of Representatives to vote on a bipartisan piece of legislation that came out of the Senate. In fact, this authority has expired for new threats some 87 days ago. Without the critical reform to our foreign intelligence surveillance system, we will not have access to time-critical information that will help protect not only our troops who are deployed around the world but also the American people at home as well. It is just a crying shame that the House leadership would have delayed passage of this important legislation. Again, legislation that was bipartisan and voted out of the Senate is now bogged down and blocked because the Speaker of the House has denied an opportunity for this important legislation to come up. There is another example, unfortunately, justifying the American public's low opinion of the Congress, and this has to do with the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. We have been waiting 538 days--that is the second number on the chart, 538 days--for Congress to consider the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. After more than a year of trying to negotiate with Congress, President Bush finally submitted this important legislation for fast-track approval. But in a stunning display of just how far Speaker Pelosi is willing to go to delay this important agreement, she opted to rewrite the rules of the House of Representatives in order to avoid having to vote on the bill within the expedited timeline of our trade promotion authority. This act would have ensured that farmers in my State, the State of Texas, as well as manufacturers and small businesses--it would have provided them a duty-free entry into the markets of the nation of Colombia in South America. Right now, those goods and services bear a tariff of up to 80 percent on their products, notwithstanding that my State of Texas, last year, sold $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to the nation of Colombia and the people in Colombia. It is one of our best trading partners in South America. So why should our American goods and produce be discriminated against because of these high tariffs? Well, we had a way to solve that 538 days ago, but the Speaker of the House of Representatives has simply refused to allow the House to vote on it. Recently, American businesses crossed the $1 billion mark in money lost to tariffs in Colombia as a result of the refusal to consider this important legislation. That is $1 billion that could have been saved and invested in our economy, and it is opportunities lost to small businesses and large businesses in America--such as farmers--to sell their goods and produce in Colombia without a tariff. Well, it is also important because Colombia is one of our very best allies in South America in the fight against the drug cartels and terrorist organizations. Just last week, Colombia extradited a reputed drug kingpin, Luis Hernando Gomez Bustamante, to America. This man is believed to head an organization responsible for 60 percent of the cocaine in America. He is finally now in custody pending trial in America, thanks to the Colombian Government. We need to support Colombia and President Uribe in their fight against men such as Luis Gomez Bustamante who are bringing deadly drugs to our streets. But, instead of the kind of cooperation and reinforcement and appreciation you would expect one friend to show another friend, our friends in Colombia have gotten nothing but a stiff arm from the Congress in a refusal to act on important legislation that would benefit them and would benefit us and would tell the world what it means to be a friend of the United States: beneficial trading relationships that are to the mutual benefit of the trading partners. But that was 538 days ago, with no action, and the clock is still ticking. Mr. President, 683 days is another important example of mismanagement of the opportunity we have been given to serve the interests of the American people. It was 683 days ago that Peter Keisler was first nominated for a judicial appointment by the President of the United States. Unfortunately, he is not the only nominee who continues to languish while the majority continues to drag its feet in providing an opportunity for an up-or-down vote for these judicial nominees. Today, as our colleagues from North Carolina have already pointed out, is the 300th day since Judge Robert Conrad's nomination came to the Senate, and he has not even been given the courtesy of a committee hearing--300 days after his nomination came to the Senate. So far this year, the Senate has approved a total of one circuit court judge--just one. That by any standard is abysmal. While we continue to delay the confirmation of judges, there are 46 judicial vacancies in the Federal judiciary, 13 of which are considered judicial emergencies. And what does Congress do? What does the Senate do? Well, not much, almost nothing to deal with the judicial emergencies and these vacancies and to provide an up-or-down vote on these nominees. The American people depend on fully functioning courts to find justice. The Senate's failure to do its constitutional duty to confirm or at least to allow a vote on qualified nominees for these vacancies has a very real impact on communities, on businesses, on the residents of the areas in which those courts have jurisdiction, and crime victims to have access to justice. But having no judge who can sit and hear the case is essentially like locking and chaining the front door to the courthouse. Finally, how long will it be before the majority makes good on its promise that Speaker