John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for his leadership on this issue. This is not one of those issues that grabs a headline, but it is certainly one that is very important to the economy of the United States, and it is important to our national security. There is one other point I wish to make in that regard. For those concerned about the exodus of individuals from Latin America and other parts of the world who are looking for jobs and opportunities because they have none at home, this is an important part of our overall strategy to try to see that people have jobs and they have hope where they live, so they don't feel compelled to have to come to the United States in order to get a job and provide for their family. This is an important part of our strategy across Latin America. There is another initiative that I think we will be hearing more about soon, called the Meridia Initiative, to help our ally in Mexico, President Calderon, as he fights the drug cartels down there, for the future of that country, which of course is on our southern border, 1,600 miles of which is common border with my State of Texas. Whether we like it or not--and I know some people don't--our fate, in many ways, and our economy and our security are inextricably tied to countries in Latin America, in the Western Hemisphere. It is not smart--it is perhaps even naive--to think we can ignore what is happening in Colombia, in Mexico, and we can fail to come to the aid of our allies and people who are like-minded in wanting to establish democracy, security, and prosperity in those countries. It is naive to think we can simply turn a blind eye to things such as the Columbia Free Trade Agreement and the Meridia Initiative to help President Calderon in Mexico fight the drug cartels, in what is a fight for the future of that great country on our southern border. I yield the floor and yield back the rest of our time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that I be given half of that time, and the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, be given the other half of that time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how long remains for morning business on this side of the aisle?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side for morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Missouri in talking about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Last week marked the inauspicious benchmark for American companies that do business in Latin America, and there are a lot of them. Since the Colombian Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 2006--533 days ago--more than $1 billion in tariffs has been exacted against American companies that have sold their goods, their produce, to Colombia. Put another way, that is $1 billion in a missed opportunity. The reason why that is a problem is because Columbia pays no tariffs or duty on their goods coming into the United States, of which my State is the single largest trading partner. They pay no tariffs or duty on their goods. So we have a decidedly unlevel playing field when it comes to goods and services that are exported from the United States to Colombia. It is something they are willing to level the playing field on if we will simply act, if the Speaker would call up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement for a vote in the United States House of Representatives. I would think at a time when we are all concerned about the softening of the American economy and jobs here at home, we would want to create more jobs, producing goods for our farmers and greater markets for their produce in places such as Latin America. But instead, we find this has become more or less a chip in a high stakes poker game. It is totally inappropriate to the responsibility we ought to demonstrate with regard to one of our best allies in Latin America and America's national security and economic interests. As I mentioned, last year Colombia bought about $2.3 billion in goods and services from the State of Texas. This has been good for our economy, good for job creation and, as I said, Colombia has been an important ally in fighting the narcoterrorists, the FARC in particular, who have had it their way unimpeded far too long in Latin America, and particularly in Colombia. After more than a year of being stalled by Speaker Pelosi, the President was finally left with no option but to send this Free Trade Agreement for fast track approval. But rather than Congress doing its job--acting on this Free Trade Agreement on an expedited timetable-- Speaker Pelosi went to the most extreme lengths to avoid a vote on this critical agreement. The Speaker of the House, instead of following the rules, decided to rewrite the rules to avoid the possibility of this coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time politics has taken precedence over our national security and economic interests. I remind my colleagues we are still waiting for the House of Representatives' cooperation to finally enact essential reforms our intelligence community needs to timely receive accurate information through something known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I want to come back to that in a moment, but I think it is instructive to look at this chart to see exactly what I was referring to when it comes to the importance of this free trade agreement for the United States from an economic standpoint. As I indicated, without the passage of this free trade agreement, American goods and services continue to bear a tariff as they are exported to Colombia and imported into Colombia. For automobiles, it is 35 percent; furniture, 20 percent; mineral fuels and coal, 5 to 15 percent; cotton, 10 percent; metal products, 5 to 15 percent; computer products, another 10 percent. If Speaker Pelosi would simply allow the Colombian Free Trade Agreement to be voted on in the House of Representatives, I am confident it would pass, and this 35-percent disadvantage for our domestic auto manufacturers, which are particularly suffering in these slower economic times, would go from a 35-percent tariff down to zero. Likewise for all of the other goods I mentioned a moment ago. This is most decidedly in America's best interests. This is most decidedly in the best interests of a strong economy. Also, as I said, it is in the best interests of our national security as well. With the current state of the economy, we have passed one or perhaps now two stimulus packages with discussion of passing yet another. But I continue to believe the most effective way to jump-start our economy is to put more money into family budgets. One thing that is clear to me is that giving American businesses a fair path to compete in foreign markets will bring money back to the United States and back to the people, particularly small businesses and farmers who work so hard here in America to keep our country prosperous and provide for their families. Growing businesses mean growing wages, growing jobs, and a growing economy. There is no better way in these uncertain economic times to help our economy grow than to create new markets in places such as Latin America, and particularly with one of our greatest allies in Latin America, the nation of Colombia. But in addition to helping our own businesses in America, we need to consider the additional benefits of granting a meaningful agreement to our strongest Latin American ally. This agreement would be a strong showing of our support for the reforms that are continuing in Colombia and the leadership, at great risk to President Uribe in particular, when it comes to improving its democracy, respecting the rights of all of its citizens, and fighting against the drug cartels and terrorist organizations and the like. Unfortunately, I think we too often neglect our Latin American neighbors, both when looking for partnerships and when identifying threats. We are well familiar with the rhetoric of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and, frankly, I think there is nothing that Hugo Chavez would like better than for Speaker Pelosi to prevail in her attempt to block a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. After all, Venezuela is a next-door neighbor, and President Chavez, who has been host to President Ahmadinejad of Iran and who has made himself an enemy of the United States, has to be enjoying the blocking of this free trade agreement, because he can say to President Uribe and like- minded democracies in Latin America: This is what you get when you cooperate with the United States. That is exactly the opposite message we need. We need a message which portrays that when you cooperate with the United States in terms of developing your democracy, opening your markets to our goods and produce and services, when you cooperate with the United States to fight narcotraffickers and to bring peace and stability to your country, we will be your strongest ally and we will be your best friend. Unfortunately, the message we see being sent by Speaker Pelosi is that rather than treating the nation of Colombia as one of our best friends in Latin America, they are being demeaned into being treated as nothing but a poker chip in a high stakes game of cards. It is not right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to join my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, in talking about the importance of moving judicial nominations through the Senate. I also, though, wish to start by briefly mentioning a couple numbers. The first is $3.61. This is the average price of a gallon of gasoline in America today. The next number I would like to show my colleagues is 743. That is how many days it has been since Speaker Pelosi said she would--if elected Speaker--how long ago she said the Democrats would offer their commonsense plan for bringing down prices of gasoline at the pump. I would note we continue to wait for that commonsense plan, and Americans across this country are waiting for Congress to do something about it. I would note last Friday I joined a number of my colleagues, including the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and others in introducing a plan we think will help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump. Our colleagues, not surprisingly, may disagree. But we are waiting for their plan, all these 743 days. I think the American people are wondering and watching and wondering why we have not acted and why Speaker Pelosi, in particular, has not followed through on her commitment made more than 2 years ago.