John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, might I ask how much time remains in morning business on our side?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Alabama, my friend, Senator Sessions, in talking about the item that is at the top of everyone's agenda in America; that is, high gas prices. But, first, I wish to say that in 2006, much to my chagrin, the Democratic Party won control of both Houses of Congress. I say that because it is more fun being in the majority than it is being in the minority. But with becoming the majority and Senator Reid having become the majority leader, he has the complete power to schedule legislative action on the floor of the Senate. With that power comes responsibility. I wish to point out a few areas where I do not think we are living up to the responsibility that the American people would have us live up to. There is good news. The good news is, it took only 145 days for us to pass the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The problem was, in those 145 days, our intelligence officials were hampered in their ability to listen in on conversations between terrorists. Thank goodness, at least so far as we know in the public domain, that has not resulted in other attacks against Americans. But the fact remains, it took 145 days to get that done, and it should not have. It has been 602 days since the Colombia Free Trade Agreement has been pending. Now, why is that important? Well, in my State, we sell about $2.3 billion worth of agricultural products and manufactured items to Colombia. Because we have not acted on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, they bear a tariff which makes those more expensive than they should be. Correspondingly, when Colombian items are sold to American markets because of another agreement, they do not have any tariff at all. So this is a burden, a millstone around the neck of American manufacturers and farmers that is unnecessary and unfair. It has been 602 days since that matter has been pending without any action by the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate. Then, yesterday, we had a forum on judicial nominees. There have been 747 days during which some nominees, who have been nominated to the Federal bench by President Bush, have waited for a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. To the point of my main remarks: It has been 813 days since Speaker Pelosi, when she was running, hoping she would become speaker, in the 2006 election--that her party would have the majority in the House and she would be elected Speaker--it has been 813 days since she said Democrats, if elected, would have a commonsense plan to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Well, what has happened since that time, in 813 days? As to gasoline, which I am sure seemed too high then--on January 4, 2007, it was $2.33 a gallon. And there are some people today who are pining for the good old days when gasoline was $2.33 a gallon because the average price of a gallon of gas today is $4.11 a gallon. There is no indication at all it is going to go down. Every indication is it is going to go up. I wonder how long it is going to take the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, to recognize the American people are hurting and the impact these high energy prices are having on not only the lifestyle, not only the daily routine but the ability of the American people to do the bare essentials they need to do in order to provide for their family and in order to get their children to school and in order for them to get to work. How long will this go on? Will it take $5-a-gallon gas? Will it take $10-a-gallon gas? How long will it take before the majority leader will allow us to vote on a balanced plan that will allow us to deal with this crisis? Already, if you compound the price of energy, including gasoline, along with the other burdens Congress has imposed on the American working family, things such as Federal taxes--it takes 74 days of every year for people to pay their Federal taxes; another 39 days for them to pay their State and local taxes; another 60 days to pay for housing; health care, about 50 days; food, 35 days; and transportation, 29 days. So even in things such as food, we have seen because of the price of energy--of course, there is the diesel and the gasoline our farmers use in order to bring their crops in and actually produce them--the price of food continues to go up. A large part of that is because of the price of energy, the price of diesel, the price of gasoline. The squeeze continues on the American people. So what is the solution? Well, I have seen the majority leader wants to bring a bill to the floor that deals with speculation. Of course, that deals with the way oil is bought on the futures trading platform, the commodity futures trading system, which allows people to guess basically what the price of oil will be in the future and to bid at that price. Of course, for every willing buyer, there is a willing seller willing to buy it. Of course, we do need to police the commodity futures trading system to make sure there is not abuse, that there is complete transparency. We need to make sure we have more people, more analysts--more cops on the beat, so to speak--to make sure they have the personnel to be able to do their job. But it is shortsighted and, frankly, naive to think Congress can continue to suspend the laws of supply and demand. So just dealing with that narrow component of the problem is not enough. Is that part of an overall balanced energy package? Yes, it is. But it is not enough by itself. We have to deal with this by finding more and using less. What do I mean by that? Well, using less means we need to be more efficient. We need to be less wasteful. We need to conserve energy. America consumes about 20 percent of the oil produced worldwide every day. We need to find ways to be more efficient. That is why I think our manufacturing sector, whether it is producing plug-in hybrid vehicles in 2010, which eventually, hopefully, will provide an alternative, or the CAFE standards, the corporate fuel efficiency standards Congress has passed--those help. But it is not enough because you cannot conserve your way into energy independence or energy self-sufficiency. So how about ``the find more'' part? Well, the fact is, there is about 85 million barrels of oil consumed globally every day--85 million barrels globally every day. So even if America were to use less, that does not mean China and India are going to use less. In fact, they are not going to use less. They are going to use more because their economies are getting bigger, their people are becoming more prosperous. They want to buy cars. They want the same sort of things Americans have come to expect as commonplace. They want more, and they are going to consume more, because they know energy drives their economy. In particular, in countries such as China, you are going to see they are growing at 10 percent gross domestic product a year, and it is because they are building two coal-powered plants every week and they are consuming more energy. So we are going to have to produce more energy while we use less in order to just allow us to transition to using renewable fuels and the research we need to do on things such as clean coal technology. We are going to need some time to transition into more energy independence and a clean energy future. That is only going to come by producing more oil here at home. Of course, this is a national security issue because we buy a lot of our oil from dangerous regions of the world, such as the Middle East, or from our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. So why does it not make sense for us to rely less on them--people who don't necessarily wish us well--and rely more on ourselves while at the same time create more jobs right here at home, here in America? I know attitudes are changing. We look at things such as the Rasmussen poll, which shows now that 67 percent of all of the respondents say we ought to produce more American natural resources right here at home. I know there are folks on the other side of the aisle, such as our distinguished Presiding Officer, who are trying to work to find a bipartisan solution, and we need to do that. Frankly, we should not leave here in August without addressing this issue and doing it in a meaningful way. By that, I don't mean just trying to go after the speculation part. We need to deal with all of this in a balanced sort of way that will allow us to give the American people some relief at a time when they need some relief because of the squeeze that continues to be put upon the average working family when it comes to high energy costs, which, in turn, ripples into high food costs. Hopefully, we will be successful in weathering this financial crisis we have seen because of the subprime mortgage market and the housing crisis, but unless we do something about high energy prices, we are going to end up in a technical recession. I have no doubt about that. So we can weather those--and I hope we do--and still find ourselves in the ditch from an economic standpoint if we don't do something about high energy costs. Frankly, now that the President has lifted his Executive order banning offshore exploration and development, the only thing that remains to be done now is for Congress to get out of the way and to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I wish our side of the aisle could do it. We can't because we are not in the majority. Only the majority leader has the power to call this up and allow debate and a vote on a commonsense energy plan that will allow us to find more and use less. I am asking them again today, as a number of us have, to please, please listen to what the American people are telling us. They are telling us that they are hurting, that their costs are going through the roof, whether it is food prices or just the price of filling up their cars at the gas station. Really, it is the U.S. Congress that is part of the problem. We need to be part of the solution. We need to listen to them and do what we can to help make their lives just a little bit better. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President. Unifinshed Business Mr. President, I, too, want to talk about high gasoline prices, but I want to talk about other unfinished business this Senate has not taken care of. Fortunately, we do have one positive development; that is, yesterday we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--after 145 days had lapsed. So that is a good thing. But we have unfinished work to do. For example, the Colombian Free Trade Agreement--it has been 597 days that our American farmers and manufacturers have been disadvantaged by tariffs on goods sold here in America. For my State of Texas, there is $2.3 billion a year that is charged in tariffs for our exports when they are imported into Colombia, when Colombian goods bear no similar tariff when their goods are imported into the United States. Then there is the matter of judicial nominees waiting for a vote-- some as long as 742 days. Then, finally, on the matter of gasoline prices, it was about 808 days ago when Speaker Pelosi said that if she and other Democrats were put in charge, they would come up with a commonsense plan for bringing down the price of gasoline at the pump. Well, that was when gasoline was about $2.33 a gallon. Now gasoline averages $4.10 a gallon, and we are still waiting for that commonsense plan to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Increasingly, Americans are squeezed by the high cost of gasoline. Of course, it is driving up everything from food prices to competing with people's ability to pay for their housing, their health care, transportation, and, obviously, the tax bite, where State and local and Federal taxes take up a huge amount. About 111 days of income is used just to pay for that tax burden. But what we need to do, I firmly believe, is to find more domestic energy as we use less. What do I mean by that? By using less, we need to conserve, we need to be more efficient. America consumes about 20 percent of the world's oil supply, and unfortunately, about 60 percent of that we import from foreign sources. We are literally held hostage by groups such as OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, countries such as Venezuela and Hugo Chavez and others that are charging us about $140 a barrel for oil. Of course, that oil is used to make gasoline at refineries. But my constituents in Texas are very worried about the failure of Congress to act by removing the impediments or the moratoria on developing what is about 85 percent of our natural resources here at home. That is what I mean by finding more while we use less. For example, Debra, from Lovelady, TX--a town of roughly 600 people, just a ``Texas mile'' north of Houston--recently wrote me this letter. She said: I am a school teacher in a small rural East Texas school, so my income is very limited. I drive almost 30 miles one way to work each day as do many of my family and neighbors. We have chosen to stay in small towns for the ``everyone is family'' feeling they still give, but it makes it harder to live with the cost of everything rising. She said: The rising price of gasoline is limiting everything I do. I will not make a trip to town unless it is for my monthly shopping needs or to go to church. There will be no summer trips for me this year as I do not see a way to afford driving anywhere. She concludes: I know there are vast resources America could tap into. . . . Please look into exploring the energy resources we already have in America. Well, I believe Debra speaks for a lot of people in this country now as they see their prices go up, as it is driving commodity prices up, such as food costs. They are finding it harder and harder to make it, even if they do have a job, even if they have an income. I believe it is past time for Congress to respond by removing the impediments to domestic production. That is why I cosponsored the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008. That act can be summed up, as this chart says: Find more and use less. It opens up offshore and shale oil deposits for exploration so America's energy producers can gain access to Federal lands. This also will create jobs right here in America, which is something I would think we would want to do. In a time when we are talking about economic stimulus, about concern for the economy, don't we want to create more jobs here in America rather than having those jobs created in places such as Saudi Arabia or Mexico or Canada or Venezuela? At the same time, this bill increases research and development initiatives and for battery-operated plug-in hybrid technology. I think it is hard for many of my constituents in Texas, with the long distances they have to drive, to imagine a day when they will be driving a battery-operated hybrid car, but I do predict the day is coming, and companies such as General Motors and other car manufacturers, in 2010, will begin selling these plug-in hybrid cars that you can literally plug into a wall socket at night and recharge the battery and then drive about 40 miles on that battery before you have to get a generator to recharge the battery to provide you additional range. This is in our future. Right now we have about 240 million cars on the road, and the average age of those cars is about 9 years. So obviously it is going to take a long time--about a decade-- before we can transition from the kinds of gas guzzlers and cars that we drive now to something that provides an additional alternative. I think we are beginning to see some cracks in the intransigence of many in Congress to preventing additional domestic production. I know there are a number of Senators, a fabled group called the Group of 10, the Gang of 10--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats--who are meeting to try to come up with a bipartisan alternative. I applaud that effort. It is really important because, as we all know, nothing happens around here unless it is on a bipartisan basis. I think it is very important, as I saw the Democratic whip say that he was not opposed to more exploration and production. I would invite those who are worried about exploration and production here in America to fly into DFW Airport where you can see gas wells being drilled into the Barnett shale right there from your airplane as you land or as you take off. It is being done using modern drilling technology which is compatible with the safety and security of the neighbors as well as a good environment. We need to act in a bipartisan fashion on real energy solutions--a combination of conservation and energy production. It will be good for America's economy and our energy policy, as well as our national security. Find more, use less.