Pelosi made 749 days ago? It was 749 days ago when she promised the American people that if the Democrats were given the majority, they would have a commonsense solution to rising gas prices. Well, last week, after waiting more than 2 years, Democrats did unveil a plan. The irony is that it has become all too commonplace to find that these energy plans do not have one drop of additional energy but, rather, they recommend, really, more of the same--more taxation, more litigation, more investigations--but not one single drop of additional energy, not one single watt of new energy. While oil and gas prices have hit record highs virtually every day-- today hitting $3.72 a gallon--on January 4, 2007, when Speaker Pelosi and our friends on the Democratic side took charge of both the House and the Senate, that price of a gallon of gas was $2.33. Now it is $3.72. That is about a $1,400-per-family increase in the cost of living. And Congress continues to do next to nothing to deal with it, notwithstanding the promise Speaker Pelosi made some 749 days ago. Well, the irony is that we have heard, in the plan that has been made by some on the other side of the aisle, that all we need to do is to raise taxes on the domestic oil producers and that will somehow find a way to solve our lack of oil and gasoline. Unfortunately, some of these ideas have been tried before and found to be total and abject failures. For example, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, this same tax idea was tried back during the Jimmy Carter administration. If you are too young to remember what happened during the Carter administration, there were shortfalls in the supply of gasoline, resulting in interminable lines waiting at gas stations. As a result, the Congressional Research Service said that domestic production--that is America's energy production--fell by roughly 5 percent, resulting in an overall increase in the dependence on imported oil from foreign sources. Is that what our friends on the other side of the aisle want, an increase in our dependence on imported oil? Well, I would think not. So why would they come up with these tested and failed schemes to increase our reliance on imported oil? I noticed the distinguished Democratic chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, has expressed it in words that perhaps I think are prophetic when he says this windfall profits tax is very arbitrary and bad policy. Now, while this plan would help further line the pockets of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and anti-American foreign leaders such as Hugo Chavez, this bill would also authorize the American Government to sue OPEC to demand that they increase oil production. Now, we ought to think about that one a minute. OPEC, after all, is composed of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. What our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed is we file a lawsuit against Iran and Venezuela and tell them to turn the spigot all the way open. What that would do, of course, assuming it were possible, is it would mean that we were even more dependent on imported oil from our enemies such as Iran and Venezuela--not less. This would only make us more dependent on OPEC--not less. Now, I believe there is a better solution, and that better solution is to take advantage of the natural resources God has given this great country of ours, one with which we have been supremely blessed. If, in fact, our friends on the other side of the aisle would allow us to pass the Domenici energy amendment--the American Energy Production Act--it would have the potential of producing as much as 3 million additional barrels of oil a day from American natural resources. This bill would open domestic resources such as shale oil in the Arctic and offshore deposits to domestic energy producers. It would immediately send a message to the speculators and commodity investors that there is going to be an additional amount of oil available in the future, up to 3 million barrels a day, and I believe have an immediate downward effect on the price of oil--a barrel of oil which, of course, is 70 percent of the cost of gasoline. One thing is for sure: By taxing and penalizing our own domestic producers, that is not a solution, and we need to do everything we can in our power to lower prices and not to play additional games by trotting out tired and failed efforts of the past to try to bring down prices. We know the law of supply and demand is one Congress cannot repeal, so that is why we ought to pass the Domenici amendment tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Wyoming for their excellent remarks on the energy crisis. I want to focus attention on a couple of numbers this morning. The first number is $3.65. This is the average price of a gallon of gasoline now for sale across America. Contrast that with the figure of $2.33. That shows how much the price of gasoline has gone up across the country since January 4, 2007. If we extrapolate what that means for the average American family, they have seen a decrease in their standard of living or an increase in their cost of living by roughly $1,400 a year as a result of this increase in gasoline prices. Another figure I wish to mention is the figure 745. That was 745 days ago, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi, before she was Speaker, said that if she and her fellow Democrats were given the majority, they would come up with a commonsense plan to reduce gas prices. That was 745 days ago. Notwithstanding the fact that they announced a plan yesterday--I will