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kim Allen, a staffer for the Republican Conference, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ryan Davis, an intern with the Republican Conference, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the month.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning, in North Carolina, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, is giving a very important speech. He may be speaking even as I am speaking. But he is talking about the role of judges in our Government. I think it is a very important speech. I hope our colleagues and the American people will pay close attention to what Senator McCain is saying when he talks about the important role Federal judges play in our American Government. I hope Senator Obama and Senator Clinton will likewise take the opportunity, at the first chance they have, to talk about their philosophy, about the types of judges they believe should be nominated by the next President of the United States, were they to have that privilege and that opportunity. Five years ago, on April 30, 2003, I, along with nine other of the newest Members of the Senate, wrote a letter on this issue to Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, the respective leaders of our parties. That letter was important not only because it was a bipartisan statement acknowledging the judicial confirmation process was broken and needed fixing but also important because it called, on a bipartisan basis, by the newest Members of the Senate, for a clean break or as we called it, a fresh start when it came to the issue of judicial confirmations and, notably, we said to ``leave the bitterness of the past behind us.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. I would like to read from a passage in that letter, signed by we 10 freshmen at the time. In 2003, we wrote to our leaders: In some instances, when a well qualified nominee for the federal bench is denied a vote, the obstruction is justified on the ground of how prior nominees--typically, the nominees of a previous President--were treated. All of these recriminations, made by members on both sides of the aisle, relate to circumstances which occurred before any of us [actually] arrived in the United States Senate. None of us were parties to any of the reported past offenses, whether real or perceived. None of us believe that the ill will of the past should dictate the terms and direction of the future. Unfortunately, 5 years later, when it comes to judicial nominations, the grievances of the past are still dictating the terms and direction of the future when it comes to judicial nominees. There is still time for that fresh start we called for, still time for a clean slate but, unfortunately, no signs that is likely to occur in the current environment. So it will likely come to pass once again that last year's and the previous year's grievances will be used again, not without some justification, by Senate Republicans to justify the obstruction of a future Democratic President's judicial nominees, which shows the death spiral we are involved in when it comes to not taking care of the Nation's work, not allowing an up-or-down vote of judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate. When it comes to judicial nominations, the Senate is supposed to be, as Senator Specter said, the world's greatest deliberative body. But it often acts more like the Hatfields and the McCoys, or perhaps, for those who remember Huck Finn, the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, who do not know how the feud began but, nonetheless, continue to escalate the violence. Let's step back and consider the basic facts. Right now across America there are 46 Federal judicial vacancies--12 on the circuit court of appeals, 34 on the district courts. Of these 46 vacancies, 13 are considered ``judicial emergencies,'' including a handful on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a full 33 percent of the bench is vacant because we in the Senate have not done our job. The simple fact of the matter is, thus far, during President Bush's final 2 years in office, we have seen a record-low number of Federal judges approved by the Senate. Since our friends on the other side of the aisle took over the Senate in 2007, a total of only 7 circuit court nominees have been approved-- and only one this year. It would be most unfortunate and indeed, I daresay, precedent setting if this Senate set this new low-water mark. For my part, I have been pleased to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to gain confirmation of the last two Texans to be nominated and confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, I appreciated the chairman's cooperation and assistance in confirming Catharina Haynes to the Fifth Circuit. But despite my appreciation, I must also express my regret that Ms. Haynes is the only circuit nominee confirmed this year. I would not be fulfilling my oath of office if I did not press for fair treatment not only for judicial nominees who come from my State, Texas, but for my colleagues' home State nominees as well. There are many other critical judicial positions that demand our immediate action. I mentioned the Fourth Circuit, which serves the States of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. The Fourth Circuit is currently operating, as I indicated, with one- third less than a full complement of judges on the bench. That is why the Judicial Conference has called this a judicial emergency. The Senate can and must act to alleviate this strain and this denial of access to justice on behalf of the people of those States, who are denied access to justice because there are simply not enough judges who have been confirmed to sit and hear their cases. The Judiciary Committee is poised to act this Thursday on Justice Stephen Agee of Virginia, a Fourth Circuit nominee, and it should at the very least move forward with the nominations of other Fourth Circuit nominees who have the support of both home State Senators. Even the Washington Post, in December 2007, decried the situation on the Fourth Circuit saying: [T]he Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies-- not as a favor to the president but out of respect for the residents, businesses, defendants and victims of crime in the region the 4th Circuit covers. I am greatly disappointed the Judiciary Committee has been so slow to act on these important nominations. I would ask the chairman again to push forward with hearings and give the nominees an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. There is no doubt the American people deserve, and our very concept of American Government requires, qualified judges who understand the proper role of a judge, which is not to be another branch of the legislature dispensing their view of justice, sort of on an ad hoc basis, but, rather, judges who believe their job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not to make up the law as they go along. As such, we should exercise due diligence to properly review nominees. But the constitutionally mandated process of advice and consent should be done expeditiously, and debates on these nominees should be done openly, as the Senator from Pennsylvania suggested. We have before us numerous well-qualified nominees who have offered themselves to serve our citizens. We must endeavor to minimize the role of partisan politics in judicial nominations, and we should work harder to ensure the judicial vacancies are filled in a more timely manner. I know my time is up, and I know the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here to speak, perhaps on the same subject. But I am glad Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is speaking on this important issue today. I repeat my hope that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton would address this very important responsibility of the next President of the United States. But I would submit, again, it is our responsibility to promptly move on these nominations and to give these nominees a fair up-or-down vote. That has not been happening. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, April 30, 2003. Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: As the ten newest members of the United States Senate, we write to express our concerns about the state of the federal judicial nomination and confirmation process. The apparent breakdown in this process reflects poorly on the ability of the Senate and the Administration to work together in the best interests of our country. The breakdown also disserves the qualified nominees to the federal bench whose confirmations have been delayed or blocked, and the American people who rely on our federal courts for justice. We, the ten freshmen of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress, are a diverse group. Among our ranks are former federal executive branch officials, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and state attorneys general. We include state and local officials, and a former trial and appellate judge. We have different viewpoints on a variety of important issues currently facing our country. But we are united in our commitment to maintaining and preserving a fair and effective justice system for all Americans. And we are united in our concern that the judicial confirmation process is broken and needs to be fixed. In some instances, when a well qualified nominee for the federal bench is denied a vote, the obstruction is justified on the ground of how prior nominees--typically, the nominees of a previous President--were treated. All of these recriminations, made by members on both sides of the aisle, relate to circumstances which occurred before any of us arrived in the United States Senate. None of us were parties to any of the reported past offenses, whether real or perceived. None of us believe that the ill will of the past should dictate the terms and direction of the future. Each of us firmly believes that the United States Senate needs a fresh start. And each of us believes strongly that we were elected to this body in order to do a job for the citizens of our respective states--to enact legislation to stimulate our economy, protect national security, and promote the national welfare, and to provide advice and consent, and to vote on the President's nominations to important positions in the executive branch and on our nation's courts. Accordingly, the ten freshmen of the United States Senate for the 108th Congress urge you to work toward improving the Senate's use of the current process or establishing a better process for the Senate's consideration of judicial nominations. We acknowledge that the White House should be included in repairing this process. All of us were elected to do a job. Unfortunately, the current state of our judicial confirmation process prevents us from doing an important part of that job. We seek a bipartisan solution that will protect the integrity and independence of our nation's courts, ensure fairness for judicial nominees, and leave the bitterness of the past behind us. Yours truly, John Cornyn, Lisa Murkowski, Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman, Lamar Alexander, Mark Pryor, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Talent, John E. Sununu.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Yes, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, today, marks more than 2 years--by my count, 738 days--since Speaker Pelosi said: Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. That was on April 24, 2006--738 days ago. I think it is important to look at what has happened to the price of gas and to see whether her prediction was correct. Lo and behold, we find the average price of a gallon of gasoline in America at $3.62, up $2.33 from the time when Speaker Pelosi became Speaker in January of 2007. Again, that is a rise from $2.33 a gallon to $3.62 a gallon. I will tell you we have been asking and waiting, and the American people have been waiting and watching, to see what Congress is going to do to help relieve some of this pain at the pump. The American people want us to work together to try to find commonsense solutions to help them with this increasing pain they are feeling in the family budget. Do you know that taking the difference between $2.33 a gallon and $3.62 a gallon represents roughly a $1,400 increase in the cost for gasoline for the average American family? Of course, I don't have to tell anybody here, or anybody listening, that this is necessary for driving the kids to school, driving to work; it is necessary also to provide fuel for the airplanes Americans fly in. This is an American problem, and I suggest we need to come up with an American solution. The problem has been that about 60 percent of our energy needs in this country are now satisfied by imported oil and gas from other parts of the world. That is a national security challenge because, of course, to the extent which others supply our energy needs, it means they can turn off the spigot; or if hostilities were to occur that would, let's say, for example, block the Strait of Hormuz, there could be an economic body blow to the United States as a result of the restriction on our energy supply. We need to recognize there are certain things that are irrefutable or, I should say, maybe unchangeable by Congress. We can pass a lot of laws and repeal laws, but we cannot change the law of supply and demand. Try as we might, Congress has neglected that for these many years. While we have done some good things on conservation, passing fuel efficiency standards recently, and we have also supported renewable fuels, which are an important part of the energy supply, you cannot put wind energy in your tank to drive your kids to school. We need to recognize that with a fixed supply of oil, which is 70 percent of the price of gasoline, we are competing globally with countries such as China and India, rising economies where people want a better quality of life, and they realize one key to that is affordable energy. America has not had that exclusively, but we have had it pretty much to ourselves, and others want what we have, which is a good quality of life and standard of living. That comes with affordable energy. So what are we going to do about satisfying the laws of supply and demand? Of course, we know Congress is the primary culprit when it comes to obstructing access to American natural resources. I remember that when I was growing up, we would talk about different countries in school and about how some were blessed with abundant natural resources and how that was a good thing because the citizens of that country could use those natural resources to enhance their quality of life--in this case, provide for affordable energy. But we have simply, by our inaction--and I would say to the extent it applies--actually acted affirmatively to place our natural resources out of bounds in a way that has exacerbated and not solved the problem. I know how popular it is these days to say it is all big oil's fault. The blame game. Then we have people saying we need another investigation. Well, the blame game and investigations are important, and investigations and oversight is for Congress, but that is not producing a single drop of additional energy. We need to do that and we need to act today. A moment ago, a group of Senators announced an omnibus energy bill that would satisfy America's need for more American solutions to our energy supply. My hope is that by taking advantage, for example, of the million-barrel-a-day capacity Alaska could supply, by taking advantage of the Outer Continental Shelf, such as we have in the Gulf of Mexico, with the vast oil deposits there, and by taking advantage of our abundant natural resources in the form of oil shale in the West, we could relieve our dependence upon imported oil in this country to the tune of some 3 million barrels a day. I know there are environmental and safety concerns with developing our oil and gas resources right here at home. But I invite the people who are concerned about that and who do not believe we can do so to come to Fort Worth and see the Barnett shale, which is an abundant, plentiful source of natural gas being developed right in the city of Fort Worth. As a matter of fact, if you fly into DFW Airport, you will see drilling rigs on the airport property. The tract of land in Alaska that is going to be explored and used for producing this million- barrel-a-day-plus oil that is located in the Arctic is going to be on a postage stamp-size piece of property. I see the distinguished ranking member of the Energy Committee. I was saying the city of Fort Worth is producing the Barnett shale and actually drilling gas at DFW Airport and that you can see the rigs there. I suggest that if we can produce those natural resources in Texas and in Fort Worth on the DFW Airport property, American energy producers can do it in Alaska. People are concerned, as they should be--and I wish they would act on those concerns and not just complain about it-- about $120-a-barrel oil. It has been projected that if we were to take advantage of the natural resources God has blessed us with in the Arctic, we could produce oil there that costs roughly $55 a barrel. So $120 a barrel or $55 a barrel? You pick. If we are talking about developing oil resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, even beyond the horizon, as we did in lease sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico--it is 300 miles off the coast of Texas. You cannot even see it. Yet we have a way of producing those abundant resources. If Congress will simply quit the blame game, the finger- pointing and wake up to the fact that the American people are feeling pain not only at the pump but in their family budgets--they are looking for Congress to get out of the way and let the American people produce the natural resources we have been blessed with, in a way that will satisfy the laws of supply and demand, by producing as much as 3 million barrels of additional oil, which will then have a dramatic impact at the pump and help American families meet their energy needs at a reasonable price.