John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I have some remarks, this being Constitution Day, that I want to make in closing. It was 221 years ago today when the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed their work; 39 of them signed it and gave us the very Government we have come to know, we have come to love, and, sometimes, there are those who say they have come to loathe it. But today, we celebrate the very fact that we live in a country where people have the freedom of speech, that we have our political rights to petition Government, where Government's power is acknowledged to come from the governed, ``we the People'' as Lincoln said, ``Government of the people, by the people and for the people.'' It is not the decision of a small group of people here in Washington, DC that somehow has to be fed to us like castor oil and we have to take it. This literally is a government of the people representing all 300 million of us who live in this country that was created that day by that Constitution. Mr. President, it was on this day, September 17, 1787, that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed their work. Thirty-nine of them signed the U.S. Constitution, setting up the government system that we have come to know, love, and sometimes loathe. As Senators, we have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is a duty and a responsibility that does not discriminate based on our party ideology. Still, it is our mutual love for and defense of the Constitution that often provokes our most vigorous debates in this chamber. This spirited debate is vital to liberty and the continued survival of our Nation. If you read Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, you will see that the delegates themselves engaged in a lively debate about how to best implement the principles of liberty, equality, and justice established in the Declaration of Independence. Years later, during the jubilee celebration of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams said, ``The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government.'' With population growth, increasing diversity, agricultural and economic development and massive technological advancement, our Nation has changed tremendously in the 221 years since the Constitution was signed. Yet, despite these changes, there remains a fundamental consistency in human nature. James Madison expressed it best in the Federalist Papers, Number 51: ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' You see, we are indebted to the Founding Fathers for their wisdom and foresight. They understood that human nature would be unlikely to change, and that 18th century and contemporary American policymakers would be pressured to promote policy solutions that may not serve the public interest. According to Madison, ``Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. . . . These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.'' Madison was concerned about the effect of special interest groups on the policy process. In Federalist 10 he wrote, ``The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. . . .'' ``So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.'' In a pure democracy, Madison argues, ``A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. . . . Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.'' Since it is impossible to force everyone to share the same opinion and intensity of opinion, Madison seeks to control the effects of factions by creating a republican form of government. ``The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are,'' he writes, ``First, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended''. ``The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people''. Madison was skeptical that elected representatives would always act in the public interest. ``Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm,'' he wrote in Federalist 10. Today, we have only to see the parade of huge spending bills that find their way to the floor to know that it is a herculean task to whet, much less control the appetites of the hundreds of organized interest groups who want their piece of the federal pie made with tax dollars collected from hard working American families. The entitlement mentality of many of these organized groups, many of which cannot lay claim to a substantial number of members, has pressured an all too receptive Congress to grow the size of government, increase spending to new heights, while we ignore insolvency of large entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and hope that our children and grandchildren will bail us out for our bad decisions. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that establishes a system of separate institutions that share policymaking and political power. This was a clear effort to control the effects of factions and to guard against despotic rulers. The public elections established by the Constitution encourage the electorate to select their representatives wisely. For those of us privileged to be elected by the people, we have a sworn obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and to show ourselves worthy of this great trust. On any given day, not just anniversary dates like today, it is something we ought to think more about. I see my colleague from Louisiana here. I am going to yield the rest of our time that we have in morning business to him. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the chance, once again, to tour the devastated area in my State of Texas caused by Hurricane Ike, this time with the President of the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Mike Levitt, along with David Paulson, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It had been 2 days before that, on Sunday, that I had done the same thing in southeast Texas, in the Beaumont area, talking to the mayors and county judges in that afflicted part of the State, as well as having been to Galveston. Those two places, particularly Orange County and Galveston County, in the southeast part of our State, took the brunt of Hurricane Ike. There are a lot of people hurting now in Texas. We have roughly 2 million people without power. Many people have left their homes under evacuation orders and do not know what the condition of their home is and certainly are dying to get back so they can assess where they are-- whether they have been wiped out or whether there is something they will be able to rebuild, whether this is something from which they can recover. At the same time, we know there are people who are in evacuation shelters set up by the Red Cross with FEMA's help, and others, where they are getting the necessities of life--food, water, and shelter. But these are the very same people who are eager to get back to their homes to see whether their houses are still standing, to see whether they can rebuild, as I say, or whether they are going to have to start from scratch. The emergency response by the State of Texas, primarily the Governor and his team, as well as the leaders at the local level--county judges and the mayors--was about as good as I can imagine it could have been. Unfortunately, because of Hurricane Gustav, when it did not turn out to be as severe as many thought, and millions, literally, had evacuated, I don't think many people believed Ike was going to turn out to be as bad as it turned out to be. So many people hunkered down in place and did not take the advice of the local and State leadership to evacuate. Unfortunately, now they find themselves--roughly 2 million people-- without power. Yesterday, Mayor Thomas, in Galveston, pointed out that the toilets have not flushed since last Friday in Galveston. That not only presents an inconvenience and hardship, but it is also a public health hazard. We have many people who, yesterday, decided to give people a chance to look and leave. In other