talk about that in a minute--we are still waiting for a commonsense plan to bring down gas prices at the pump. Here is the quote: Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. This was the Speaker of the House, April 24, 2006. As I said, we are still waiting for that plan. You heard both the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Wyoming talk about some aspects of the legislation, the so-called Domenici amendment, which we will vote on, on Monday, and of which I am a proud cosponsor. But let me focus on the plan announced by Majority Leader Reid and the Democratic leadership yesterday. First, we will find some very familiar elements to this plan rolled out by the Democratic leadership. It bears some remarkable resemblance to previous plans they have rolled out. The No. 1 element is it produces not one single drop of additional oil or gas or energy, not one drop. The other characteristic it bears a remarkable resemblance to in terms of past proposals is that they basically suggest we tax, we litigate, and we investigate our way to greater energy independence. This is a formula which, although familiar, is one that has not shown itself effective, obviously, in bringing down the pain at the pump, the price of gasoline. First, they said: We are going to investigate price gouging by the oil and gas industry. We have seen investigations by the Federal Trade Commission. We have had numerous hearings that have found basically no substantiation for so-called price gouging. In fact, the cost of oil and gasoline has been related to unrest around the world in dangerous parts of the world where the supply may be in question, whether it is the Middle East or elsewhere. They found that the failure of Congress to remove the regulatory burden to construction of new refinery capacity has led to a bottleneck when it comes to refinery capacity where that oil is then transformed into gasoline that we burn in our gas tanks. Then, of course, there is the fact that we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand, and that unless we are going to do something about increasing the supply of oil, that if we fix the amount of oil available worldwide because we refuse to open America's own natural resources in order to expand that supply, that rising demand for oil by countries such as China and India--which have more than a billion people each who want the kind of prosperity and enjoy the sort of economic vitality the United States has--they are going to place greater demands on that fixed supply of oil so they can benefit, as America has, from having access to low-cost--relatively low-cost-- energy for a long, long time. So price gouging is something for which we have had investigations in the past. We have had hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve. The Federal Trade Commission has investigated it until they were blue in the face and found no real evidence of price gouging but, rather, a deficit of supply when it comes to increasing demand as the most likely cause. Now, the second element of the Democratic leadership's so-called energy policy is litigation. In other words, we are going to sue the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Now, I have heard some of our colleagues talk about another context: We need to engage countries such as Iran and Venezuela and talk to them directly about geopolitical matters and about security matters. This is the first time, really, I have heard them talk about suing countries such as Iran and Venezuela and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The irony of it is, what are we going to sue them for? We are going to sue them for, presumably, more oil or make them turn the spigot open even wider, ironically forcing us to become more dependent on imported oil from dangerous regions across the globe and from people who are not our friend--President Ahmadinejad in Iran, head of an Islamic extremist government on the terror watch list of the State Department as a state sponsor of international terrorism in the Middle East; and then there is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, somebody who is not our friend, somebody who harbors narcoterrorists in the FARC and other organizations in his country. These are the kinds of people we are going to continue to depend more and more on by somehow filing a lawsuit against them and forcing them to sell us more of their oil? How is that going to make us more energy independent? How is that going to enhance our national security and our economy? Well, then there is the other answer we have heard in the Democratic leadership plan they proposed--this one, again, is a familiar solution, or I should say a nonsolution--and this has to do with the so-called windfall profits tax. Well, I think we ought to learn from history or else we will be condemned to relive it. Over the entire 1980 to 1986 period, in which the U.S. Government had a windfall profits tax, it, in fact, reduced domestic production from between 320 million barrels and 1,268 million barrels. That is almost 5 percent of overall production. If you think about it, there is an easy way to understand that. If you put an increased tax on American producers--because, of course, we cannot put an increased tax on OPEC, on Venezuela, on Iran, and these state-owned oil companies--the fact is, we put an increased tax burden on our own domestic producers. Of course, we find that the Congressional Research Service has found that last time we tried a windfall profits tax, it decreased our domestic oil production. Why in the world would we want to do