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Durbin and Senator Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, along with Senators Brown, Voinovich, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey in support of this amendment which would strike section 808 of the FAA reauthorization bill. I would like to explain why. The 30,000-foot view is, if enacted, it would impose a significant and unfair burden on airlines that have done the most to provide for secure retirements for their former employees or their employees who will retire. This amendment will make sure Congress does not jeopardize the pensions of 50,000 of my constituents in Texas who depend on the airline industry for their retirement, their nest egg, that they will retire on when they leave active duty. Also, if this amendment is passed, it will relieve a significant competitive disadvantage some airlines, not coincidentally a couple headquartered in my State, American and Continental, would operate under, if the Finance Committee proposal would prevail. That is why I support striking section 808 of the FAA authorization bill. Section 808 would undermine the ability of some airlines to maintain their commitments to their workers at a time when our economy is becoming softer and more questions than answers are apparent with regard to what our economic future, at least in the short term, is going to look like. It would reduce the financial flexibility of airlines, precisely at a time when they need it the most. Now, I think a little refresher on recent history is important. Because what has actually happened is, in 2006, the Pension Protection Act was passed, and to be blunt about it, what happened is it benefitted airlines such as Delta and some others around the country, while American and Continental were basically told to wait, there will be an opportunity later on to come back to take care of your concerns and level the playing field and to eliminate the preferential treatment that was given to some other airlines during the Pension Protection Act of 2006. So patiently we waited. Last year's supplemental appropriations bill was the vehicle we used to correct the inequitable treatment created for airlines such as Continental and American in the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The act included language that is in the supplemental appropriations bill, language out of S. 119, that I introduced with Senator Hutchison. As I said, it corrected the inequity that was earlier created in the Pension Protection Act of 2006. But now, section 808 in the Finance Committee provision would simply undo the corrective action that Congress undertook in the supplemental appropriations bill I mentioned a moment ago. It should not be a part of the bill, I would also say, that is about improving and modernizing the air traffic control system in this country. Why would we be messing with the pensions of 50,000 Texans who depend on those two major airlines for their retirement benefits in this bill? It makes no sense. I believe it is unfair and would reverse the corrective action we were able to accomplish in last year's supplemental appropriations bill. I have worked hard, along with my colleagues I mentioned, to make sure those folks who work in the airline industry will have a pension when they retire. I will continue to do so. I sincerely believe that passing the Finance Committee provision, section 808, would jeopardize their retirement benefits; could, in all probability, result in more airlines becoming bankrupt with tremendous uncertainty injected in terms of how their pensions would be protected. At a time when airlines and their employees are facing enormous challenges, Congress should not pull the carpet out from under their feet and get in the business of picking winners and losers by giving some airlines preferential treatment over other airlines. I wish to extend my gratitude to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and my colleague, Senator Hutchison, for their leadership on this issue. I am proud to join them in this bipartisan amendment, which would strike section 808 of the FAA authorization bill, as I have described, and would, I think, make sure that what we do is keep the level playing field, not jeopardize the pensions of thousands of airline workers and would comport with fundamental fairness and equity. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much more time of morning business is allotted to this side?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I don't blame the American people for being upset at the price of gasoline they have to pay at the pump. Frankly, the biggest cause of those high prices is the Congress. It has been 2 years since Speaker Pelosi said that her party, the Democratic Party, had a commonsense plan to bring down prices at the pump. I am left to wonder how long we will have to wait to hear what that commonsense plan is. So far, all we have heard is an escalation of the blame game, which, of course, here in Washington, DC, inside the beltway, is a world-class sport. The problem with the blame game is it doesn't actually solve any problems. I think what the American people are frustrated about, among other things, is Congress's intransigence, its unresponsiveness, and its unwillingness to listen to their concerns--legitimate concerns--about how they are going to balance their family budget, particularly when it comes to the rising cost of gasoline and the rising cost of health care. As my colleagues can see, in the 2 years that have gone by--in almost 2 years--we have gone from $2.33 for an average price for a gallon of gas to $3.61. That translates for an average family to about a $1,400 increase in expenses a year associated with their gasoline costs-- $1,400 a year. So the Federal Government has essentially imposed an additional tax by its inaction on the average working family in this country. Frankly, we have the tools available to us to remove that tax and remove that burden if we will simply exercise our ability to use those tools in order to begin to bring down that price at the pump. History has shown that raising taxes on oil companies is no solution because ultimately we know who ends up paying for tax increases. Ultimately, they are passed on down to the consumer. So it may be fashionable to beat up on big oil and say: Let's tax the oil companies because they are making too much money, but do you know what. If we raise taxes on the oil companies, we all end up paying an increased price for gasoline at the pump. It also has the effect as we saw from 1980 to 1988; the so-called windfall profits tax actually caused a decline in American oil production, reducing domestic production by as much as 8 percent. So for those who are worried, as I am, about our dependence on imported oil, a windfall profits tax is simply no answer at all. In fact, it is counterproductive. Of course, the problem then was the same as the problem is today, and that is a shortage of oil around the world. I have said it before and I will say it again: Congress can pass a lot of laws, we can repeal some laws, but we cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Other countries around the world have or want more of what we have in this country, which is unheralded prosperity, primarily because of our use of a disproportionate amount of energy. India and China and growing countries such as those with a billion people each are using more energy, and we are not seeing the supply go up, particularly here at home. So we know that Congress has been one of the biggest obstructions to increasing oil supply and lowering prices at the pump. My staff helped me research these figures to make sure we had justification for them. As we see oil now approaching--maybe it has gone over--$120 a barrel today, if we were to develop the known resources we have available in Alaska that the Senator from Alaska just talked about, it would be the equivalent of $55-a-barrel oil--$120-a- barrel foreign oil versus $55-a-barrel American oil. If we were to develop more of the Outer Continental Shelf in places such as the Gulf of Mexico, even beyond the horizon where you can't even see it from shore, we could produce that oil from American reserves at the price of roughly $63 a barrel--$63-a-barrel American oil versus $120-a-barrel foreign oil. It seems to me we are missing a great opportunity, not only to help bring down the major price driver of gasoline costs--70 percent of the cost of gasoline is the cost of oil--but also to make ourselves more secure and less dependent on foreign sources of oil, enhancing our national security and helping to bolster our economy at the same time. But, as we have heard, Congress has consistently thrown up a roadblock at accessing these sources of American oil. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed another so-called solution to low supplies. They said: You know what. We are going to take OPEC to court. Let's sue somebody. Unfortunately, that is an all-too-common proposed solution where we are going to litigate, regulate, and increase taxes. But, frankly, it is a little bit--well, more than a little bit--impractical, and it would make us even more hopelessly tied to foreign nations and their production whims. So if your solution is, let's sue OPEC and force them to sell us more oil, does that make us less dependent on foreign sources or more dependent? I would suggest that even if it were practical, which it is not, it would make us more dependent on foreign oil and is not a solution. We need to remember just how much of an impact high energy prices have on the everyday lives of working Americans. High prices drive up the cost of all methods of travel. We are here this week talking about our airlines, and we know what economic pressure has been put on the airline industry and on the prices of tickets that continue to go up because, frankly, the price of oil is coming close to bankrupting the airline industry and driving those costs. But, of course, whether it is the cost of driving the kids to school or driving to work, these high gasoline prices impact everyday Americans all across our great country. As the Senator from Alabama noted, sometimes Congress's best intentions backfire in things such as ethanol subsidies, using corn, using food for fuel, and leading to skyrocketing--helping to lead to skyrocketing food costs, not to mention livestock feed and other unintended consequences. We need to recognize that while developing renewable fuels certainly has its place as a part of the answer, no single solution is a panacea. All of these have to add to our energy diversity and our energy mix in order to provide the relief the American people want and need. Increasing the supply, which will help bring down the cost of oil and the cost of gasoline, as I said earlier, must begin here at home using America's natural resources. Why Congress would mandate, in effect, that we can't buy American, we have to buy foreign when it comes to oil, is beyond me, and it just doesn't make any sense. We can develop environmentally responsible oil production right here at home if Congress would simply act. The only real commonsense near-term solution to bringing down prices at the pump is to take advantage of the enormous natural resources we have right here at home. It is estimated that if Congress stopped penalizing and handcuffing American energy production right here at home, we could produce an additional 2.7 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day. That would be 3 million fewer barrels of oil a day that we would have to buy from Canada, from Venezuela, and from nations in the Middle East. Allowing American production would send a strong message to the American people and to the financial markets that we are working as quickly as possible to drive down gas prices for American families. It would reduce speculation on the commodities markets that is helping to drive up the price of oil because when the financial markets see the Congress doing nothing and see the supply of oil remain static and see the demand increase, it is going to continue to drive prices higher and higher. Unfortunately, we have seen too many Members of Congress block sound energy policies that would give American companies access to our valuable natural resources, such as we have heard about oil deposits in Alaska, offshore deposits, and shale oil sites that the Senator from Alabama mentioned a moment ago. I think most Americans take an instinctive pride in the ``Made in America'' label, and wouldn't it be nice when it came to the gas pump if we saw a ``Made in America'' label on that gas pump. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about what I think is probably the No. 1 issue on the minds of most of my constituents in Texas and most people in America today. It is the reason we had a bunch of truckers here yesterday complaining about the inaction by Congress when it comes to the price of fuel they need to earn a living and move America's goods and services around this country and to our homes. I hope the majority leader and Members of Congress will work together on a bipartisan basis to try to bring some of these policies to the floor as soon as possible and without a moment of unnecessary delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the summer travel season rapidly approaches, the cost of gasoline continues to skyrocket and the American people are left to wonder whether Congress has any plans to do anything about it. Unfortunately, every ``commonsense solution'' that has been offered seems to be far from common sense or a solution because most of those that have been offered within the last year would only serve to raise, not lower, gasoline prices. So far, Congress has offered the American people little more than newsclips and sound bites from hours of endless hearings lambasting, usually, the oil companies. The result, of course, has not been any reduction in gasoline prices but proposal after proposal to raise taxes on America's energy companies, which--guess what--would ultimately be passed on to the consumer, thus raising prices and not lowering prices. This policy posture reminds me of a quip from former President Ronald Reagan, who said, ``Congress' approach is that if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; if it stops moving, subsidize it.'' History has shown that a tax increase ultimately has the effect of not only passing along costs to the ultimate consumer but of drastically reducing supply. From 1980 to 1988, this same tax idea, so- called windfall profits tax, actually caused a decline in oil production, reducing domestic oil by as much as 8 percent--that is right, reducing America's supply of its own natural resources and increasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. The result, of course, was not eliminating a perceived windfall but, rather, causing a precipitous fall in production of American oil and, as I said, an increased dependence on foreign oil. The problem, then, is the same as the problem today--not a cabal of oil executives conspiring to swindle the American people but a shortage of oil around the world. With burgeoning economies such as those in China and India, demand for oil has skyrocketed, while the supply has lagged behind. Raising a tax on domestic energy companies only takes away from the capital that could be used to reinvest in domestic energy discovery and production. It does nothing to address the world's stagnant supply of oil. We can pass a lot of laws here in Congress, and we can actually repeal a law every now and then, but we can't repeal the law of supply and demand. This is the law that for some reason Congress just refuses to learn. In fact, one of the leading contributors to oil shortages in America is actually Congress itself, which refuses to allow our domestic oil companies to tap into American natural resources. Revisiting failed policies of past decades and trying to beat the same old dead horse will not address our current energy challenges. Instead, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested a new solution, one of their new ``commonsense'' solutions: They will simply sue OPEC for more oil. Aside from the almost comical image of suing OPEC and somehow finding some court somewhere in the world that will accept jurisdiction of that lawsuit and somehow then direct OPEC to produce more oil so that American consumers can enjoy lower prices for that oil, I would be concerned, first of all, how OPEC might respond to such a threat. Would they simply laugh it off or would they turn off the spigot? But let's say the proponents of suing OPEC were successful. Would that make us more dependent or less dependent on imported oil from foreign sources? I think it is obvious that it would continue to make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil. We simply have to get out of this mindset that we can tax, regulate, and litigate our way to greater energy independence. At the same time, one of the things we can all agree on is the need for America to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We need to remember how much of an impact our energy policies have on the lives of our constituents, of 300 million American citizens. High gas prices are driving up the cost of living, they are raising the cost of driving to work, driving your children to school, they are driving up the price of fuel for the airline industry that is hitting American travelers even harder. While it is important that we increase our supply of energy from all sources, we need to recognize too that the heavy hand of the Federal Government can sometimes