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from New Hampshire that I agree with virtually every word he said about the urgency of this issue. Frankly, I do not understand why next week, as reported, if it is true, we intend to turn to a foreign aid package of $50 billion, which is authorization for new spending which is not offset in any way--in other words, our children and grandchildren will end up paying the price--instead of dealing with what is the most urgent problem facing the country, which is the impact of high gasoline and high energy prices. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, said it was the majority leader's intention to bring an energy bill to the floor sometime before we break in August. I hope that is true. It is welcome news if that is, in fact, the case, and I would love to have the majority leader reassure us that is his intention. I do not think it is responsible for Congress to adjourn for the August recess, I do not think it is responsible for us to go home having not done anything to help the American people with the pain they are feeling at the pump which, of course, is rippling through our economy in hundreds of ways, not the least of which is driving up the cost of food because of the increased energy consumption for our farmers to grow it, harvest it, and then get it to markets. It is hard for me to think of an issue that is more urgent in terms of our economy. The housing bill which is on the floor today and which has been on the floor for a while is an important piece of legislation. But I tell you, Madam President, I believe if we are successful in dealing with the subprime loan crisis and housing crisis, the economic impact of high energy costs may well dwarf the impact of that on our economy and the ripple effect, as I say, that it will have. I hope the Energy bill the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, mentioned that the majority leader plans to bring to the floor includes something other than what our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed previously when it comes to so-called Energy bills, things such as windfall profits taxes, which has been tried before and found to actually diminish domestic production in this country in a time when we ought to be encouraging more production so we rely less on imported energy from places such as the Middle East. Then there is this idea which I can only characterize as crazy of suing OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, not the least of which I wonder where in the world you are going to find a court that somehow is going to accept jurisdiction of an antitrust claim against sovereign foreign nations and what the impact would be in terms of waiving of our sovereign immunity to allow suits to go forward in those other countries. I think it would have a dramatic impact on our international relationships. But assuming you could do it, what would you ask the judge? What kind of relief would you ask the judge to award if, in fact, we could have a lawsuit against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries? The only one I can think of is ask the judge to order them to turn the spigot open wider, which does nothing to diminish our dependency, which does everything to increase our dependence. The fact is, if you talk to any impartial observer, you will find out there is rising demand for the oil that is being produced globally in countries such as China and India, with more than a billion people each. They are buying cars, they are consuming gasoline, and they are using more and more oil. The problem really is multifaceted but primarily driven by increased global demand because other countries want the kind of prosperity we have come to enjoy by making a claim to 20 percent of the oil being produced globally, using 20 percent of it right here in the United States. I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, who says we need a multipronged approach. We need to become less wasteful and more efficient and conserve energy because it makes sense to do so. It is the responsible thing to do. But then we need to deal with more than just the demand side. We need to deal with more supply. It has been interesting to me to see polling that has been done over the last few months which has demonstrated a pretty dramatic change in attitude of the American people. It is one thing to say we don't want to explore and produce oil from the submerged lands along the coastline of the United States or to go onto the western lands where the oil shale lies or to go to Alaska, to the Arctic, where Alaskans overwhelmingly want to allow production. It is one thing to say we are not going to do that when gasoline is at $2 a gallon. It is another to say we are not going to do that when gasoline is at $4.11 a gallon, which it is on national average today. Of course, there is really no indication whatsoever that prices are going to continue to go anywhere but up because demand is going to continue to go up and prices are going to continue to go up if supply remains static. That is good old supply and demand. We do need, particularly as we transition to different types of alternative energy, particularly when it comes to transportation, things such as coal-to-liquid technology that has been used by the U.S. Air Force to make jet fuel to fly our B-1 bombers and B-52s. We know the technology exists, so why aren't we doing more of it? We need to be doing more of that, to find alternatives to dependency on oil. We also need to be doing more when it comes to electricity generation because ultimately we are going to be driving around in a different fashion in the years to come than we are today, perhaps in vehicles such as plug-in hybrid cars, which are going to be introduced by many of the major car manufacturers come 2010, where you literally will have a battery in a car you can plug into an outlet at night and drive that car the next day. Again, the electricity is going to have to come from somewhere. Right now, it comes from nuclear, natural gas, and coal. We know the pollution concerns about burning coal. So I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, we are going to have to increase the use of nuclear power in order to get that electricity production up as our economy continues to grow. The consequences of Congress's inaction--and it is not just a passive inaction; it is actually the fact that Congress has imposed a ban since the early eighties on about 85 percent of our domestic energy supply in America. On the oil shale out West, there was legislation slipped into a bill just last year that banned the development of that shale out in the West that could produce a huge volume of oil. This is perhaps the most urgent issue confronting our economy, confronting our national security, and affecting working families in the State of Texas and around the United States. The fact that Congress would even dream of taking its August recess without addressing this issue and allowing for an opportunity for an appropriate debate and offering amendments and then voting on those amendments to me is unthinkable. So I hope the majority leader will not allow us to adjourn for the month of August before we address this issue in a realistic way. I do think there is some basis for a bipartisan compromise. I see the distinguished Democratic whip on the floor. I read--I trust these comments were reported accurately--that he said he was not opposed to domestic production. That is positive. I see the Gang of 14 who met previously on judicial nominations. Now we have a Gang of 10--5 Democrats, 5 Republicans--trying to come together in a bipartisan way and come up with a common ground and consensus when it comes to national energy policy. But I tell you, it would be a terrible mistake for us just to deal with one aspect of this issue and to pretend like we have actually done something. For example, the issue of speculation on the commodities futures markets--there is a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that we need to deal with this issue, but we need to be careful about it as well. Certainly, more transparency in the way this commodities futures trading system works is important. We need more cops on the street. We need more regulators to investigate to make sure there are not abuses of the commodities futures trading system. If we are not careful, if we overreach, we could force some of that activity to other countries. I know that is not what we would want to do, is have an unintended impact of driving those jobs elsewhere. I am more optimistic than I have been in a while about the willingness of Congress to enter into some sort of bipartisan discussion, debate, and vote, and actually do something that will get Congress out of the way and make the Federal Government part of the solution and not part of the problem when it comes to imposing moratoria and bans on production of about 85 percent of America's natural resources.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will you tell me when 5 minutes is consumed?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I take exception to the chairman of the Finance Committee's insulting remarks. I would say to him that on this bill I have worked in consultation with the Texas Medical Association, which has endorsed it heartily, and what people should be insulted by are these temporary patches every 6 months that do nothing to solve the problem, that provide a political football for the majority party to play to try to take advantage in the next election, to put seniors in doubt as to our seriousness at keeping our commitment for Medicare. I think it is the chairman of the Finance Committee and the majority leader who should be embarrassed by their objection to sensible and good-faith efforts to try to fix on a permanent basis this broken system. I regret Congress, once again--no wonder the U.S. Congress has a single-digit approval rating, with only 9 percent of the country believing it is doing a good or excellent job. It is no secret that people are absolutely disgusted with the partisan politics that do not permit real solutions to serious problems, such as fixing Medicare once and for all, and particularly this part that is broken, the payment reimbursement system. So I take very grave exception to the remarks of the chairman of the Finance Committee. It is he who is not serious about solving the problem. It is he who insists on partisan gamesmanship rather than real solutions. And I think it is a very sad day for the Senate.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Congress should be embarrassed to have doctors and seniors come hat in hand every 6 months, every 12 months, every 18 months, and say: Please don't cut reimbursement rates for physicians. It is just a terrible way to do business. It puts people in fear that Congress will not act. It also provides opportunities for political gamesmanship that we have seen in an abundance on this particular temporary patch. The fact is, Congress has only on one previous occasion allowed these cuts to go into effect, in 2002. Every year since it has acted. The fact is, we will. But what we need is a permanent solution, not a temporary patch. This is a terrible way to do business. The fact is, Medicare is a deeply troubled program. In fact, it will go bankrupt-- parts of it--by the year 2019. But Congress is just whistling past the graveyard--whistling past the graveyard. We need a permanent solution to this broken Medicare system. The fact is, many Medicare beneficiaries, many seniors cannot even find a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients because reimbursement rates are below market in many parts of the country. The fact is, the majority leader, by objecting to a 30-day extension of current law to allow a bipartisan compromise between the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, is doing nothing but playing partisan politics with something that should be above partisan politics. We need a permanent solution. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2729 That is why, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 2729, the Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have to decide now whether Medicare is worth protecting or whether political gamesmanship and partisan politics are going to take over. While it is costly to fix Medicare and the SGR, stalling will be far more expensive. So while some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may be content with another shortsighted, short-term fix, I suggest we debate and pass a bipartisan solution that will keep the promise of Medicare for seniors but also make sure there will be access to that coverage by providing fair compensation for physicians. Why should we, and why should they, settle for less? I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Medicare provides important health care benefits for our Nation's seniors. Since 1965, the Federal Government has promised that those over the age of 65 years, or those afflicted with certain disabilities, will have access to health care. Unfortunately, Congress has had a checkered history of keeping that promise. The vote we had 2 weeks ago, to which the distinguished Senator from Michigan just alluded, and one we will apparently have tomorrow afternoon, should be an embarrassment to Congress but not for the reasons that she and others have suggested. We should be looking to solve the looming problems with Medicare permanently, not just with temporary patches or fixes. We need a permanent solution. We should keep our promise to seniors that they can rely on Medicare and provide fair compensation for the physicians to make sure our seniors will actually have access to that coverage. I have repeatedly heard from seniors in Texas who depend on Medicare that they find it hard to even find a physician who will accept below- market Medicare reimbursement rates. Even if we pass an 18-month extension now, I am not optimistic Congress will seriously consider permanent reform before the next round of scheduled cuts. And I shudder to think whether we can prevent the 20-percent cut that will occur 18 months from now. This, of course, should not be about partisan politics, which it has become, because this is about people's lives. The Medicare Program, simply put, is in a nosedive headed for bankruptcy. As this chart demonstrates, without a long-term solution, the future is bleak indeed for Medicare providers. This chart depicts how the practice costs of physicians continue to go up year after year. Yet because of a law Congress passed in 1997, Medicare reimbursement rates continue to be projecting downward. You can see the gap here. No wonder many physicians are no longer able to accept Medicare patients. In Texas recently, a survey of physicians indicated that only 58.1 percent of physicians currently accept new Medicare patients because reimbursement rates are so low that they are below market and physicians cannot afford to accept those patients and those low Medicare reimbursement rates. Congress needs to step up with a permanent solution, not the kind of shameful temporary patches and fixes that require physicians and other health care providers to come hat in hand to Congress every 6 months or 12 months or 18 months and that leave Medicare beneficiaries in doubt-- our seniors--about whether, in fact, Congress will do its duty. No one gets to conduct their business this way, other than the Congress. If you were in the private sector, a small or large business, you would be out of business or behind bars if you tried to operate your business the same way Congress has dealt with Medicare reimbursement rates. The Medicare trustees expect future costs to increase at a faster pace than both workers' earnings and the economy overall. As a matter of fact, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Fund will be exhausted by 2019, and Part B premiums will have to increase rapidly to match expected expenditure growth. The Medicare trustees have warned Congress more than once to act, cautioning that the sooner the solutions are enacted, the more flexible and gradual they can be. Mr. President, Medicare is a ticking time bomb. Today, Congress should be all about debating and preserving Medicare. Instead, we have been presented a bill that turns a blind eye to this smoldering powder keg of long-term Medicare problems and the terribly flawed physician payment system. Rather than real reform, the majority party--the Democratically controlled Senate--has presented us with a bill that prolongs damaging and rigid price controls, sets up increased premiums and increased taxes, abandons some private sector options, and keeps Medicare on the path toward more health care rationing. Why would anyone be proud of this? The distinguished Senator from Michigan was saying that all they needed is one more vote to pass this partisan bill. Why would anyone be proud of this temporary fix, these price controls, along with submarket reimbursement rates, so that while we make the promise of Medicare coverage, the actuality of access is diminishing with each day? This partisan bill bypassed not only the minority in the Senate, it bypassed the Senate Finance Committee as well. Now we are told by the majority leader that he will refuse the opportunity to offer any amendments when the bill comes to the floor. The Democratic-controlled majority has not held one hearing or introduced one piece of legislation in the last 6 months that begins to address the long-term problems. Mr. President, I intend to offer a bill that will begin the process of reform and permanently eliminate the periodic cuts that are almost never allowed to go into effect. I think seniors and physicians and the American people deserve explanations and answers, and ultimately solutions, rather than more posturing and just kicking the can down the road. It is worth taking a few minutes to recall how we got here in the first place. In 1997, Congress was struggling with rising costs under Medicare and passed the Balanced Budget Act, which established something called the sustainable growth rate, or a formula which was intended to serve as a restraint on Medicare spending. Thus, the Federal Government instituted arbitrary price controls in an effort to reduce Medicare spending. What was the result? Well, the SGR--the sustainable growth rate--formula and arbitrary price controls have reduced access to quality care for beneficiaries. While the first 2 years after implementation the SGR resulted in positive updates for physician payments, decreases in payments have been required every year since 2002. But what has been the experience of Congress? This chart indicates that except for the first year, in 2002, Congress has acted to reverse the cuts that have come with a temporary patch, and temporary fix after temporary fix. In fact, I think one could be forgiven for wondering whether Congress ever intended these cuts to take effect in the first place. Thank goodness we haven't because continuing to cut into the muscle and then into the bone of the Medicare system means that the promise of Medicare coverage is a hollow one indeed for patients, for seniors, who are increasingly having a very difficult time finding physicians who can accept Medicare rates because they are so low. As you can see from this chart, not only has Congress, except for 2002, not allowed these cuts to go into effect based on temporary patches, it has actually provided a very modest update in most years, except for 2007, when it just got back to zero. But the fact is, Congress never really intended or was never prepared to allow these cuts to go into effect. Most of the time, if you look for how Congress has attempted to ``pay for'' or find revenue to offset this reversal of these cuts, all it amounts to is budgetary gimmicks and games. As the American Medical Association has noted, ``every temporary intervention has increased the cost of a permanent solution.'' Thus, seniors and physicians find themselves coming back to Congress every 6 months or every 18 months hat in hand seeking to prevent these cuts with the kind of histrionics that we see on the Senate floor today and that we saw by the majority leader just 2 weeks ago after the failed cloture vote--not a serious discussion of public policy but, rather, a political action designed to gain partisan advantage. At this point, to repeal the SGR formula created by Congress will cost an estimated $250 billion or more. That is a big number, and a major reason Congress has been unable to pass, or more likely unwilling to even debate, a long-term solution. While many of my colleagues have spoken at great length about their grandiose plans to reform the entirety of America's health care system, they seem to whistle past the Medicare graveyard. We can and we must do better. What good is Medicare if there is no access to coverage? Even with reversing the Draconian cuts in reimbursement, as I said, many doctors refuse to even see patients with Medicare because the payments are so low. Yet Congress is seen patting itself on the back saying: Didn't we do a good job? Only to have more and more seniors unable to find doctors willing to accept Medicare payments. Physician reimbursement cuts have been looming over the heads of seniors and physicians for years. Yet Congress repeatedly puts off until tomorrow what desperately needs to be done today. What does the bill before use to pay for reversing these cuts for 18 months? Well, it undermines the one private sector alternative to traditional Medicare--Medicare Advantage--currently subscribed to by about 450,000 Texas seniors, leading to less choices, fewer services, and, yes, more government control. We have a choice. Do we pass the hot potato once again, praying that we are not the ones who get burned, or do we stand up, do the responsible thing, and actually take decisive action by reforming the broken SGR formula for Medicare reimbursement? While some in Congress seem determined to have the Government control all health care decisions, competition in the private sector holds real promise for the future of health care, and we do not have to look very far to find the proof. All we have to do is look at Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program that we passed a few short years ago. The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report showing how effective Part D has been in lowering drug prices for seniors. This year, Part D expenses will be almost half that of the original projections 2 years ago. Competition by private companies that provide benefits for seniors under Medicare Part D has actually created about $40 billion in savings this year. What's more, Part D will be returning roughly $4 billion this year in unused funds due to cheaper than expected drug purchases. Still, with the resounding success of Medicare Part D and the competition we should look to as a model, not one to be discarded or gutted or cannibalized in an effort to pay for this temporary patch, many of my colleagues want to give up on the private sector alternatives to traditional Medicare. Competition created by programs such as Medicare Advantage has the potential to save more money in the long run and to provide more choices and better quality services to Medicare beneficiaries. I would be the first one to say that Medicare Advantage is far from perfect. As a matter of fact, I have heard from many of my constituent physicians who have complaints about the way Medicare Advantage is run. But it would be a terrible mistake to gut it. We ought to fix it, not gut it. Rather than abandoning the principles of the benefits of competition in health care, we should work to make it better. With the results of Medicare Part D as an example, we should work to increase the role of nongovernment entities in lowering costs and increasing access and affordability of health care. These are only a few of the reasons why, over 3 months ago, in anticipation of the looming physician payment cuts set for July 1, I introduced legislation that solves this problem permanently. This legislation I called Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act of 2008. It provides positive reimbursement updates for providers, it eliminates the ineffectual expenditure cap, and increases incentives for physician data reporting. At the same time, this bill facilitates adoption of health information technology by addressing costs and legislative barriers; it educates and empowers physicians and beneficiaries of Medicare spending and benefits usage, and studies ways to realign the way that Medicare pays for health care. My bill does not mandate whether physician payments should be based on utilization, performance, care coordination or any other methodology, but it does start to lay down a new path toward reform, innovation, and restoration of the eroded physician-patient relationship. It does say the providers and beneficiaries should not be the ones to be punished by Congress's failure to act. We have to decide now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes to speak.