that? How does that help increase the supply of America's natural resources, which can help ameliorate some of this pain at the pump by increasing supply and thus bringing down, hopefully, the cost of a barrel of oil and then the refined product of gasoline? Well, the last suggestion has to do with the strategic oil reserves. That is a final answer, by eliminating the 70,000 barrels a day that we put into the strategic oil reserves. Now, I think there may be a case for reducing or eliminating the 70,000 barrels of oil a day that go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But I have to tell you, the world consumes roughly 85 million barrels of oil a day--85 million barrels of oil a day. What effect is 70,000 barrels a day that would not go into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, what impact would that have on reducing the price of oil globally or bringing down the price at the pump? Well, my calculation is that by reducing the amount of oil going into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we could bring down gas prices maybe 2 cents or 5 cents per gallon. Maybe that would be welcomed but hardly adequate to deal with the high gas prices we have sustained and are experiencing today. But I want to take that one step further. If our Democratic friends believe reducing the amount of oil that goes into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 70,000 barrels a day is a good idea because that might reduce, although infinitesimally, the cost of gasoline, how much more sense would it make to explore and develop the million-barrel-a- day capacity that is located in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? If you take the million barrels of oil a day that could be produced from ANWR, then you are talking about--according to the same calculation I just used on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--reducing the pricing of gasoline, by an additional million-barrel supply of American oil a day, by 85 cents to $2.14 a gallon. Now, that would be a real impact, to be able to bring down the price of gasoline by 85 cents to $2.14 a gallon. I just mentioned the ANWR reserves. But it is estimated if we were actually to open not only Alaska to environmentally responsible development of those oil and gas reserves located there and produce an additional million barrels a day of oil, that if we were also to leave up to the States--States such as Virginia and other States, Alaska--the option to open their Outer Continental Shelf to oil reserves, to further production, if we were to open some of the oil shale and oil sands out in the West to production, we could develop another 3 million barrels of oil capacity right here in America without having to depend more and more on foreign sources of oil. If you take the same argument our friends have offered on the impact of reducing deposits of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and that that would actually have an impact on price, how much more would it have a beneficial impact on lowering the price if, in fact, we were to open up America's natural resources here at home? We will have an important vote on Monday where the so-called Domenici amendment--which I am proud to join--will be offered for a vote, where the Senate can go on record in showing where they stand when it comes to this effort to help bring down the price at the pump, which Speaker Pelosi announced 745 days ago. The highlights, as I have already mentioned, of that bill are opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we have the Gulf of Mexico 300 miles offshore from the State of Texas. I tell you, you cannot even see the drilling activity out there 300 miles offshore. Indeed, the drilling activity could occur in the Outer Continental Shelf beyond the horizon in a way that is not even visible to people on shore. I mentioned the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Tapping into that oil and gas, which we know is there, would immediately produce--once it is done--huge volumes of oil that could help relieve our dependence on imported oil. We know that building additional refineries would help relieve some of that bottleneck when it comes to refining the oil into gasoline. Of course, 70 percent of the price of gasoline is the price of oil, but another part of it is the burden we put on the permitting process for the construction of new refineries or expanding refinery capacity. My colleague from Wyoming talked about coal, and I agree with him that we ought to use good, old-fashioned American ingenuity in our research and scientific ability to figure out, how do we use this coal--we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal--how do we use it in a way that is compatible with a good environment? The technology has already been demonstrated, things such as coal-to-liquids technology, coal gasification, which can capture the carbon, deal with the environmental concerns, and yet provide us access to energy which can help drive our economy and help make us less dependent on imported oil and gas from other parts of the world. So, Mr. President, I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come forward with additional ideas. I have explained how the proposals they have made would have no impact, would provide no supply but would really just rehash old, tired themes which have been shown not to work in the past. But I think the debate is an important one, and I look forward to continuing it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. May I ask how much time remains in morning business on our side.