have unintended consequences. Our subsidization of ethanol as a fuel source is driving up food prices, as limited supplies of corn are being split between fuel, food, and livestock feed. At the same time, rising prices at the pump are hitting families at the dinner table as well, as transportation costs continue to drive up food prices. Now, there is no question that in the long term, renewable fuels are an important answer to the energy crisis we face today. But it is also irrefutable that oil, whether from American sources or foreign sources, will continue to be a large part of our energy supply in the near to midterm. Our solution to increasing the supply of oil must begin here at home, using America's vast natural resources. We can develop environmentally responsible oil production here at home if Congress would simply get out of the way and allow American companies to do so. In short, the majority's response to high gasoline prices appears to be summed up in three words: Posturing, suing, and raising taxes, none of which is designed to provide effective solutions to the problems that confront working families in America today. The end result is an energy policy that shuts off the valve of American energy, while desperately awaiting the last drops from the trickling pipeline of foreign oil. This schizophrenic approach to gas prices is best summed up in a cartoon I saw recently which I wish to share with my colleagues. This is from Investor's Business Daily earlier this month. While Democrats demand energy companies solve their problem, they simultaneously have rejected every responsible solution. As this cartoon points out, the first segment says, ``We demand you energy companies do something about these high energy prices,'' to which they respond, ``We can drill in ANWR.'' That is in Alaska. The answer: ``Forget it.'' ``How about offshore?'' The answer: ``Are you crazy?'' ``How about clean coal?'' ``Out of the question.'' ``Nuclear power?'' ``You are joking, right?'' ``Well, don't just sit there, do something.'' That is what Congress keeps telling the energy producers in this country time and time again. But every proposed solution, whether it is drilling in Alaska, whether it is developing offshore resources from the Outer Continental Shelf, whether it is investing America's ingenuity and know-how in using clean coal technology or nuclear energy or nuclear power, Congress seems to answer: No, no, a thousand times, no. And the price of oil and the price of energy for American consumers keeps going up, up, and up. With this kind of response from Congress, no wonder energy prices are so high. At every turn, we handcuff American producers while at the same time demand they fix the problems that Congress is creating. The only real commonsense solution is to finally take advantage of the resources we have in this country with which we have been richly blessed. It is estimated that if the Congress stopped penalizing and handcuffing our domestic energy supply, we could produce as much as 2.7 to 3 million barrels of oil a day in addition to what is being produced now. Does that not make more sense than continuing to rely on countries such as Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, and enriching our enemies and those who use that oil wealth to invest in military weapons and the like? Allowing American companies to begin producing this oil would send a strong message to the American people and to the market, which has run up the price of oil to about $120 a barrel because of speculation that Congress intends to do nothing about it, and this static supply and increasing demand continues to drive up the price of oil and refined petroleum products. But the message, if we were to pass some of this commonsense legislation, would be to tell the marketplace and the speculators we are serious about addressing this by producing as much as 3 million additional barrels of oil here in America each day. It would bring down the price, I believe precipitously, and I believe nearly immediately. Demonstrating our commitment in this way would have an immediate impact, but, unfortunately, we find ourselves locked into the same old ``he said, she said'' sort of arguments and nothing seems to happen, to the detriment of the American consumer. We find that sound energy policies continue to be blocked that would provide access to our vast natural resources here at home. If we are tired of relying upon other nations for our energy needs, along with the national security and economic risks that that entails, if we are tired of paying high prices for their low production, is it not time we did something about it here at home? It would be nice to see a ``Made in America'' sticker on the side of a gas pump for once. Aside from demonstrating our independence and lowering gas prices, it would provide a boom to our economy. What better stimulus to our economy could there be than creating new jobs here in America as a result of increased activity, exploring and developing our natural resources right here at home? We have a potentially enormous domestic energy industry waiting to be permitted by Congress to start going to work. Once we give them that opportunity, it will mean the creation of thousands of new jobs as well as more affordable gasoline and less dependence on foreign oil and gas from dangerous parts of the world. While opening American resources would be beneficial, it will not have the full intended effect unless we also encourage companies to build new refinery capacity here in America. Of course, 70 percent of the cost of gasoline is due to the cost of oil. But a lack of adequate refinery capacity to take that oil and to make it into gasoline is another reason why the supply has been limited and prices continue to go up. We have not built any new refineries in America since the 1970s, primarily because of burdensome regulation by the Federal Government. Since we have that limited capacity, we once again run in that pesky old law of supply and demand; the only law that, try as some of my colleagues might, we cannot repeal and we cannot ignore. If we do not increase refinery capacity, prices will only continue to go higher. While we increase American oil production and lower our gas prices, we should also pursue technological developments and good old American know-how that will allow us to take advantage of the energy resources we do have here and are available. We should not forget conservation efforts, and this has been one area where Congress has gotten it right by passing commonsense fuel efficiency requirements for automobiles and conserving this scarce resource. We need to also be good stewards of the environment and ensure that we are doing all we can to use our resources wisely and not wastefully. Finally, we need to pursue alternative energy solutions that will ensure our future energy production is secure. We need to start now to utilize and develop energy production methods that will work alongside of oil and gasoline to power America's economy into the future, sources such as, as I mentioned a moment ago, clean coal, nuclear energy; even biofuel and wind can be part of the answer to the overall fuel and energy mix our country needs. But we need to give all of these potential power sources a free and open chance to develop and to reach their potential in the marketplace. We must encourage American innovation and technology to help us develop the ability to use these in a way that is compatible with a good environment. We must be careful not to play favorites, as unfortunately we have, and are now seeing the consequences come home to roost and turn these industries into political tools. Different energies will work better in different areas, and all of them can work together to provide America with cost-efficient energy and the strong energy industry we need in order to fuel our growing economy. But our future energy production starts today with removing the roadblocks that this cartoon indicates that Congress has thrown in front of every opportunity to increase energy supply and bring down the cost ultimately to the consumer. We cannot make up for lost time, but we can start today by recognizing the mistakes of the past and what that has actually done to run up the cost of gasoline at the pump and made us even more dependent. We need to act now to build a strong American energy policy, bring down the price of gasoline, and free ourselves from foreign oil- producing nations, many of which want to do us harm. Every day we delay brings a heavier burden on American families with the cost of gasoline. We cannot ask the American people to foot the bill for our inaction any longer. It is time for Congress to take responsibility for gas prices in America, by allowing our industries to utilize the American resources that are available to us that will eventually help bring that price down. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for making enormous common sense on a subject where, frankly, the Congress can only be characterized as having a schizophrenic approach to our energy crisis today. Congress always seems to talk a good game, but when it comes to actually doing something about it, the solutions seem to be few and far between. I, too, think it is important to remember that since Speaker Pelosi made that promise 2 years ago, we have not had anything happen in the Congress that would indicate that this ``commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices'' is any closer today than it was 2 years ago. You would think, if any party has a commonsense solution to help reduce the pain at the pump, they would be eager to unveil it and to debate it on the floor, to show it off. But, of course, as we finished out the 2006 session of Congress, we got no such bill. So again, as elections are heating up, and, as we all know, our constituents back home are feeling the pain at the pump--and whereas there is a lot of concern today about food prices--a lot of the increase in food prices is caused because of increased costs of production on the farm, primarily energy costs. Again, we see that as it becomes a political football, it has become something to talk about in election season. But when it comes to the fact that now our Democratic friends have control of both Houses of Congress, we have seen no action--zero action--taken to reduce the price of gas. The price of gas, as we know, has continued to go up. Here is a chart that indicates--right here on Capitol Hill--that back in, I guess we can call it, the good old days, unleaded regular was $3.09 a gallon. Today, in April 2008, it is $3.49 a gallon, right here in Washington, DC. In some parts of the country, it is approaching $4 a gallon. While $3.09 is certainly not a low price by anybody's reckoning, it certainly looks pretty good today. But, frankly, we have not seen our colleagues on the other side of the aisle work with us to support any legislation that would be calculated to bring down the price of gas at the pump. As a matter of fact, this is calculated into the inaction as a result of the energy policies by the majority, and you see it costs the average American family $1,400 a year in additional energy costs, additional gasoline costs. So while the majority, which really runs the Congress, is quick to blame others for high oil prices, it is, in fact, their inaction that continues to raise gas prices. I wonder how long it will be before our friends on the other side of the aisle--who won the last election, who claimed a mandate as a result of that election--are actually going to act like the majority that they now are and help work with us to bring down prices at the pump. How long will it be before they stop pointing the finger of blame and start looking in the mirror for the solutions? The only way we are going to resolve this schizophrenia when it comes to our energy policy is by Republicans and Democrats working together to pass commonsense legislation which will have the effect of bringing down the price of gasoline at the pump. I will talk about some of those in a minute. The simple truth is, those who have been entrusted with the majority in the Senate and the House have failed to act to lower energy prices at all. Rather than show us their commonsense solution, as Speaker Pelosi talked about, they have opted to pursue political posturing, which has done nothing to deal with the problem. So, as we see, the problem just gets worse and worse and worse. Now, our side does not have all the answers, but we have proposed some good solutions, I think, which would help address America's growing energy crisis that we should and could act upon to start bringing the price of gas down. Let me say, first of all, there are several reasons why the price of gasoline is so high today. First and foremost is skyrocketing consumption in other parts of the world. This commodity is in great demand, and we are competing literally with the entire world for this scarce commodity known as oil that is then refined to make gasoline. Of course, we know there remains political unrest in producing countries as well. Every one of these problems could be mitigated, if not solved outright, by promoting and investing in America's natural resources rather than continuing to be so dependent on imported oil and gas from dangerous parts of the world and from our enemies such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. We are a politically stable nation with the resources to invest in maintaining our infrastructure and to add production that would greatly increase the available oil and gas supply. All of that adds up to lower costs at the pump and more money in the pockets of American citizens. There is a lot Congress can do that would be positive, but the one thing we can't do is to repeal the law of supply and demand. When you have a fixed supply and the demand goes up, the price invariably goes up. I don't know why Congress refuses to acknowledge that simple law of economics of supply and demand, and add to the supply. First and foremost, we need to increase American energy production right here at home. Unfortunately, we see time after time and, again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle block commonsense energy policies that would give American companies access to valuable resources such as oil deposits in the Arctic, in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf, on Government lands, and shale oil sites that have great promise in terms of the volume of oil that can be produced, the major component of gasoline. Of all of the cost drivers in gasoline, it is the price of oil that causes the greatest increase. If we could increase the supply of oil by increasing America's supply of oil by developing the resources we have in our country, it would vastly improve the situation we are in now. In addition to lowering prices at the pump and increasing domestic energy production, it would also create more jobs in America. At a time when Congress is passing economic stimulus programs, spending enormous sums of taxpayer money, one of the best things we could simply do is to change the policies that would allow us to explore and develop our own natural resources rather than depend on imported oil from foreign sources. Personally, I have always liked to see the ``Made in America'' label when I buy a product. Wouldn't it be nice to see that on the side of a gas pump here at home? Think of the thousands of jobs that could help kick-start our economy if we actually encouraged American energy production and less dependence on foreign sources. Beyond increasing the supply of oil, we also need to increase our refinery capacity, the place where that oil is then made into gasoline. We haven't built any new refineries in this country since the 1970s because of restrictive policies of the Federal Government. One of the most costly steps in producing gasoline is refining oil to make it usable in vehicles. Since we have limited refining capacity--again, the law of supply and demand--a fixed supply and increasing demand is driving up the cost of gasoline because we don't have the refinery capacity to make the gasoline out of the oil. So prices continue to go up. Finally, any American energy policy must, of course, include alternative sources of energy. We need to look to technology in our American legacy of innovation and research to help reduce our need on oil and gas, whether domestic or foreign. But that is not going to happen overnight. It is not going to happen even in the near term. But long term, clean coal technology, nuclear energy, even biofuels and wind energy can help reduce the strain on our gas supply by taking some of the energy load off of oil. We need to be careful not to cherry-pick a few politically correct solutions. We have already seen the increase in the cost of food, in significant part because of food being used for fuel. Even with the best of intentions of an ethanol policy, it has created an impending crisis when it comes to using food for fuel. I think it is time for us to take definitive steps to help reduce the cost of gasoline at the pump. We have some solutions, if we would get some cooperation on the other side of the aisle. Since the Democrats are now in charge, we would expect them to lead, to keep the promise that Speaker Pelosi made 2 years ago. We wish to help them come up with a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. But continued obstruction, continued schizophrenia, and continued reliance on politically correct solutions which sometimes end up backfiring is not the way forward. The American people are looking to us for a solution and it is high time we deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Burr's leadership on this issue. I, too, express my appreciation, and I have to say our two Senators from Hawaii are beloved by all Members of this Senate and people whom we respect enormously, as well as the Senator from Alaska. My father was a veteran of World War II, and the service each of these veterans has provided for our country and for our freedom and security is something we can never thank them for enough. I agree with Senator Burr that this bill is largely a very good bill, and I am proud to have contributed some provisions that helped enhance veterans' benefits, primarily by cutting redtape that would allow disabled Active-Duty Military personnel to get housing benefits before they officially retire from Active Duty; making family members eligible for housing grants if they are caring for a wounded warrior--and I especially want to recognize