words, if they were worried about their home, give them a chance to come back on Galveston Island, check it out, and then leave because the air-conditioning, the refrigeration, the basic services provided by power were not available. Unfortunately, if you saw, as I did, the entry and exit into Galveston Island, it was jammed with people wanting to come back under that look-and-leave policy. But the mayor decided, and I think wisely so, to suspend that because of the logjam. In the worst of disasters, usually you find the greatest examples of the human spirit, neighbors helping neighbors. Faith-based organizations, for no other cause than serving their very basic mission, are out there making sure people are fed, making sure they are sheltered, doing everything they can to help people rebuild their lives. We were fortunate in one sense that the storm was not as bad as originally predicted. At one point, there was an estimate that 125,000 homes would be lost; that the surge would reach up to 25 feet; that is, the water being pushed ahead of the storm would actually come all the way up the Houston Ship Channel and cause massive destruction and flooding and possibly loss of human life. While too many people did, in fact, lose their lives, fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been. Texans remember and history reminds us it was just 1900 when Galveston was hit by another hurricane where anywhere between 6,000 and 8,000 people died. Fortunately, the numbers were in the single digits in Texas. That is because of not only the preparation but because of modern building codes which created stronger houses for people who did decide to hunker down, and also because of the search-and-rescue operation conducted by the State and Federal authorities working together to try to get people out who had been trapped, literally, without electricity, without power, without gasoline. We were able to get many people out to safety in the shelters. I think it is important for the people of this country to know that no matter who you are or where you live, we do have the systems in place both at the local and State level but also the Federal level to be of assistance to you if you need help. Of course, as I mentioned, many people are trapped, really, where they are. Maybe they went to a hotel. Maybe they went to a friend or relative's house. Yesterday, the President announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Emergency Response Agency, had authorized people to basically stay in the hotel or motel, if that is where they are located, for up to 30 days while the power gets restored and while cleanup is ongoing and maybe downed power lines are removed. That ought to give people some relief, that they are not going to have to look for money they do not have just to be able to pay the bill to stay in place if they are in a hotel or motel for the next 30 days, if they come from the affected counties. Because of the major disaster declaration that occurred, both public assistance in terms of helping to rebuild the affected areas in the State and also personal assistance is available through FEMA. We tried to announce the first step to the public yesterday. But, obviously, people do not have Internet access when their power is down. They do not have televisions to watch the announcements or maybe even radios to be able to know what to do. But it is important for the public to know, and I think not just in the affected regions, that they need to register with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for personal assistance. That is the first step to getting back to their houses, making sure any damages are appropriately assessed, and making sure the affected people get the help they are entitled to under the law. I would add, in addition to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Web site and their 1-800 number, if my constituents will call any one of my offices, either here in Washington, DC, which we kept open 24-7 during the storm, and also any of my regional offices in Tyler, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Harlingen, Lubbock, or Austin, we will reach them and get them the help they need and to which they are entitled. I have heard some rumors from the other side of the Capitol that Speaker Pelosi was talking about moving a stimulus package, a huge additional spending package of roughly $50 billion, and there were going to be some provisions in it for disaster recovery and wild fires and other things. I would welcome that with this caution: that we not allow politics and the opportunity to use this as a sort of Christmas tree for a bunch of bloated spending that is not necessary to restore people to their homes and to repair the damaged infrastructure; that this not be used as an occasion for politics. To me, the most cynical thing possibly that could happen in Congress is we look past the people in immediate need, and we look for political opportunities to perhaps spend the taxpayers' money on programs that would not otherwise pass because they are somehow bundled up with emergency spending for storm relief. There is one other thing I learned in this disaster that I think is very important as we look at dealing with our energy crisis generally, with the high price of gasoline, and high price of oil, which, perhaps, is the No. 1 economic concern of the American people today. The gulf coast is indeed a laboratory of energy that supplies the daily needs of our country. When a big hurricane comes in, like this one did, of the 25 refineries--these are the places that actually make gasoline out of oil--representing more than one-quarter of the Nation's refining capacity, 17 of the 25 had to be taken offline because of the storm. In addition, nine different oil pipelines--these are the major oil pipelines that transmit oil from the gulf to various parts of the country--also had to be shut down because of Hurricane Ike. That is going to have an impact on America's oil and gas supply. Hopefully, the first indications are going to prove to be true, and there were no major environmental spills or problems associated with this hurricane. To me, it was just another reminder of how much Congress needs to remember that we cannot put all of the Nation's energy--or at least 25 percent of it--in one place. It is literally like putting all of our eggs in one basket. As the saying goes, if you put all your eggs in one basket, you better take care of that basket. The fact is, as we look forward to hopefully removing the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf drilling and exploration and production of oil and building of refineries at home so we have to depend less on imported energy from the Middle East, that we will remember the lessons of Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Frankly, I think putting so much of our Nation's energy capacity in an area that is from time to time going to be affected by these natural disasters is something we ought to take note of and do something about. By producing the ability, or at least allowing the ability, for more exploration and development and building of pipelines, building of refineries in other parts of the country and, producing more at home, we, as we use less by conservation measures, can produce more American energy so we are less reliant on imported oil from the Middle East. There have been a lot of interesting proposals being made. I want to caution my colleagues against some of the proposals that claim to do more about drilling but which in fact create further obstacles to further American oil exploration and drilling. As a matter of fact, one of the initial proposals we saw--I know this was in good faith. I am not questioning the good faith of the proponents. But the effect of it would actually be to raise taxes and diminish domestic oil production and actually limit energy exploration. It is true, we would go from 85 to roughly 70 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf that would be available for drilling under this proposal, but what we would in effect be doing is putting a 60-vote barrier on going into that other 70 percent in the future. I do not know why, if we are willing to acknowledge the fact that modern drilling technology will allow for the exploration and production of oil in one place, such as the Outer Continental Shelf, why we would restrict it in other places on the Outer Continental Shelf, or developing the oil shale out West or perhaps even in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--in a 2,000-acre piece of frozen tundra in the middle of a 19 million-acre wildlife refuge--something that can be developed, I believe, in an environmentally responsible way. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 20 minutes out of the allotted 30 minutes on this side be allotted to me and the remaining 10 minutes allotted to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I want to move to another topic and say I am pleased that an amendment which I have offered that will protect military voting rights has been apparently accepted as a part of the managers' package on the Defense authorization bill. This is a provision which I offered last week and we had been unsuccessful getting a vote on that. But I am pleased that through negotiations in a bipartisan effort between the bill managers, Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Warner, the former chairman, who is the minority bill manager, that has been accepted as part of the managers' package. The fact is, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, only 992,000 of the 6 million eligible military and overseas voters were able to request an absentee ballot for the 2006 election, and only 330,000 of those ballots were filled out and actually reached election officials. That means, in other words, that only 5.5 percent of eligible military and overseas voters were able to fill out a ballot and mail it in and have it counted. To me that is a scandalous statistic, one I am glad that this body, in a bipartisan fashion, is going to respond to and say ``no more.'' We are going to deal with this issue in a way that makes sure that the ballot of those who are fighting, deployed in very dangerous places, is going to count as much as our ballots here in the continental United States.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the right to vote is one of the most cherished civil rights, enshrined in the 15th, 17th, and 19th amendments of the Constitution. It is the cornerstone of democratic government, and it is what makes us a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Throughout our history, whenever we have seen people deprived of this right, whether by law or by practice, brave Americans have stood up to fight for their right to vote. Today there is a significant portion of our population that has been disenfranchised. Today, the very men and women who have joined the military to defend our right to vote have been effectively cut out of the democratic process. Make no mistake; this is one of the most important civil rights issues we face today, and we cannot afford to delay action to address it. The Secretary of Defense has delegated the responsibility for safeguarding the voting rights of our troops to an office called the Federal Voting Assistance Program. Unfortunately, as our troops serve on far-away bases overseas and fight in foreign theaters of conflict, the Department of Defense's Federal Voting Assistance Program has failed to protect their most basic right as American citizens. This failure is twofold. First, the DOD's voting office has failed to adequately educate our men and women in uniform about how to vote. Second, it has failed to take adequate steps to put in place a system that provides our troops a reasonable opportunity to vote--one which ensures their votes are counted. Already, the DOD is required by law to provide troops with voting assistance, and information on how to get ballots, and how to cast their votes. But, its efforts have fallen woefully short. A recent survey found that less than 60 percent of troops knew where to obtain voting information on base. Of our overseas troops who did ask for mail-in ballots, less than half of their completed ballots actually arrived at the local election office. What is worse, many of those arrived late, resulting in them being rejected and thus not counted at all. It is absolutely shameful that so many of our troops and their families have been cut out of the democratic process through bureaucratic inefficiency. In order to prevent this disenfranchisement from happening again, I introduced the Military Voting Protection Act, or MVP Act, to require the DOD to collect our overseas troops' completed ballots and expedite their delivery through express shipping. Electronic tracking would be required as well, so our troops would have the peace of mind of knowing their ballots actually arrived at the election office. The MVP Act would markedly improve the current system and help protect our troops' right to vote. But yesterday, when I asked to bring this important, time-critical legislation forward as an amendment to the DOD authorization bill, the majority objected, saying they needed to hear from the Rules Committee first. My legislation would apply only to military servicemembers. We are working on the DOD authorization bill, so I am not sure why members of the Armed Services Committee need to wait and see what the Rules Committee thinks of an amendment this important. I am left scratching my head. Rather than even considering this legislation, and debating how best to fix our broken military voting system, Democrats cited weak excuses for blocking this amendment. With a national election looming, and a disgraceful track record over the past two election cycles of our widespread troop disenfranchisement, I am dumbfounded as to why my colleagues would put off this civil rights issue and effectively cheat our troops out of a better, more reliable system for voting from overseas. Last night, the Rules Committee offered me a counterproposal, which seeks to make the implementation of these important improvements to our troops' voting system optional. In essence, by making the implementation of this program optional, the Democrats are saying to our troops that their civil rights are not guaranteed but an option. That is an outrage. I am afraid this is going to be just another item on a long list of critical issues the majority has put off, despite calls for action from the American people. Another notable example is gas prices--we have been waiting for over 2 years to address gas prices, but still no meaningful action from the majority leadership. Democrats have stonewalled and delayed qualified judicial nominees and have yet to pass a single appropriations bill for the fiscal year that starts in less than 3 weeks. The rights of our troops to vote cannot fall victim to politics. Our military men and women stand vigilant in the defense of freedom and help safeguard the personal liberties of their fellow Americans. Now, we must be every bit as vigilant in defense of their personal liberties and civil rights. They willingly step into harm's way to ensure the safety of their fellow Americans at home, and they deserve better than a broken voting system and a refusal by their elected leaders to fix it. Mr. President, I subject the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if I might inquire, I talked to the distinguished chairman. I know the Rules Committee is reviewing the amendment. I am a little confused, and maybe he can help. I understand there could be an objection to my calling up the amendment. But I know the chairman is trying to work with me in trying to work this out. But if I only have 8 minutes to speak, and I do not know yet whether there is going to be an objection to calling it up, I guess all I can do is go ahead and call it up and see what happens. But I do not wish to dishonor the commitment I made to him to try to work with him. But I am in a little bit of a box.