Mr. CORNYN. I would need 15 minutes. If I can yield back some time, that would be great.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I wish to talk just a minute about gasoline prices. I don't know of any subject I hear more about and more concern about from my constituents in Texas than high gasoline prices, whether it is parents driving their children to school or their afterschool activities or truckers who have to buy diesel, which is breaking the bank and which they are finding it harder and harder to pay for, or whether it is the airlines--Continental Airlines and American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, all three of which are located in the State of Texas. The price of aviation fuel made from petroleum products is making it almost impossible for them to do business under their current model, and prices are going up. It is becoming harder and harder for consumers to deal with. There is a way Congress could act to help bring down prices at the pump on a temporary basis, and it involves exploring for and producing more American energy. That is important from a number of perspectives. First of all, it is important from a national security perspective because right now we depend on 60 percent of our energy needs, our oil and gas needs, from foreign sources. What would happen if something were to occur that were to blockade the tankers that would prevent that oil from being transported? Well, it would mean in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Department of Defense vehicles owned by the Army, Marines, and others wouldn't have the petroleum products they need in order to function. It would exact a crippling blow against our economy. So why in the world would we continue to allow 60 percent of our dependency for oil to come from foreign sources when we have here in America enough oil under our own Outer Continental Shelf, in the oil shale in the West, and in the Arctic that could produce as much as 3 million additional barrels of oil a day? That is more than 10 percent of our current use here in the United States. As a matter of fact, it is a substantial amount--more than 10 percent, closer to 12 percent of what we use right here in the United States. We know the money we are paying--$135 a barrel--is enriching people such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and he is using that money to buy weapons from Russia and to arm himself as he continues to take in and protect the FARC, a narcoterrorist organization, to the detriment of our friends in Colombia and stability in South America. But it is absolutely crazy for this Congress to have in place, as it does--and it has since 1981 or 1982--a moratorium or ban on developing more of our own natural resources and becoming more self-reliant rather than more dependent on foreign sources of oil. It is up to Congress to get out of the way and to allow America to become more energy self- sufficient. We can do it, and only Congress can get that done. It is completely inexcusable when gasoline is at $4 a gallon on average to do that, to be the impediment, to be the blockade, to be the cause of so much pain at the pump and so much sacrifice and hardship among hard- working American families. We understand it is more than just a matter of producing oil, but that is a first and necessary step because we know when it comes to transportation fuel, we depend upon petroleum products right now to get that job done. But we also know we need to be more fuel efficient and we need to conserve. Indeed, that is one area where Congress has acted by passing corporate fuel efficiency standards for our cars. But we know that is a long-term effort because the average age of a car in America--of the 250 million cars in America--is about 9 years. So let's assume that, in 2010, everybody started buying a new car. It would take a long time, an average of 9 years, before that entire fleet of cars would be replaced with these new more fuel- efficient cars. So that is a long-term solution but a necessary and important one for us to take. We also need to make sure we use good old-fashioned American ingenuity and technology to help us as we transition from this petroleum dependence we have now. It is not going to happen overnight. But for our friends who say that if we started pumping oil out of ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf or from the oil shale in the West today, it would be years before that oil would get online. Unfortunately, that is where we put ourselves, as a result of the irrational moratoria on the development of American natural resources. It is going to take some time to transition into greater energy independence. But for those of us who are concerned about the environment, we know we are going to have to continue to look for cleaner ways to drive and to fly and in terms of our energy needs. That is why it is so important that we use good old-fashioned American ingenuity and technology to help us find a way--development of things such as plug-in hybrid cars that can be plugged in and would charge a battery that could drive 40 miles or so before it would need to be recharged. That would help a lot of people who would only need such a vehicle, with a plug-in, to avoid petroleum products altogether. Then we would need to worry about the electricity, which is another story altogether. There are some who have said that abusive speculation in the commodities futures markets is the cause of the problem. That is something we need to look at very closely. As a matter of fact, today, a number of us--43 Senators--have introduced legislation that we believe will create greater transparency and will finance more ``cops on the beat,'' so to speak, when it comes to the commodity futures market, to make sure that doesn't contribute to the reason for prices going through the roof. So we need to produce more energy right here at home so we don't have to depend so much on those who wish us harm or those who would use the money from oil to buy weapons to kill us or our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere--or in the case of Iran, which we know is supplying troops and training to special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and has threatened and, in some cases, is responsible for killing troops. We find ourselves dependent, in part, on countries such as Iran for the very oil we use to refine into gasoline to drive our cars. Does that make sense to anybody? It doesn't make any sense to me. I think what we need to do is produce more and use less oil as we transition into a cleaner, more independent energy economy. It would be better for our national security, better for our economy, and it will actually help us control prices so hard-working American families will not be spending all the money they may have, which they would like to spend on other things, or which they need to spend on other things but cannot because of the increases in the high price of gasoline and oil, and they have to spend on those. In conclusion--and I see the Senator from Utah, my friend, Mr. Hatch, who wishes to speak--if we will not do this when gasoline is $4 a gallon, will we do this when gasoline is $5 a gallon? If we will not do it when oil is $135 a barrel, will we do it when oil is $150 a barrel, or even higher? The solution is not to sue OPEC to get them to open the spigot even wider to increase our dependency on foreign oil. The solution is not to raise taxes, which we know will reduce American production, while allowing foreign oil sources, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran, to continue to operate without those taxes. The solution is not to increase taxes and costs on the consumer, who is already paying too much. We have it within our power to do something that will actually help the American people when it comes to the thing that most of them care a lot about today and that is the high price of gasoline. Congress is the problem. It is high time our friends on the other side of the aisle, who control the agenda because they are in the majority, work with us to bring realistic solutions to this problem. We can do it but not if people play partisan games and refuse to cooperate on something that causes a lot of hardship to the average American family.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding military leader and fellow Texan, GEN T. Michael Moseley. For nearly 3 years, General Moseley has served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, functioning as the senior uniformed Air Force officer responsible for the organization, training, and equipage of more than 710,000 Air Force personnel--active duty, Guard, and Reserve airmen, and civilians both in the United States and overseas. His service to our Air Force and to the American people has been both distinguished and admirable; he is, by all accounts, an exceptional American, a dedicated public servant, and an outstanding defender of the principles of democracy and liberty for which this Nation stands. General Moseley was born in Dallas, TX, and grew up just south of there, in the city of Grand Prairie. His family has a long history of serving the people of Texas, and the United States as a whole. General Moseley's father, as a mason, helped build several well-known and prominent buildings in Dallas. His grandfather served the Texas law enforcement community as a member of the Texas Rangers, that legendary organization established in 1835 to range and guard the Texas Frontier. General Moseley hails from a long line of proud and noble Texans, and has greatly added to that legacy with his own distinguished service in the Air Force. His impressive military career began in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, where he earned both a bachelor's and master's degree in political science. On his way to becoming Air Force Chief of Staff, he held key staff positions running the gamut from operational to joint to personnel assignments. He served as commander of numerous units and organizations, including the F-15 Division of the Air Force Fighter Weapons School at Nellis AFB, the 33rd Operations Group at Eglin AFB, and the 57th Wing--the Air Force's largest, most diverse flying wing-- also at Nellis AFB. He is a member of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, and he was even knighted in 2006 at the suggestion of Queen Elizabeth II, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to U.S.-United Kingdom relations while in command of air operations over Afghanistan and Iraq in the early days of the global war on terrorism. His list of medals, other awards, and accomplishments is so long as to preclude mentioning them all here. Without a doubt, General Moseley's selfless service to the United States, especially in this arduous and vital fight against global terrorism, has been instrumental in securing the safety and liberty of all Americans. And while he will be leaving behind his noble and exemplary career with the Air Force, his contributions and the impact of his leadership will be felt for years to come, both throughout the halls of the Pentagon, and by each and every person that had the honor of serving next to him. It is my privilege to commend the honorable and faithful service of GEN T. Michael Moseley, and to thank him for his commitment to our country and the principles upon which it is founded. I wish General Moseley and his wife Jennie all the best as they prepare for the future, and I thank them both for the sacrifices they have willingly made in the defense of freedom and our great Nation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been talking to the physicians in my State who take Medicare patients, and frankly, this is a terrible way for Congress to do business. We see a 6-month patch on the physician reimbursement formula that will expire July 1, and unfortunately we are looking at what amounts to a partisan proposal here that we are basically being told to take or leave. As all of our colleagues know, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, got together with Senator Baucus after cloture was denied previously and pretty well had things worked out in a bipartisan way until the House passed their version, and then, of course, those negotiations broke down, leading us to this cloture vote we are going to have here in just a few minutes. But I have to say that in 1996 when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act and contemplated these Draconian cuts in the physician reimbursement payments, Congress should have known and should have told the truth that it never intended that any of those cuts would ever take place--and for good reason they should never take place, because even under the current Medicare reimbursement rates, doctors--for example, in Travis County where Austin, TX, is located, only about 18 percent of the physicians in that county will actually take new Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates are already so low. Then we have this unbelievably bad way of doing business. I don't know anybody else who could get away with--other than the Congress-- passing temporary patches on the reimbursements that are paid to physicians. They last for a year, they last for 6 months, such as this last one that leads us up to the edge of a cliff here on July 1, and then we are told by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that we have to take it or leave it or the cuts will occur. Well, frankly, no one believes the cuts will actually occur because Congress will act. I suggest that rather than this terrible way of doing business that nobody else could ever get by with and rather than frightening the Medicare beneficiaries who need access to the doctors who are paid using this Medicare reimbursement formula, we ought to scrap the entire method of reimbursing doctors for Medicare and start over again, recognizing that we are not going to allow these Draconian cuts to occur, this 10-percent-plus cut that goes into effect July 1 and the 20-percent-plus cut that will occur 18 months from now. I think we ought to acknowledge that we are not going to let those cuts go into effect and scrap the sustainable growth rate formula by which those Medicare reimbursements are calculated because it is just not honest. It is not honest. It is scaring not only the Medicare beneficiaries, it is impairing access to health care for those to whom we promised the Medicare Program would actually work. So I don't know what is going to happen on this vote on cloture. I suspect cloture may not be invoked. My hope is that there would be a bipartisan way to find our way forward. I believe it already exists in the form of a negotiation that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have undertaken here in the Senate and that we shouldn't use this kind of brinkmanship to scare not only the Medicare beneficiaries--the seniors who depend on this health care--but also the physicians who are reimbursed under this formula.