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am sorry to hear the chairman has objected. Of course, there is no requirement that the committee pass on these matters. I understand his interest in getting their input, but I cannot imagine what sort of input the Rules Committee might give now or later that we could not work on this either as this bill proceeds to completion, I hope to completion this week or next or during the conference committee process. But to object to my ability to actually get it pending before the Senate is regrettable. At this point, I have no other recourse. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I hope that after hearing the subject matter of this amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee will agree with me that the subject matter is of overwhelming importance. This has to do with the fact that in 2006--2006--it is estimated that only 5.5 percent of qualified military voters deployed overseas, as well as civilians eligible to vote in the 2006 election, only 5.5 percent actually had their votes counted. Of the troops that attempted to vote by asking for their ballots in 2006, less than half, only 47.6 percent of their completed ballots actually arrived back at the local election office and were counted. That is according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. I know all our colleagues would agree that if there is anyone who deserves to have their vote counted, and certainly this is a fundamental civil right for all American citizens, but if anyone is entitled to the best efforts that this body could possibly supply to make sure their vote is actually counted, that it would be our men and women in harm's way, fighting to protect our very freedoms. To me, this is an outrage of such proportion that I cannot believe the Department of Defense, knowing these statistics, is simply complacent about preserving and protecting the right of our deployed military and civilians overseas to vote in elections. To me, this is an appalling feature of our absentee voting system, and we need to take action right now. Of course, the appropriate vehicle as we are talking about protecting the right of military voters is on the Defense authorization bill. We know time is running out, only 54 days, I believe, until the next general election. We need to do everything in our power to make sure their right to vote is protected. That is why I decided to introduce a bill last May called the Military Voting Protection Act of 2008. Currently, I believe I have, to the stand-alone bill, 30 cosponsors. I believe the Department of Defense, if it is unwilling to take the necessary steps to protect the rights to vote for our deployed troops, then it is up to us to direct them to do so, to mandate that requirement in law and to make it a priority, not something they get around to perhaps after they have done everything else. Certainly, the Department of Defense can better use modern technology to protect the ability of our troops to participate in elections. We know it is also important to recognize the right of privacy and the integrity of the voting system by calling upon the Department of Defense to focus its efforts on secure, efficient systems that would achieve these important goals. I have more extended remarks, but I do not feel they are necessary at this time. I have seen a letter from the Department of Defense about some of their responses to the bill I have introduced. I would say in each case it is classified more as bureaucratic gobbledygook and not a serious effort to try to solve this problem. I am actually very disappointed that the Department of Defense would take the position that preserving the votes of our deployed military is so unimportant that they would not welcome the participation of the Senate in finding ways to make sure every fighting man and woman's vote is counted. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 5329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor and yield back any remaining time we have, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I hope I will be given an opportunity to call up this amendment and to have it voted on. I worry a little bit because of the fact that the majority leader has filled the amendment tree, and that there is some question whether amendments will be allowed on this bill. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as is the occupant of the chair, I am usually familiar with the fact we are on Defense authorization bills for a matter of a week or more, usually 2 or 3 weeks, and it is usually a much amended bill because of the public interest in this particular piece of legislation. I am worried that the majority leader is trying to compress all activity into this 1 week and we will not have an opportunity to offer important amendments such as the Military Voting Protection Act, which I have described, which I will come back to the floor and describe more thoroughly. After a very bad year here in the Senate, we still have about 2\1/2\ weeks in order to pull the chestnuts out of the fire and actually accomplish some very important things by passing a Defense authorization bill, including protecting the voting rights of our military deployed overseas. We have a chance to stand up for fiscal responsibility by actually passing some appropriations bills and by considering high energy prices and how those are affecting average Texas families and families all across this country, and driving up the cost of food and other commodities as well. We actually have an opportunity, by eliminating the moratorium on offshore oil exploration and production, to produce more American energy so we do not have to send $700 billion a year overseas to other countries in order to buy something which we have an abundance of right here at home, as much as 3 million additional barrels a day right here in the United States, if Congress would simply become part of the solution rather than becoming part of the problem, which it has been by annually passing an appropriations bill rider banning drilling and exploration and production in the Outer Continental Shelf. Last year, there was an amendment to an appropriations bill that would actually ban rulemaking and exploration and production of oil shale out in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, which has enormous capacity to produce a lot more American energy at home. And then, of course, there is ANWR, where 2,000 acres, right in the middle of a desolate part of a 19-million acre refuge in Alaska, harbor untold amounts of oil, American oil, that would obviously, if produced, make it possible for us to buy less from countries that in some cases wish us harm and not well. This is a national security problem. It is an economic problem not only for our country but for every hard-working family. I hope Congress will do what it has not done in the preceding months and actually act in a bipartisan way to solve some of these problems which I mentioned in a way that hopefully would make our constituents proud of us rather than disdainful, which is demonstrated, of course, by the historic low approval rating which Congress now--I was going to say enjoys, but certainly we do not enjoy that--now suffers. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 9, 2008. Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear General Mukasey: The recent government takeover of the Federal National Mortgage Association (``Fannie Mae'') and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (``Freddie Mac'') raises serious concerns whether a well-documented culture of corporate executive corruption at these organizations contributed to the mortgage giants' collapse. I request that the Department of Justice begin a new, full-scale investigation into accounting fraud and other corrupt practices perpetuated by top executives--and coordinate efforts with the Department of Treasury and other regulatory entities to determine to what extent any illegal activities led to the institutions' failure. The public deserves a full understanding of the events surrounding the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, furthermore, corporate executives must be held accountable to the American people. In May 2006, a report by Fannie Mae's oversight authority, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), noted that ``[b]y deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received, at the expense of shareholders.'' The investigation into illegal accounting practices resulted in fines levied on Fannie Mae and three of its top corporate officers--but no criminal charges. While the three corporate officers who overstated Fannie Mae's earnings by approximately $10.6 billion may possess some form of prosecutorial immunity, it is imperative that there is accountability for each and every fraud perpetrated upon shareholders and the public. Moreover, the efficacy of prior investigations by OFHEO and Justice are further called into question in light of evidence of disturbing allegations of active interference on the part of Fannie Mae lobbyists. According to the OFHEO report, Fannie Mae ``sought to interfere'' with the OFHEO investigation by petitioning Congress to conduct a separate investigation of OFHEO. Furthermore, they allegedly lobbied Congress to cut OFHEO's funds for failure to fire the top official responsible for investigating Fannie Mae. As the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is debated, it is essential for Congress to shine more light on the culture of corruption that plagued these institutions. But federal prosecutors and regulators also must vigorously investigate these institutions with the utmost urgency. Shareholders-- indeed, all taxpayers--are entitled to a critical examination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in light of the huge costs they are forced to bear as a result of the mortgage companies' demise. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, John Cornyn, U.S. Senator.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Presient, I know we are going to be moving to the Defense authorization bill. I want to speak briefly on an amendment which I intend to offer called the Military Voter Protection Act. I believe the right to vote is one of the most precious civil rights we have as American citizens. Yet the scandalous fact is that last election, in 2006, out of all of the eligible military voters and civilians overseas, only 5.5 percent of those eligible to vote and who actually tried to cast a vote had their vote counted--5.5 percent. Now, if this were to happen in any city, in any town, any State here in our country, there would be a major public outcry. There would be newspaper headlines, and investigative reporters would be scrounging for information finding out who is denying the most basic civil right to American citizens that we have, which is the right to vote. But for some reason nothing is done, either by the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice or by the Congress to make sure that those men and women who are deployed in harm's way have the opportunity to register to vote, and to make sure that when they do vote, their ballot is actually delivered back and counted on a timely basis. This is something that I think all of us would support on a bipartisan basis, the Military Voting Protection Act. I intend to bring it up this morning with both the bill managers, Senator Levin and Senator Warner. I hope I will be permitted an opportunity----

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. What the American people want in Washington is accountability. And what they see is dysfunction and no accountability. If there is one thing I heard from my constituents in Texas as I was there during the month of August is that no one is happy with what is happening in Washington, in Congress in particular, not Democrats, not Republicans, and certainly not me. I think to see, for example, a $400-billion-plus deficit, a bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is going to cost probably somewhere on the order of $200 billion, and then to hear Speaker Pelosi in the other body talk about a second stimulus bill which is going to, of course, increase Government spending, spending money we do not have and pass that debt along to our children and grandchildren, I wonder whether Congress has lost leave of its senses entirely, because there seems to be absolutely no recognition of our fiscal responsibility here. I point to the fact that there has actually been an effort to try to figure out how to eliminate wasteful spending projects. The Office of Management and Budget has done a review of about 1,000 Government programs and actually concluded that about 22 percent of them were either ineffective or else they could not tell whether they were effective. In other words, out of 1,000 Government programs chosen by the Office of Management and Budget, 22 percent were either found ineffective or else it was impossible to say whether they were effective. I do not know which is worse, whether they are ineffective or whether you do not have the information to tell one way or the other. What Congress needs to do as it sets about spending more money is not grow the size of Government and raise taxes or else pass the bills down to our children and grandchildren, Congress needs to start cutting ineffective programs. That is why I have introduced a bill that would create a sunset commission like the sunset commission in many States, including mine, which would actually periodically review Federal Government agencies and programs and cut wasteful or ineffective programs. That is the kind of commonsense, practical, bipartisan solution the American people are crying out for, but apparently in vain, because Congress persists down this road of fiscal irresponsibility, and there is no apparent end in sight.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would request I be notified when I have used 12 minutes. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from New Hampshire in raising some alarm--not intemperate, not hysterical alarm, but alarm nonetheless--about the recent reports that the Federal deficit has now risen in excess of $400 billion. Of course, what that means is that the Federal Government continues to spend money it does not have, and I think the American people are rightfully concerned that we are on a course of significant fiscal irresponsibility for which a tremendous price is going to be paid by our children and grandchildren. The Senator from New Hampshire mentioned the fact that here we are in September, and this Congress, under the Democratic control conferred upon them in the last election, has yet to pass a single appropriations bill. I know that in the blame game--which in Washington, DC, is a world-class sport--our colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to point to the President of the United States as the person responsible for the high budget deficit. But the fact is that the President can't appropriate a penny of money. The President does not have that authority under the Constitution of the United States. Only Congress can appropriate money, and Congress is the one that should bear the responsibility for this tremendous state of fiscal neglect and irresponsibility that brings us here today. We also know that in this election season, Senator Obama, our colleague from Illinois, has already proposed $350 billion in new Federal spending. The $400 billion deficit apparently is not enough to satisfy Senator Obama. He wants to spend $350 billion more in new spending. And these are not on existing spending programs, this is new spending. Over 5 years, his proposals would cost almost $1.7 trillion. Well, I have to tell you that in the 5 weeks I was back in Texas traveling the State and listening to my constituents, the last thing that was on their to-do list for us here in Congress was to come up with new ways to spend their money. What they wanted was for Congress to accept the responsibility that goes along with the privilege of holding the offices we hold and to actually do something about the problems that confront our Nation when it comes to fiscal irresponsibility. It is a troubling sign that our deficit has ballooned from $161 billion to more than $400 billion. Yet what do we find out yesterday or the day before but that the Federal Government is now going to have to take over, in essence, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This move could potentially cost taxpayers as much as $200 billion more on top of the $400 billion deficit. Since the 2006 election, Democrats have been in control. And this year alone, spending has increased by 8.3 percent. Now, I don't know any business, I don't know any family who increased their spending 8.3 percent from last year to this year. Only the Federal Government-- which, of course, prints money, which is then added to the deficit and the bill passed on to our children and grandchildren--only the Federal Government could get away with that. Regarding the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle, no one actually knows how much this bailout is going to cost the American taxpayer. I have very serious concerns whether the poor investment decisions of the CEOs and the shareholders should be guaranteed by the paychecks of taxpayers. As a matter of fact, I think they should not be. While they were granted a backstop against catastrophic losses, certainly the taxpayers were not there to share in the profit during the heyday of those Government-sponsored enterprises. And the most disturbing to me is that the collapse of Fannie and Freddie was, in all likelihood, contributed to by corrupt actions of its corporate officers. As a matter of fact, in May of 2006, a report by Fannie Mae's oversight authority, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, noted that: By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized bonuses and the executive compensation they received at the expense of shareholders. Now, there was an investigation into these corrupt practices. But, amazingly enough, there were no criminal charges pursued, only civil fines against the top three corporate officers. So while three corporate officers overstated Fannie Mae's earnings by approximately $10.6 billion, they have been given a slap on the wrist and no real sense of accountability, no accountability in any sense of the word. We know they contributed to what ultimately happened by the Treasury Secretary using the power Congress conferred in him to essentially take over and bail out these two enterprises. I have written a letter to the Attorney General of the United States asking him to conduct a criminal investigation into the activities of the corporate officers and anyone else who may have contributed to the overstatement of assets on the books of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to make sure a thorough criminal investigation is undertaken and that those responsible for violating any of the criminal laws of the United States be held accountable. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the Attorney General be printed in the Record after my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to Don Haskins, a great Texan, legendary basketball coach, and remarkable man who passed away earlier this week at his home in El Paso. Haskins, who started his career coaching small-town high school basketball teams, served as the head coach at Texas Western College, now the University of Texas at El Paso, UTEP, from 1961 to 1999. His decision to ``put my five best guys on the court'' in the 1966 NCAA national championship game against the Kentucky Wildcats is now widely regarded as a catalyst for racial integration in college sports. The Texas Western Miners, with an all-Black starting lineup, beat the Wildcats 72-65. Their inspiring story is told in the film, ``Glory Road,'' and the book of the same name. Over his long career, Coach Haskins compiled a 719-353 record and earned a place in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1997 and the Texas Sports Hall of Fame in 1987. Over the years, he turned down lucrative job offers in order to stay at UTEP. He retired in 1999 with the fourth best record in history that included winning seven Western Athletic Conference, WAC, championships and four WAC tournament titles. While Coach Haskins was known for his tough and competitive spirit, he is also remembered for his selfless acts of kindness. According to an Associated Press report, ``USC coach Tim Floyd, a former Haskins assistant, said he once got a call from the mayor of Van Horn, a small town about 120 miles east of El Paso, to thank Haskins for giving a ride to a family of five stranded along the highway. `` `He'd been coyote hunting and saw a station wagon broken down,' Floyd recalled this week. `He put them (the family) in his truck, drove them to El Paso, put them up in a hotel for two nights, and gave them $1,000.' ``The family drove to Los Angeles after Haskins also helped get their car repaired. The coach never told anyone about it, not even his wife, according to Floyd. ``Floyd said he never told the story before, mostly because Haskins wouldn't have wanted anyone to know. `` `I'm only telling it now because he's gone,' Floyd said. `I want people to know.' '' In deciding to devote the best years of his life and career to the people of Texas, Coach Haskins built a legacy that will continue to inspire generations. I join with all Texans as we mourn his passing and extend our deepest condolences to his family.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Health Occupation Students of America, HOSA, for their accomplishments over the past 32 years. Composed of 100,000 students in nearly 3,000 chapters across the Nation, HOSA is providing the knowledge, skills and opportunity for secondary and postsecondary students to enter the health care workforce. Through health science curricula, personal development exercises, practical work in the health care field and medical competitions at the local and national levels, HOSA Advisors and students prepare a healthcare workforce not only to serve but also to lead our country. Now more than ever, we need organizations like HOSA to address critical shortages in the health care industry. Occupational programs in our high schools offer training for young students and often help them find a rewarding career path. Programs like HOSA direct students to worthwhile vocations while also leading the effort to stimulate industry and job growth. The American healthcare system faces myriad, complex challenges: rising prescription drug costs, a lack of stable insurance coverage, and a medical bureaucracy that is increasingly difficult to navigate. Qualified healthcare professionals should not be one of them. HOSA has found a way to combine two very important needs in our economy: an educated workforce and competent health care professionals. I am proud that Texas is home to HOSA National Headquarters and to 491 chapters, the most of any State in the Nation. HOSA is helping build a pipeline of skilled health care workers to ensure that health care in the United States remains a model of professionalism, compassion, and innovation to the world. I commend these talented and ambitious young men and women for their dedication both to the health care profession and to our Nation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we