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, ``the first important rule of fraud control is: What you see is not the problem. It is what we don't see that really does the damage, and the efficacy of control systems depends upon how well they uncover, and then suppress, the invisible bulk of the problem.'' Such are the words of the preeminent expert on health care fraud, Harvard, Kennedy School of Government Professor, Malcolm Sparrow. Just last week, the Washington Post ran a front-page article, which I would ask to be entered into the record, ``Medical Fraud a Growing Problem: Medicare Pays Most Claims Without Review.'' The story detailed how one woman, defrauded the Government out of $105 million using just a laptop while sitting in her Mediterranean-style townhouse. While the lottery's slogan is ``All you need is a dollar and dream.'' This woman discovered something better. Maybe Medicare should adopt the slogan ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Quite simply, Medicare is not sophisticated enough to address the fraud that runs rampant through it. Every year, Medicare's anemic fraud controls let slip by an array of schemes that cost the Medicare program and taxpayers $60 billion, if not more. That is 20 percent of all Medicare spending. Often, as pointed out by the Washington Post article, Medicare pays claims with little or no review as to why or where the checks are going or to whom. One phantom company, comprising nothing more than two rented mailboxes and a phone number was paid $2.1 million over a 6 month period. In another case, the owner of the fraudulent company was an unemployed tow truck operator who used the identities of dozens of dead patients. Again, ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Medicare fraud is not limited to one segment of the health care sector. There are numerous examples of fraud conducted by physicians, dentists, health systems, laboratories, teaching hospitals, patients, and billing specialists to name a few. While I would agree that most of these groups are operating on the straight and narrow, the truth remains that the losses associated with Medicare fraud are helping drive the program to bankruptcy. Unfortunately, conducting Medicare fraud has such a low risk of getting caught and less severe punishment yet high reward that it has even attracted organized crime. Again, ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Usually, the only way Medicare is able to recoup a small portion of the annual $60 billion in losses is by expending more resources on investigations and law enforcement activities through the Office of Inspector General and Department of Justice. While these agencies have done a commendable job in combating fraud, to a large extent it is good money chasing bad. Sometimes systems are set-up to fail. In this case, the Medicare fraud prevention program is not only set-up to fail, it is nearly non- existent. We need to go from ``pay and chase'' to ``detect and prevent.'' Medicare needs to be mobile and it needs to be focused on preventing criminals from ever getting paid in the first place. Medicare needs a system that will continually, as Malcolm Sparrow said: ``uncover, and then suppress.'' Today, I am proud to join Senator Martinez in what I hope is the first in a line of necessary common sense solutions to this problem. The Seniors and Taxpayers Obligation Protection Act or STOP Act, will protect honest taxpayers, seniors, and providers, by strengthening the Medicare program itself. To prevent fraud, the STOP Act employs lessons from the private sector and moves Medicare into the 21st century. For example, Medicare may be the only program, company, or industry left in the country that still thinks it is a good idea to use social security numbers for identification. In a time where a stolen social security number is a stolen identity, Medicare has not stopped printing it on identification cards that are sent through the mail. Even worse, when seniors report that their social security number is being used fraudulently to bill for services in Medicare that they didn't receive, Medicare has no ability to stop paying claims on that social security number or provide the senior with a new number. Medicare has ignored the warnings of the Government Accountability Office and the pleas of groups like AARP and Consumers Union to change this practice. Passage of the STOP Act will mean Medicare can ignore it no longer. The STOP Act requires physicians in high risk areas to review the claims they submitted, similar to how you or I would review our credit card statement at the end of the month to ensure there are no mistaken or fraudulent charges. It implements prepayment fraud detection methods, such as site visits, data analysis, and integrity reviews, so that a guy with a mailbox can no longer rely on ``All you need is a Supplier Number and a Dream.'' It ensures providers are billing for only those services for which they are qualified. It tracks the usage of durable medical equipment and it conducts a study on the implementation prospects of real-time claims analysis technology. Yes, many acts of fraud may be invisible, but it doesn't make them undetectable, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should just turn a blind eye. I hope my colleagues and members of the health sector will join Senator Martinez and me in stepping up to the task of being part of the solution. Our seniors, our providers, and our taxpayers deserve better accountability from Medicare.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, ``the first important rule of fraud control is: What you see is not the problem. It is what we don't see that really does the damage, and the efficacy of control systems depends upon how well they uncover, and then suppress, the invisible bulk of the problem.'' Such are the words of the preeminent expert on health care fraud, Harvard, Kennedy School of Government Professor, Malcolm Sparrow. Just last week, the Washington Post ran a front-page article, which I would ask to be entered into the record, ``Medical Fraud a Growing Problem: Medicare Pays Most Claims Without Review.'' The story detailed how one woman, defrauded the Government out of $105 million using just a laptop while sitting in her Mediterranean-style townhouse. While the lottery's slogan is ``All you need is a dollar and dream.'' This woman discovered something better. Maybe Medicare should adopt the slogan ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Quite simply, Medicare is not sophisticated enough to address the fraud that runs rampant through it. Every year, Medicare's anemic fraud controls let slip by an array of schemes that cost the Medicare program and taxpayers $60 billion, if not more. That is 20 percent of all Medicare spending. Often, as pointed out by the Washington Post article, Medicare pays claims with little or no review as to why or where the checks are going or to whom. One phantom company, comprising nothing more than two rented mailboxes and a phone number was paid $2.1 million over a 6 month period. In another case, the owner of the fraudulent company was an unemployed tow truck operator who used the identities of dozens of dead patients. Again, ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Medicare fraud is not limited to one segment of the health care sector. There are numerous examples of fraud conducted by physicians, dentists, health systems, laboratories, teaching hospitals, patients, and billing specialists to name a few. While I would agree that most of these groups are operating on the straight and narrow, the truth remains that the losses associated with Medicare fraud are helping drive the program to bankruptcy. Unfortunately, conducting Medicare fraud has such a low risk of getting caught and less severe punishment yet high reward that it has even attracted organized crime. Again, ``All you need is a Provider Number and a dream.'' Usually, the only way Medicare is able to recoup a small portion of the annual $60 billion in losses is by expending more resources on investigations and law enforcement activities through the Office of Inspector General and Department of Justice. While these agencies have done a commendable job in combating fraud, to a large extent it is good money chasing bad. Sometimes systems are set-up to fail. In this case, the Medicare fraud prevention program is not only set-up to fail, it is nearly non- existent. We need to go from ``pay and chase'' to ``detect and prevent.'' Medicare needs to be mobile and it needs to be focused on preventing criminals from ever getting paid in the first place. Medicare needs a system that will continually, as Malcolm Sparrow said: ``uncover, and then suppress.'' Today, I am proud to join Senator Martinez in what I hope is the first in a line of necessary common sense solutions to this problem. The Seniors and Taxpayers Obligation Protection Act or STOP Act, will protect honest taxpayers, seniors, and providers, by strengthening the Medicare program itself. To prevent fraud, the STOP Act employs lessons from the private sector and moves Medicare into the 21st century. For example, Medicare may be the only program, company, or industry left in the country that still thinks it is a good idea to use social security numbers for identification. In a time where a stolen social security number is a stolen identity, Medicare has not stopped printing it on identification cards that are sent through the mail. Even worse, when seniors report that their social security number is being used fraudulently to bill for services in Medicare that they didn't receive, Medicare has no ability to stop paying claims on that social security number or provide the senior with a new number. Medicare has ignored the warnings of the Government Accountability Office and the pleas of groups like AARP and Consumers Union to change this practice. Passage of the STOP Act will mean Medicare can ignore it no longer. The STOP Act requires physicians in high risk areas to review the claims they submitted, similar to how you or I would review our credit card statement at the end of the month to ensure there are no mistaken or fraudulent charges. It implements prepayment fraud detection methods, such as site visits, data analysis, and integrity reviews, so that a guy with a mailbox can no longer rely on ``All you need is a Supplier Number and a Dream.'' It ensures providers are billing for only those services for which they are qualified. It tracks the usage of durable medical equipment and it conducts a study on the implementation prospects of real-time claims analysis technology. Yes, many acts of fraud may be invisible, but it doesn't make them undetectable, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should just turn a blind eye. I hope my colleagues and members of the health sector will join Senator Martinez and me in stepping up to the task of being part of the solution. Our seniors, our providers, and our taxpayers deserve better accountability from Medicare.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I too want to talk about change, as have our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in presenting their checklist for change. I do not think there is anybody--certainly not myself included--who believes that what is happening here in Washington, DC, inside these hallowed chambers is something we want to continue in terms of the status quo. We do need change. But as others have said before me, we need the right kind of change. That is what I wish to address here briefly. First, let me remind my colleagues and those who may be watching about where we are in terms of being stuck on important issues that are important to the people of this country; where Congress, under the current leadership, has simply squandered the opportunities we have, on a bipartisan basis, to work together to try to address these pressing issues. First, it has now been 124 days since the terrorist surveillance system, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, has basically been unable to track and listen in on foreign terrorists because Congress has failed to pass reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been 575 days since our manufacturers and small businesses and our farmers have been disadvantaged by the failure to take up and pass a free trade agreement with Colombia. My State of Texas sells about $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to Colombia each year, but because Congress refuses to act on this free-trade agreement, my farmers and manufacturers and small businesses have to pay a tariff. That is an added penalty, basically, on their products in Colombia that is not imposed on Colombian goods when they are sold here in the United States. This free-trade agreement is good for my State and for the United States because it creates markets for our goods and our produce, which creates jobs here at home. But for 575 days now, we have seen no action on that important agreement. There have been 720 days that some judicial nominations have been waiting for a vote. I want to come back to that--720 days since some of these nominations have been pending. As astonishing as it may sound, now when gasoline prices are well over $4 a gallon, when the price of oil is up around $135 a barrel, it has been 786 days since Speaker Pelosi--when she was running for the House of Representatives and running basically for Speaker, she promised a commonsense plan to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. We are still waiting for that plan. We have not seen it yet. I believe this is the kind of change people across this country would love to see. They would love to see us come together to try to solve these problems. But instead of that, they see us stuck in a rut, engaging in political posturing rather than solving the problems that confront our Nation. I wish to talk briefly about the third item on my list, and that is about judges. For some reason, the Democratic majority has refused to follow through on a promise made to our side to set hearings and confirm judges to the Federal bench. The fact is, there does appear to be a distinct difference in the philosophy of the people nominated to serve on the Federal bench between the two political parties. I believe our side believes judges should not be roving activists imposing or substituting their views for what is good for us but, rather, judges should have the very important role, the unique role of interpreting what the law is and enforcing and applying the law as written. Judges, of course, are not elected, by and large, certainly not to the Federal bench. They are not representatives of the people, they are representatives of the law, and they serve a very important function. But when judges decide to take the law onto themselves and impose their own will rather than to enforce the will of the elected representatives of the people, they become lawless as a result. Of course, we have seen recent examples of this, whether it be in California, where the California Supreme Court after some 200 years has decided now that the Constitution enshrines a right to same sex marriage, against the overwhelming views of the people of that State--I guess they will have another chance to vote on that in a proposition that will come before the people of that State. We have seen it most recently by the U.S. Supreme Court in a decision where they afforded foreign terrorists precisely the same rights as an American citizen would have even though we are at war with a determined enemy that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians, as they did on September 11, to pursue their own goals. And to have judges, including the five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, say that for the first time in the history of our Republic, foreign terrorists have the same constitutional rights to the writ of habeas corpus in civilian courts is not only a dramatic change in the law--and it does represent change, but it is not the right kind of change. We need to make sure social policies are made by the elected representatives of the people where we can debate these policies right here in front of the people on TV and in front of those folks who come to the gallery, but then once we make those decisions, once we have those votes, that they are honored and respected by the unelected judges. The fact is, Senator Obama, the Senator