return from the August recess, we return to the same problems Congress left unresolved when we left in July. As I traveled around the State of Texas, I continued to hear people express concerns not only about high energy prices but high food prices. They are concerned that Congress is not doing enough to deal with this crisis. Frankly, I have to say that as I talked to Republicans and Democrats and Independents in my State, it was hard to find anybody who felt as though Congress is doing its job. That is right. I don't care whether they were Republican or Democrat or Independent, there is a reason Congress has a historically low congressional approval rating, according to most public opinion polls, and that is because people look at Congress and they see not a genuine attempt to roll up our sleeves and try to solve problems but too much partisanship, too much point-scoring, too much posturing for the upcoming election. I don't know any Member of this Senate who actually ran for election and hoped to serve in this distinguished body who anticipated coming up here and being stuck in the same old replay day after day, month after month, where Congress has essentially become dysfunctional in dealing with the concerns of the American people. Rather, I think most of us hope to come up here and actually make a difference, actually get something done. I know there is concern that if something gets done, somebody is actually going to get credit for having solved a problem. I think that is a risk we ought to take because if Democrats and Republicans were actually working together to try to solve problems, I think both sides would get credit and the American people would feel better about their elected officials and feel as though maybe Congress and Washington are somehow a little less disconnected from the rest of the country. For example, we know that when we left here in August, one of the things we had hoped to do was to get a vote on more domestic drilling to be able to produce American energy rather than depend, as we do-- $700 billion worth--on importing that energy from other sources. I am glad there have been some continuing discussions, and I am hopeful that ultimately we will be able to actually do something--do something relevant, do something responsive, do something significant to deal with these high prices. We know there are several things we can do-- yes, conservation is part of it, using less, but also producing more American energy so we are less dependent on importing oil from dangerous and unfriendly regions of the world. Now, it is interesting, because I think the majority of the American people look at Congress and they don't necessarily distinguish between Republicans and Democrats and who is in charge and who is not in charge. I have to say congratulations to our Democratic friends who won the majority in the Senate and in the House in the 2006 election. That is the good news. The bad news is the Democrats are actually in charge of setting the agenda. When Congress is stalemated over something as important to the average American and Texas family as high energy prices and we are unable to get it teed up so we can actually have a meaningful debate and a vote, an up-or-down vote on more domestic production of American energy, it is because our friends on the Democratic side control the agenda and they so far have refused to allow us that vote. I hope, after traveling their States and listening to the American people over this last month, their position will have softened a little bit and they will be open to this idea of producing more American energy so we are less reliant on imported energy from other countries. We are going to have a couple of chances to do this. If presumably there were an energy bill that was allowed to come up, that would be one chance. There is another chance we know we are going to have because this is basically the vote we are going to have before we leave that is going to decide whether the Federal Government is going to continue a moratorium on offshore drilling. For almost 30 years now, Congress has imposed an annual appropriation rider on appropriations bills that has banned exploration and production of oil from offshore sources. We are going to have a shot at that regardless of what happens because we are going to have to renew that to keep the Government going forward. My hope would be that we would be a little more farsighted than that and we would be a little bit more willing to consider ideas on both sides of the aisle to do what I know the American people are desperate to see Congress do, and that is to actually work together to solve the country's problems on a bipartisan basis and not to continue to turn a deaf ear to people who are in some distress because of high energy prices and all of the consequences associated with it. We know the economy has moved to the top of the Nation's priority list in the upcoming election, some 56 days from now. Of course, there is more to the economy than high energy prices, but I submit that is a significant--a very significant--part of it. We need to deal with issues such as obstructing free trade. We have had the Colombia Free Trade Agreement which actually would create markets for American-produced agriculture and manufactured goods in a country that now--my State alone sells $2.3 billion worth of goods a year to that country, but they are put at a disadvantage because there is a tariff added to the cost of those goods as they are imported into Colombia but not so when their goods are sent to the United States. So wouldn't it make sense, when our economy is softening and when people are concerned about jobs, as we all are, to say: Yes, we need to have more markets for American agricultural produce and for manufactured goods because that would create jobs here at home. To me, it just makes common sense, but we see nothing but obstruction there. Then, when it comes to suggestions about how to deal with so many issues, our friends on the other side of the aisle--and including, frankly, some Republicans in the so-called Gang of 10 regarding the Energy bill--have proposed raising taxes on domestic oil and gas production by $30 billion. We tried that before. There is going to be some division, some difference of ideas on both sides of the aisle. We tried that before during the Carter administration, and, because of a windfall profits tax, rather than increasing our independence, increasing our self-sufficiency, we actually depressed domestic production of oil and gas because those taxes were put disproportionately on American-based, shareholder-owned companies when, in fact, you cannot impose those taxes on Saudi Arabia or Canada or Mexico. By Congress, in a discriminatory fashion, imposing those taxes on American shareholder-owned oil companies, it actually depressed domestic production, which is opposite of what we have all said that we want to do, which is to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. So we have some huge challenges, there is no doubt about it, and the American people are crying out for a Congress that is actually going to respond to those issues. We also know that in the national security debate that is so much a part of this Presidential race but ought to be a part of what we focus on--job No. 1: the national security of the American people--they want to make sure there is responsible leadership in place dealing with an ever-dangerous world. If there was any doubt about it, the Russian invasion of the Democratic Republic of Georgia should have reminded people that this is a dangerous world. We cannot let our guard down. We need to remain strong because only from a position of strength will the United States be able to maintain peace. When our enemies see us let our guard down and do things such as try to micromanage the troops and set an arbitrary timetable on when they come home rather than based on conditions on the ground, they see that not as a sign of strength, they see that as a sign of weakness, which emboldens bullies and emboldens nations that would like to take advantage of that. The last thing I wish to mention in my 10 minutes is that the American people want fiscal responsibility. They want to see Congress actually doing the job we get elected to do and get paid to do. For us to be here now in September having not yet passed a single appropriations bill out of 13 appropriations bills is not fiscal responsibility. It is simply kicking the can down the road and more of the same. Frankly, what the American people do not want to see is more of the same. They want change all right. But I submit to you they want the right kind of change. They wish to see a Congress that is actually functioning, actually addressing their concerns, and actually working together to solve problems. So far, with this Congress that is controlled by our friends on the other side of the aisle, we have been unable to tee up many of these important issues. I hope in the short period of time we have in the month of September, where we are actually going to be in session, we will have a productive session and work together to try to solve some of these problems because, frankly, our record so far under the Democratic leadership is dismal. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the Senator from New Hampshire, it does not make sense to me. The U.S. Navy, of course, as we know, has been using nuclear power for its aircraft carriers and submarines for, I think, 50 years and is able to do so safely and without incident. France generates 80 percent of its electricity using nuclear power. In France, the environmental activists have actually cut a deal, as I understand it, with the nuclear power producers because they understand. They get the point the Senator from Florida makes, and the Senator from New Hampshire, that nuclear power is clean power. For those who are concerned about climate change, that would be one of the best things we could do to alleviate the pressure on the environment. I wish to get back, if I can for a second, because there has been a lot of talk, particularly the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is talking about the need to develop new technology, to develop plug-in hybrid cars, battery-operated cars. I know there is a little confusion because right now we need transportation energy, which is basically oil and gasoline--aviation fuel to fly our airplanes. People wonder how does nuclear power or using coal in a clean way to generate electricity figure into that? The point we are trying to make is we need all of the above. We need to generate the electricity cleanly so we can use the new technology that we think will bring us into a clean energy future. I wish to ask both my colleagues to comment on a couple things. One of my constituents, T. Boone Pickens, is in town. He is a remarkable man. He has been very successful in the oil and gas business. He says we need a different way of looking at our energy future. He is advocating increased use of wind energy to generate electricity. He is advocating more use of natural gas because he says we have found ways to develop more of that here in America so we have to buy less--the point of the Senator from Florida. That is less money we have to send than the $700 billion we send overseas each year.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleagues. We are going to relinquish the floor to the Senator from Georgia for the final comments. I would say in closing that I can anticipate what the argument is going to be when the majority leader comes out, and the whip--they are going to say it is all about Republican obstruction. But the problem is, we have insisted we are not going home, we are not going to quit, we are not going to change the topic until we get an opportunity to vote on what we believe will have the most direct impact on reducing gas prices: increasing supply and offering all of the above that we have discussed during this colloquy this morning. That is our position, and we believe that should be a bipartisan position. We invite our friends on the other side of the aisle to join us in being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, the bill that was on the floor about 2 weeks ago was a bill to deal with speculation and the commodity futures market. Our point was, we should not just deal with part of it, part of the problem, we ought to deal with the whole problem. That is why we have insisted--in fact, we have demanded and we said we should not leave here until we have had an opportunity to vote on offshore production and those other good ideas. But I wonder if the Senator would address why the speculation component alone would be an insufficient response--may be part of the answer but certainly not the complete answer to the problems we face today?

Mr. CORNYN. I have two points, and I would like to hear from both Senators. One is we hear from folks opposed to offshore drilling say we can't drill our way out of this. Other opponents of offshore exploration and production said: It is going to take too long. I wonder if the Senator from Florida and the Senator from New Hampshire have some thoughts about those. I happen to believe those are pulled out of context, particularly when it comes to Boone Pickens, because, as you said, we need it all. What is the best answer to that?

Mr. CORNYN. I think $4 gasoline and $140-plus for a barrel of oil have caused a lot of people to rethink their prior positions. Gasoline was $2.33 when the Democrats took control of Congress in early 2007 but now is hovering around $4 a gallon, and I think it is only reasonable that people will reassess their decisionmaking. Indeed, I think we have seen that happen with the American people, if you look at public opinion polls, shifting to overwhelming support for exploration and production from the Outer Continental Shelf. I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, I know, as the Senator from Florida said, more oil is going to be a transitional step on our part because production globally is declining. Yet demand, especially from huge economies such as China and India, is going up. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is a big proponent of clean nuclear power. I wonder if he can comment on what he sees this transition looking like, in terms of starting with more American production but with conservation, with renewable energy, and developing nuclear power.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Florida. In the real world, when the facts change, people are free to change their mind.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask if you would please notify us when 10 minutes remain in our time so the Senator from Georgia can take the floor. We would like to continue with the colloquy. I know the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, is here. I know offshore drilling has been somewhat controversial in his State. I would like him to address that. But I would also like him to help us understand the bigger picture, and that is why the majority leader, who controls the agenda on the floor of the Senate, a Member of the other party, refuses to allow us to vote. I know Senator Obama has adamantly opposed any additional offshore exploration and production. One conclusion I guess you might draw is that the majority leader, by refusing an opportunity for Senators to vote, is somehow protecting the Presidential nominee, the presumptive Presidential nominee, from perhaps an embarrassing split in his own political party. I wonder if the Senator has any comments.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was under the impression there was a longer period of time. May I ask what the order of business is following the expiration of morning business?