from Illinois who is running for President of the United States, says he want judges who would put their heart and convictions above the letter of the law. That sounds pretty good at first blush, but the fact is, if each judge is going to decide what their heart tells them or what their personal convictions tell them as opposed to what the law is, including what the Constitution of the United States says, that is not law at all. That is sort of an impressionistic way of deciding how to impose your views, because you happen to be a Federal judge, on the people of this great country. We know there has been an effort to drag feet in terms of confirming judicial nominees, presuming, I guess, that the election will provide another opportunity for our Democratic colleagues to then see a Democratic President nominate judges to the Federal bench, at which time they would expect us to forget the foot-dragging and obstruction we have experienced when we have had a Republican in the White House, and somehow they believe that would not be reciprocated. I hope we will rise above the temptation to reciprocate the kind of treatment this President has received if a Democratic candidate was elected President of the United States. But it is the same sort of tit-for-tat retaliatory mindset that has gotten us into this quagmire we need to get out of, and my hope would be that our friends on the other side of the aisle would rethink this issue and sort of get out of this rut. My constituents back in the State of Texas tell me they are pretty disgusted with what they see happening in the Congress. Thirteen percent, according to the latest Rasmussen poll I saw, said they gave Congress an ``excellent'' or ``good'' rating. The vast majority of the American people look to Washington and they do not see a Congress that is being responsive to their needs and their wishes. They don't see us trying to solve problems. They don't see us having hearings on judicial nominees, asking those nominees questions about the qualifications and experience and then having a vote on the Senate floor. That is the kind of change we need as we address these issues that are important to the American people. I would hope that if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really desirous of change, they would work with us to help change this broken, dysfunctional Senate. When the majority leader calls up a bill and he denies an opportunity for the minority to offer amendments or to have full and fair debate, as he did last week on the climate change bill, what he called one of the most important issues facing the planet today, it does not speak of a seriousness of attitude in terms of trying to solve problems but, rather, speaks more to an attitude of gamesmanship and political point scoring that, frankly, is beneath the honor and dignity of this institution and of our responsibilities to our constituents.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes allotted to our side of the aisle for morning business be divided equally between myself and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to begin my remarks this morning by quoting the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois, Senator Obama, who said recently: Our dependence on foreign oil strains family budgets and it zaps our economy. Oil money pays for the bombs that go off from Baghdad to Beirut, and the bombast of dictators from Caracas to Tehran. Our Nation will not be secure unless we take that leverage away, and our planet will not be safe unless we move decisively toward a clean energy future. I would like to say to those comments from Senator Obama: Amen. He is exactly right. And so I would ask him: Why does he and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to oppose domestic energy production that would reduce our dependency on oil from the Middle East? As this chart shows, restricted domestic production in the United States sends billions of dollars to the Middle East, where we purchase that oil, and to countries such as Venezuela in South America. When one of my constituents back in Texas goes to the gas station and fills their pickup truck, and it costs him $75 to $100, he is wondering perhaps where the money goes. Our colleagues would suggest it just goes to big oil companies. But the fact of the matter is, it is more complicated than that. I think the picture needs to be painted and the story needs to be told of exactly what our refusal to depend more on our own domestic resources, rather than depending, as we do increasingly, on foreign sources of oil, means to our national security. While taxes, refining, shipping, and marketing add to the cost of retail gasoline, 70 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is related to the cost of oil--crude oil. When the United States imports roughly 60 percent of the oil it consumes, the real profiteers of our dependence are the foreign nations from which we import. In 2007, the U.S. fuel bill on oil imports was about $330 billion, and some anticipate that figure will go to $400 billion this year. We should be investing more money in America to increase our domestic energy production and creating jobs right here in America as we work to diversify our energy mix and pursue alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, we send American dollars to foreign nations and energy cartels, such as Venezuela and Iran--nations that openly condemn the United States and the principles for which we stand and seek to undermine our national interests at every turn. Last year, in Venezuela alone, U.S. consumers spent an estimated $30 billion on oil imports. We are all familiar with President Hugo Chavez and his thinly veiled threats and outlandish attacks on our country. But the money that is sent to Venezuela does not just empower the absurd talk of one man, it is helping him assemble a substantial military arsenal. These pictures show some of the things Hugo Chavez is doing with the money we are sending him as we buy crude oil: fighter aircraft, submarines, Kalashnikov assault rifles, air defense batteries. As a matter of fact, Russia has agreed to actually create a factory in Venezuela for the production of both AK-103 assault rifles, and 7.62-millimeter ammunition at a cost in excess of $500 billion. In 2006 alone, Venezuela entered into multiple agreements with Russia for the purchase of numerous advanced Russian-made weapon systems. These transactions included, as I have depicted on this chart, these 24 modern fighter-bomber aircraft at a price of more than $1 billion, numerous attack and transport helicopters at the price of $700 million, and an arsenal of these modern Kalashnikov assault rifles, which I showed a moment ago. Last week, Venezuela conducted a preliminarily agreement for its Navy to buy three Russian-made, improved Kilo patrol submarines--depicted here. This year, Venezuela accepted delivery of the first of several batteries of Russian-made Tor-M1 air defense systems, depicted on this chart. In 2005, Venezuela ordered nine Chinese-made mobile air radar systems, valued at $150 million. Earlier this year, the Venezuelan Government ordered six Austrian-made, multipurpose surveillance aircraft. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that money only goes to the buildup of the Venezuelan military. Colombia--of course, right next door to Venezuela in South America--our strongest U.S. ally in Latin America, tells us Hugo Chavez has been supporting the FARC, a narcoterrorist organization, and enabling attacks on the people of Colombia. In fact, a laptop recently captured from a terrorist leader demonstrates Hugo Chavez's close ties with the FARC. The situation has prompted some in Congress to call for Venezuela to be put on our designated ``state sponsors of terrorism'' list. Clearly, the actions of Hugo Chavez and his accelerated militarization of Venezuela poses a significant threat to the stability of Latin America and to the United States because of its close proximity to our country. It doesn't just stop there. As we know, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Iran is enjoying all the money America is sending to him and other countries when they purchase oil, with a price tag now of $135 a barrel. We can't afford to forget that oil is a global commodity used by every country throughout the world, so money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or anywhere benefits Iran. Iran is continuing its effort to develop nuclear technology, depicted at these compounds in Bushehr and Natanz, depicted on these maps. It is clear that Iran has nuclear ambitions to build nuclear weapons to dominate the Middle East and, frankly, represents a threat to world peace. So money spent on oil imports from the Middle East or anywhere actually benefits Iran, and they use that money to pursue their nuclear ambitions. Iran is continuing its efforts to develop nuclear technology with the obvious goal of producing nuclear weapons. The last thing we need to do is to provide a steady stream of money to a man who openly pledges to ``wipe Israel off the map'' and promises that the United States, along with Israel, ``will soon be destroyed.'' Aside from Iran's very troubling nuclear ambitions, U.S. military commanders have seen very clear evidence of Iranian involvement of Iraq. We have heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about Iran's attempts to destabilize Iraq. What is worse, we have heard reports of the Iranians training militias and ``special groups'' in Iraq, both of whom have been a major source of violence and instability there. Even more concerning, we have seen reports that Iran has been providing advanced improvised explosive devices called explosively formed penetrators that have been and continue to be used to kill and injure American soldiers in Iraq. As I have said, Iran has been linked to explosively formed penetrators used to kill American troops, and while these penetrators make up only a small percentage of the overall number of IEDs in Iraq, they generate a disproportionate share of American casualties. The short side of this story is that our dependence on foreign oil is bankrolling deadly weapons. The money we continue to send to the Middle East and to Venezuela does nothing but enrich or enemies. Why in the world, then, would we deny ourselves access to the very natural resources that would allow us to become less dependent? While Congress may not get it, it is clear that the American people get it. Rasmussen has just come out of the field with a new poll that says that 67 percent of the respondents support offshore drilling in America and 64 percent expect that it will lower gasoline prices. That is two-thirds of the respondents who believe offshore drilling should be allowed. Congress, of course, is the major impediment, having passed moratoria against production of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf since the early 1980s. Congress is the problem, and Congress needs to get out of the way and allow America to do what it does best, and that is to try to achieve less dependence on imported oil from our enemies. The short version of this story is that our dependence on foreign oil is bankrolling deadly weapons that are being used against our troops and even more advanced weapons systems that could one day be turned on us or our allies--countries such as Colombia. Soaring gas prices are not just a problem for the American consumer, they are a problem for the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine. They are a problem for our national security. The longer we sit idle and do nothing to increase our domestic energy production, the more money we ship overseas and the more likely it is to empower the threatening actions of some of America's staunchest enemies. While Congress agrees about the importance of reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil--indeed, that is what Senator Obama said in the quotation I read at the start--Congress has not yet acted in a way consistent with those expressed concerns or in a way which would improve not only our economic security but our national security as well. I appreciate the determination of Congress to pursue and encourage alternative energy sources and increased energy efficiency--and these energy policies will serve us well into the future--but what we must realize is that oil and gas is the bridge to that future. It is not economically responsible to bypass solutions that will increase energy supply and help bring down the price of gas at the pump. Americans are spending an additional $1,400 on energy costs just this last year, and the Department of Defense--perhaps the largest consumer of oil and gas in the country--spent $12.6 billion on fuel just last year. We cannot afford to keep filling the coffers of hostile, oil-rich nations such as Iran and Venezuela while we wait for alternative fuels to become a substantial and reliable source for our energy needs. We need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy that includes increased American energy production. We have raised fuel-efficiency standards, we have implemented a renewable fuels standard, we supported tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and energy efficiency appliances. Now we need to grow our domestic energy production by tapping into America's proven oil and gas reserves. If we can begin to produce more energy here at home, then we can begin to ease our minds about how rogue states, such as Venezuela and Iran, will be using those dollars to threaten us. We have all said on numerous occasions that energy security is national security, but I fear many of us have failed to realize exactly what that means. We need to recognize that our inaction is not only raising the burden on American families, it is growing armies and weapons that may one day be used against us. In the case of Iran, that money is already being used against our troops in Iraq through these explosively formed penetrators that have injured and literally killed American citizens. This is not an issue we can afford to take lightly. We all need to work together to expand American oil production in order to decrease the profits of sworn enemies of the United States and limit their militarization. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three law clerks from my Judiciary Committee staff, Erin Mallard, Matt Welling, and Arif Panju, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, you don't have to be an expert in health care policy to know that our health care system is in need of reform. Today we spend $2 trillion on health care or almost $7,500 per person. In 10 years, national health care spending is expected to reach $4.3 trillion. That is more than double or $13,000 per person, which would comprise almost 20 percent of our gross domestic product. Clearly, this rate of growth is unsustainable. While we should be enacting legislation to address this health care crisis, Congress is once again bogged down in debate over how to prevent physician payment cuts from going into effect. Meanwhile, the sustainable growth rate, the SGR, which is the formula for these Medicare payments to physicians, has only increased costs, decreased beneficiary access and quality of care, and discouraged future generations of physicians, especially in primary care. If Congress fails to act, Texas physicians will lose $860 million between July 2008 and December 2009. That is $860 million which is a cut of $18,000 per Texas physician. That figure balloons to $16.5 billion by 2016, due to nearly a decade of scheduled cuts. It is great that Members of Congress and outside coalitions are presenting health care reform plans, but they are ignoring the fundamental problem. You can have a great plan. You can have great coverage. But none of that is any good unless you have access to that coverage. Physicians' reimbursement cuts have been looming over our heads for years; in fact, since 1996 and the passage of the Balanced Budget Act. Yet Congress continually decides to put off for tomorrow what desperately needs to be done today. So every year Congress cuts segments of health care services, either rightly or wrongly, to prevent these cuts. I firmly believe--and physicians in my State firmly believe--that short-term fixes are not the solution. This last one was a 6-month fix which will expire shortly. I don't know anyone else in the private sector, whether they be a physician or a small business, who can continually plan based on the vagaries of a 6-month fix, without knowing whether they will simply be put out of business or what the Congress will come up with as a solution on a 6-month basis. We need a longer term solution, in other words. We can't address greater health care costs until we fix the mess caused by the SGR or the sustainable growth rate formula for Medicare reimbursements. Over 3 months ago, in anticipation of the looming physician payment cut set for July 1, I introduced legislation that addressed the issue at hand permanently. Even the proposal we will vote on at 3 is only good for 18 months. I think we need a permanent solution. My legislation is entitled Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act of 2008. It provides positive reimbursement updates for providers. It eliminates the ineffectual expenditure cap known as SGR, and it increases incentives for physician data reporting. At the same time this bill facilitates the adoption of health information technology by addressing costs and legislative barriers. It educates and empowers physicians and beneficiaries in relation to Medicare spending and benefits usage and studies ways to realign the way Medicare pays for health care. My bill doesn't mandate whether physician payments should be based on utilization, performance, care, coordination, or any other particular methodology. My bill does start to lay down a new path toward reform, innovation, and restoration of the eroded physician-patient relationship. It does say that providers and beneficiaries should not be the ones to be punished by Congress's inaction. Why Congress decided in 1996 to try to balance the budget on the backs of health care providers is beyond me. Because beyond the challenges that presents to the health care providers, it has diminished access to health care. More and more physicians refuse to take new Medicare patients, because the reimbursement rates are simply so low. In Travis County, where Austin, TX is located, there was a story published in the Austin American Statesman that said only 18 percent of physicians in Travis County are accepting new Medicare patients. I would like to say that was an isolated incident, but it is not. This is a huge issue and deserves serious and thoughtful deliberation. The last time the majority party held a hearing on physician payment reform was almost 16 months ago, almost exactly a year before I introduced Ensuring the Future Physician Workforce Act of 2008. Yet there has been zero legislative activity, let alone introduction of language addressing this critical issue from a long- term perspective. Again, we have been stuck in the same old rut of coming up with temporary fixes, including the 6-month fix that will expire on July 1. I am disappointed in Congress's inaction in this regard. I do believe that Congress needs to do more than simply kick the can down the road for another few months and put off a solution that we ought to be working toward on a bipartisan basis and embracing today. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have missed a major opportunity to take positive steps forward. They presented a bill, unfortunately, on which we will vote at 3 o'clock, that bypassed the committee, ignored the importance of bipartisan input and contribution, and they are determined to have a vote on a bill that they know has no chance of becoming law. Because as we all know around here, no bill has a chance of becoming law unless it is truly a bipartisan product. The rules and traditions of the Senate guarantee that. That is one of the things that makes sure that when we vote on things, they have broad support, represent a consensus position, and that they are, in the view of the vast majority of Senators, in the best interest of the American people. But when you try to force a bill that is strictly partisan, that has very little bipartisan support, we know what will happen. That is what is going to happen this afternoon on this vote: It won't become law. The American people were promised a different way of legislating by the majority when they took power. But we have seen, unfortunately, this sort of gamesmanship occur time and time again. I heard Senator Schumer, the Senator from New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, rail against obstruction of their legislative agenda. But it is almost a sure thing, when all you do is take a partisan position on legislation and you refuse, as the majority leader has done, to allow an amendment process, as he did last week on the climate tax bill, and you deny full and fair debate, it is virtually a guaranteed result of failure when you take that sort of approach to legislation. That is what is going to happen again this afternoon. Because the chairman of the Finance Committee has chosen to take a partisan approach on this legislation, we have come up with an alternative that offers solutions to physicians, seniors, and taxpayers. This alternative will provide doctors with a positive increase in their reimbursement rates, extend critical programs, and reform payments to Medicare Advantage plans, and also implement many other necessary changes to the Medicare Program. This alternative legislation includes provisions for e-prescribing, closely mirroring legislation I cosponsored earlier this year. We need to change our ways in the Senate. Rather than trying to check off a box saying, yes, we threw it up, a partisan effort we knew was going to fail, and now we can claim we were the champions of reform, while the ones who would not allow this partisan process to go forward are obstructing it, we need to get together and work in a bipartisan way to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries not only have the coverage they need and deserve but also the access which is guaranteed by a fair rate of compensation for physicians. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes and the remaining block of our time be reserved for the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to also read a letter from one of my constituents, Jerry from Denton, TX. That is just around Dallas. He wrote to me: I work full time, have two part time jobs, and go to school full time and with living expenses I am having trouble keeping my head above water. My parents are both retired and drawing social security, my dad is also working as much as he can, but still they are just barely able to get by. My health insurance expires next month and I cannot afford it because of what I'm spending on gas right now. Jerry adds: We need a long term plan that allows for new sources of energy, but that does not involve the complete doing away with gas or making gas prices go so high. Something needed to be done months ago. Well, I think Jerry is being overly generous. Something needed to be done far earlier than just a few months ago. We needed to do something about this 10 years ago. But, unfortunately, the birds have come home to roost, and now the American people are suffering high gas prices which affect every aspect of their lives. Two days ago, I was in Houston, TX, at the Houston Food Bank. I heard from a senior citizen--a woman--who is disabled and whose food costs have gone up by 50 percent. Now, you may wonder, what is the connection between food costs and gasoline? Well, the fact is, the diesel or the gasoline the farmers need in order to produce the crop--to bring it in so it can be made available for us to buy and prepare for our tables-- has driven food prices even higher. As to some of the choices we have made in Congress--for example, to use food for fuel, things such as corn for ethanol--about 25 percent of our domestic corn crop now is used for biofuels, and we need to revisit that. But in the short term what we need to do is to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. There are basically three ways we can do that: One is we can increase supply which, to me, is the most obvious answer. I heard one of my colleagues this morning cite a new Gallup survey which points to the fact that American attitudes have changed dramatically with the facts; that is, as gas prices have gone higher-- from January 4, 2007, when they were $2.33 a gallon to today where they are $4.05 a gallon--attitudes have changed about producing oil from domestic sources. We are talking about in Alaska. We are talking about the Outer Continental Shelf where now China, off of our southern coastline is producing oil in basically an area where we could be producing it, but China is producing it for themselves while we have put a moratorium on producing that for ourselves. Then there is a vast oil shale out in the Western States. It is estimated that in the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, there are as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil potentially available from that one location but approximately 6 trillion barrels of oil from producing oil shale using new technology that has not always been available. So we could bring down the price of gasoline, 70 percent of which is composed of the price of oil, by increasing American supply which will, in turn, reduce our dependency on imported oil from the Middle East. Our colleague and friend, Senator Schumer of New York, acknowledged this recently--that supply can affect price--but he was talking about Saudi Arabia increasing their supply. I am not for increasing our dependence on Saudi Arabia or any other country; I am for greater independence by depending on our own domestic resources. But he said on this argument--on the supply-and-demand issue--on April 30: If they produced a half a million more barrels a day, the price would come down a very significant amount. At the same time, it would stop the speculation that keeps driving the price of oil up. Well, I say he is half right. More supply--more American supply-- would help dampen the speculation and help bring down the price which would help make more oil available to make into gasoline which would help all of our consumers and constituents at the pump. It would help people such as Jerry, who is trying to get by while going to school and trying to hold down two jobs in Denton, TX. Fifty-seven percent, at last count, of the American people in a Gallup survey said they believe we ought to take advantage of the natural resources that God has given this country. I remember when I was in school; we would look at different countries and try to figure out why one was more successful, more prosperous, than another. Invariably, the teacher would say because the natural resources this country has are so vast, that is one of the reasons for the tremendous prosperity. America is the only country I know of that has this bounteous natural resource known as oil and gas and we have consciously decided--Congress has consciously decided--to put it out of bounds through various appropriations acts dating back to about 1982. We need to reconsider this. I believe we need to change our ways and help relieve some of this pressure consumers are feeling at the pump, and the woman I was referring to at the Houston Food Bank who sees her food prices driven up, requiring her to be more in need of the good works and the charity of others, to help her with her food costs. This is something that I, frankly, do not understand--why Congress continues to be the impediment and not part of the solution. Our friend from New York and others say: Well, we have a solution. There was a bill that was introduced and voted on yesterday, and frankly I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that it was not an energy bill because it didn't contain one additional drop of new energy. What it said was: Well, we are going to sue OPEC--the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--including Venezuela and Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others, presumably to get them to open the spigot even wider so we can be more dependent on imported oil while continuing to put America's natural resources out of bounds. That is not a solution. Then they said: OK, we have an even better idea. People are mad at oil companies, so let's raise taxes on oil companies. That would be great, wouldn't it? It would make everybody feel good. Well, the problem is that happened back in the 1980s, the so-called windfall profits tax, and do you know what happened? The Congressional Research Service has documented the fact that domestic oil production went down by 6 percent. In other words, it made us even more dependent on imported oil from the Middle East and elsewhere, not less dependent. So we want to repeat our mistakes. It is true that those who forget history are condemned to relive it, and I guess our friends on the other side of the aisle want us to relive that bad part of our history as far as our energy independence is concerned. So as good as it may feel to some people to raise taxes to stick it to the oil companies, it is sticking it to yourself. In the end, everybody understands that when you raise taxes, eventually those taxes--those costs--are going to be passed down to--guess who. You got it: to the consumer. Rather than bringing down the price of gasoline, it is going to continue to drive up the price. Last week we saw what I think is fair to say a very poorly timed presentation of the Boxer climate tax bill which, rather than bringing down the price of oil and gasoline, would have driven the price up. The National Association of Manufacturers estimated if we had passed that bill, it would have driven up electricity costs and gasoline costs by more than 145 percent. So there is a better way for us to do this, but it is not by trying to force bad solutions, big Government solutions with $6.7 trillion in costs associated with it--ones which will backfire on us and increase the costs of gasoline and electricity. That is not a good solution. I think most people of good will and common sense would agree. We need to find a solution that will bring down those costs as we work toward that clean energy future that Senator Alexander and others have talked about; as we use more of our own natural resources, as we develop nuclear power to make electricity in a larger percentage as countries such as France do where 80 percent of their electricity is made from nuclear power; so we have electricity to recharge the battery on that hybrid plug-in vehicle that is going to be produced by General Motors and others in 2010 and beyond. We are going to have to change some of the way we operate such as by conservation, by paying more attention to the environment, but also from a national security and economic perspective by trying to make sure we develop clean sources of energy. But as we are on that bridge to the future to clean energy independence, we are going to have to continue to depend on oil and gas. Doesn't it make sense that we would rely more on ourselves and less on others to help us with this important element of a prosperous economy, not to mention the thousands of additional jobs that would be created right here in the United States, if we would develop more of our own resources rather than depend on our adversaries to sell it to us so they can use the money to buy weapons to perhaps use those weapons against us? Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the squeeze on the family budget that is being imposed by a combination of circumstances that, frankly, cry out for some relief. As shown on this chart, this is how long it takes the average American family to work each year to pay their taxes: 74 days each year to pay their Federal taxes. Then you add State and local taxes on top of that. As you can see, that is a good part of the year, about a third of the year, people have to work to pay their taxes, before they can begin to pay any of the rest of their bills. Then it takes 60 days out of the year to pay for their housing; 50 days out of the year to pay for their health insurance; 35 days out of the year to pay for their food; and 29 days out of the year to pay for transportation. Now, this chart was prepared from a special report by the Tax Foundation, dated April 2008, having to do with Tax Freedom Day. That was the date they designated when you do not have to pay Uncle Sam or State and local taxes anymore, you are actually working for yourself. That is what we call Tax Freedom Day. But I daresay that this chart would have to be updated when it comes to the cost of food and the cost of transportation. That is what I wish to concentrate on with my remaining few minutes here. Those related to the rising costs of energy--I have mentioned on the floor before being at the Houston Food Bank 2 days ago, where I learned that the cost of food is being dramatically increased as a result of the cost of energy that it takes to produce it by our farmers. Of course, that is being passed along to consumers, making it harder and harder on the most vulnerable among us, particularly seniors, people on fixed incomes, to pay for their food costs. Then, of course, you add on top of that the rising costs of gasoline and fuel, and it presents a real human crisis in many instances. Many folks have said: Well, there is not much we can do about it--the cost of gasoline. They had said that when gasoline was at $2.33 a gallon. Actually, Speaker Pelosi, back before she became Speaker of the House, said if elected Speaker, the Democrats would present a commonsense plan to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. That was the good old days. That was back when gasoline was only $2.33 a gallon. Now it is $4.05 a gallon, and we are still waiting--I would say with bated breath--for that commonsense solution which has yet to come. But in the absence of a commonsense solution being offered by Speaker Pelosi, we have offered a solution that deals with the simple fact that when you have increasing worldwide demand for the same commodity, that one of the ways you can bring down the price is to increase supply. When you talk about the ways we can increase the supply of gasoline, well, you necessarily have to talk about increasing the supply of oil. Then you get into the issue of how much of the oil we depend on to make into gasoline in our refineries is imported. Well, that figure now is about 60 percent of all of the oil we consume and the various petroleum-related products are produced abroad and shipped into the United States. But we are in an ironic situation of where our dependency on imported oil is a consequence of our own failed policies here in the Congress because since 1982 Congress has imposed a moratorium on the development of America's natural resources right here at home, whether they be on the western lands, the oil shale, the Outer Continental Shelf surrounding our country, or places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress has placed those out of bounds. We are the only country in the world that has placed our own natural resources out of bounds and refused to develop those while we have increased our dependence on imported energy from dangerous enemies of the United States--countries such as Iran and Venezuela, which professes to be our enemy in South America. What is ironic is the fact that years ago, the United States and Cuba agreed to draw an imaginary line between our two countries and said Cuba had control of the submerged lands on the other side of that line leading up to Cuba and the United States had control of the 45 miles or so that represented American territory. But do you know who is developing the oil and gas that is 50 miles off our southern shore of Florida? Well, Cuba has production agreements with Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, China, Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Canada, and Norway. That is right. While we refuse, as a result of a Federal moratorium on development on the Outer Continental Shelf, to allow Americans to produce American energy, the Chinese and others are drilling and producing oil 50 miles off our shore in the area owned by Cuba. It is ironic indeed that we would prohibit Americans from producing American energy on American land so that we could remain increasingly dependent on foreign oil. I think it is a terrible mistake. Congress, looking around for a scapegoat as to who has caused these high prices, I would suggest needs to look in the mirror. We need to reassess and correct that mistake by making this natural resource available for production. Some have come up with what I consider to be misguided solutions that do nothing to produce additional supply of oil and gas. As a matter of fact, they try something we tried back in the 1980s, for example; that is, raise taxes on oil producers here in America. We found out in the 1980s, according to the Congressional Research Service, that it actually reduced domestic oil production by 6 percent. Some may ask: Well, how is that possible? The fact is that 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are owned by national oil companies of foreign governments. Let me say that again. Eighty percent of the oil reserves in the world are owned by oil companies that are owned by foreign governments, and only 6 percent, 6 percent of the world's oil reserves are owned by stockholder-owned companies; in other words, the private sector--the ExxonMobils, the Chevrons, the Conoco- Phillips, and the like. Six percent owned by those privately owned or stockholder-owned companies, 80 percent owned by nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and others, just to name a few. So the irony of ironies again would be not only to not allow us to develop our own natural resources but actually to tax the privately owned or shareholder-owned oil companies that control 6 percent of the world's resources while not touching the 80 percent owned by foreign countries because, of course, we can't impose a tax on their production here in America. We can only impose a tax on our own companies here in the United States. When we did that before, we decreased domestic production. We should have learned from that mistake, but sadly, as a philosopher once said, ``Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.'' This is almost like Groundhog Day here in the Senate where we continue to encounter the same failed solutions--or I should say ``nonsolutions''--to the same problems and refuse to look at the most obvious solution staring us in the face; that is, to open more of America's natural resources. Now, earlier on the floor, the distinguished Democratic whip, Senator Durbin, talked about emergency situations and talked about price caps in an emergency and said we are in an emergency, implying that we should somehow--Congress should dictate price controls on gas. But I would suggest to the distinguished Senator that if we have an emergency situation--and I agree, we have something that profoundly affects our national security and our economic security and has a dramatic impact on food prices and on the average American family. We do have an emergency, and we ought to reassess our decision to block exploration and production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in the Outer Continental Shelf, in the shale oil in the western Federal lands and elsewhere which, by some estimates, could produce as many as 3 million additional barrels of oil each day. Now, that is not a panacea, but it is a lot of help in the near term. As we develop those natural resources, of course, that means we depend that much less on imported oil. It creates jobs here in America at a time when our economy is softening and unemployment rates are going up, and it would help us be less dependent on some of the folks who wish us harm in this world. To me, it constitutes the kind of emergency Senator Durbin was talking about earlier, that we ought to-- if you won't do it when gasoline is $2.33 a gallon, will you do it when gasoline is $4.05 as it is today? If you won't do it when gasoline is $4.05 a gallon, will you do it when it is $5 a gallon or $8 or how about $10 a gallon? At some point, there has to be a tipping point at which the Congress--and especially the Senate--will wake up and look in the mirror and say: You know what, we need to reassess this. We need to take action on behalf of the hard-working American family to make sure they don't continue to find themselves pinched not only by a rising tax burden, the cost of housing, the cost of health care, but rising food costs and rising transportation costs. I have to say I was shocked when I saw an interview recently of Senator Obama, our colleague from Illinois. He was interviewed by CNBC's John Harwood, who asked him the question: Could these high prices help us? Senator Obama said: I think I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. Well, I am not sure exactly what he means by that. Certainly, we haven't had a gradual adjustment; we have had a radical adjustment upward. All we have had, frankly, from our friends on the other side of the aisle is a refusal to act in a responsible way to open America's energy resources while they offer what I have to say are misguided nonsolutions which produce no additional energy, things such as raising taxes on oil companies, which we know will only be put on America's privately owned companies and can't be placed on nationally owned oil companies in places such as Venezuela and Iran but also have had the demonstrated experience of actually reducing domestic production rather than increasing it. Hasn't our experience always been that when you increase the cost--especially increase taxes--on the producer, eventually that is going to be passed down to the ultimate consumer? So what it would do is have the effect of decreasing production, increasing dependence on imported oil, and raising the price of gasoline ultimately for the consumer at a time when we ought to be giving the consumer relief from these high prices if we can, and I believe we can by increasing supply. So I hope our colleagues will reconsider their position because, frankly, I think the only thing standing between lower gasoline prices and the American people is the Congress. On our side of the aisle, we have offered what we believe to be a commonsense solution that would increase supply, so we can hopefully add to the supply, with rising demand by countries around the world, in a way that will allow us to at least provide some relief to the American consumer as we transition ourselves to new alternative sources of energy that are not going to be immediately able to fill that role currently played by oil. We know we are going to have to continue to depend on oil and gas for the near term, but as we transition ourselves into a clean energy future by increasing the use of nuclear power to generate electricity; as good, old-fashioned American ingenuity creates things such as plug- in hybrid cars that operate on batteries we can charge overnight and drive in many parts of the country in a way that will provide an alternative to internal combustion engines but which will also help us deal with environmental concerns as well; as we are on this bridge to a clean energy independence, we need to take advantage of the natural resources God has given us. This is one of the things that has made our country so prosperous-- the vast natural resources we have. But only the Congress is so mistaken as to impose a moratorium on the development and production of those natural resources, and it is hurting hard-working American families and the American consumer. We need to do something about it. I hope we do on a bipartisan basis soon. I yield the floor.