the good work of Rosie Babin, the mother of Alan Babin, of Round Rock, TX, who brought this to my attention, and so now we have this provision--and ensuring that burn victims are eligible for housing grants--and this is an area where I want to recognize the work of Christy Patten, the wife of Everett Patten, from Kentucky, who was hospitalized at the Brooke Army Medical Center with burns he received from an IED, and I thank them for the help they provided me in working with the Veterans' Affairs Committee to make sure they were provided for here. I appreciate the good work our Filipino allies contributed to our effort in the Far East, but I have to say that the problem I have with this bill, and the reason why I agree with Senator Burr, is that the U.S. Treasury is not bottomless, and the funding that is being provided to create this new pension for these Filipino allies, which were of course fighting not only with us but for themselves and for the freedom of their country, is that it would literally be at the expense of U.S. veterans. The $221 million that is addressed by Senator Burr's amendment would actually go back in to supplement benefits for United States veterans. And while we appreciate and honor and do nothing but show our respect to all of our allies who fought alongside of us in World War II, certainly that doesn't mean we are going to grant pension benefits to all of our allies, starting with the Filipino veterans, or the British, or the Australians, and all the other allies that fought with us in defeating Hitler and the threat in Japan. Frankly, I can't see our priorities are correct if we do this at the expense of American veterans. That is why I support the amendment by Senator Burr, and I hope our colleagues will vote for it, because certainly our American veterans should be our priority. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the accomplishments of a Texan--Dr. Michael DeBakey--who changed the world. I am proud we are honoring Dr. DeBakey with the Congressional Gold Medal. Dr. DeBakey's accomplishments are legendary. His lifelong commitment to the medical field and helping others has impacted the lives of countless Texans and, indeed, people around the world. Dr. DeBakey, now 99 years old, is the son of Lebanese immigrants. He was born and educated in Louisiana, but has been a Texan for nearly 60 years. His accomplishments as a researcher, surgeon, and teacher have impacted the entire world, and may never be duplicated. As Dr. DeBakey once said: ``I take pride in the outstanding surgeons I've trained who have returned to their homes throughout the world to provide the best available health care for their patients.'' He is especially recognized for his revolutionary contributions to cardiovascular medicine. Including two important inventions, the roller pump--an essential component of the heart-lung machine--and the DeBakey Ventricular Assist Device, an apparatus implanted into the heart to increase blood flow. Dr. DeBakey also designed countless medical devices now considered basic tools, such as specialty clamps, and wrote the book on numerous surgical procedures that have become standard practice in the operating room. Dr. DeBakey was an innovator from the start of his medical career. During World War II, he helped develop the concept of the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital M.A.S.H. units, a concept that saved thousands of lives during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Dr. DeBakey later helped create a medical and surgical center system for the Veterans Administration and improved the care of thousands of returning service personnel. But Dr. DeBakey will always be best known as a pioneer in cardiovascular surgery. He became head of surgery at the Baylor University College of Medicine in Houston in 1948, and helped lead the Texas Medical Center to the position of international prominence it enjoys today. He was one of the first surgeons to undertake coronary artery bypass surgery. And the first to successfully perform a carotid endarterectomy. And although generations have passed, his medical students, inspired by his example, have made countless additional breakthroughs. In 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin had a heart attack during his re-election campaign. His doctors told him he could not survive surgery. But Yeltsin called in Dr. DeBakey for a consultation and later asked him to oversee his coronary bypass, which proved successful. It was a tacit acknowledgment of U.S. medical leadership and Dr. DeBakey's international reputation. Dr. DeBakey's worldwide fame has even translated into a few humorous medical anecdotes. It seems that an auto mechanic, working on a car, good-naturedly compared his job to DeBakey's: ``I also take valves out, grind them and put in new parts. So how come you get the big bucks?'' According to the tale, Dr. DeBakey quietly replied, ``Yes, but I do it with the engine running.'' On the last day of 2005, a sharp pain in his upper torso told Dr. DeBakey he was suffering an aortic aneurysm--the very condition that his research had addressed years before. Initially, Dr. DeBakey chose to wait out the situation in hopes that it would heal itself. It didn't. After a 7-hour surgery and 9 months of touch-and-go recuperation, Dr. DeBakey went back to work. Over the years, as he helped establish Houston as an internationally known center of medical excellence, Dr. DeBakey would always be best remembered for the broader humanitarian aspects of his work. He dedicated countless hours to advising developing nations, and training doctors and medical authorities to establish stronger and more efficient health care systems. Dr. DeBakey has been honored by a multitude of organizations, governments and medical institutions. He has received the Library of Congress Living Legends Award, the American Heart Association Gold Heart Award, the National Medal of Science and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to name a few. Today, Dr. DeBakey will be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal--the highest civilian award Congress can bestow. Dr. Michael DeBakey has helped millions of people to live longer and more productive lives. He is a Texan who has helped change the world, and a Texan worthy of this honor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is my honor to speak today about a young man whose courage and strength have earned him the Silver Star, and more importantly the respect and admiration of all those who have heard about his story. SSG Justin Young was born in Mesquite, TX, just outside of Dallas. The son of John Young and Kathy Sutton, Justin was a swimmer for the Boerne High School Greyhounds. After graduating, he told his dad he needed to find his priorities and his focus in life. That level of maturity and insight is rare for someone so young, and it already tells you something about the character of Justin Young. Justin decided what was best for him was to join the U.S. Army. I doubt anyone in this body would deny that the U.S. Army has a long and storied history of taking young men and women with strong character and transforming them into proven soldiers, and also into courageous leaders as well. Justin was no exception. Just over a year ago, on March 24, Justin and the rest of the 82nd Airborne were conducting operations in Diyala Province in Iraq. As the squad leader with C Troop, Justin led his nine-soldier squad into a compound in Qubbah, Iraq, a location where known enemy fighters were entrenched. Once inside the compound, Justin and his troops quickly encountered armed insurgents. Justin disarmed and detained a guard before pressing on. In the confusion of the initial entry, Sergeant Young was ambushed by a hidden fighter about 10 feet away. The enemy fired his AK-47 assault rifle, hitting Justin's rifle three times and striking Justin once in the chest. The force of these shots sprayed shrapnel up into Justin's neck and knocked him off his feet. Injured, and with a broken weapon, Justin killed his attacker and got to his feet. Now, it is difficult for us here in the comfort of our Nation's Capitol to imagine what such a fight for one's life must be like. We can only try to imagine the chaos and confusion, the adrenaline, the pain, and the fear. You wouldn't blame anyone for pulling back after something like that. But, frankly, that is one thing that makes these young men and women so exceptional, and that is what makes them the U.S. Army. Justin got up, took a confiscated enemy AK-47 and three magazines, and refusing medical attention, continued to lead his troops through 5 more days of fighting. That is, Mr. President, the kind of courage, strength, and selflessness that ought to leave all of us in awe. Justin finished out his 15-month assignment in Iraq in August and came home, a hero to many--perhaps not the least of which being his father. Try as he might, his dad John simply could not put into words how proud he was and is of his son. After having dinner with Justin's unit at Fort Bragg, he said simply, ``He's unbelievable and so are his friends.'' Both Justin and his father would be quick to remind us that even though Justin received this medal, it is all the men and women serving in our military who deserve our admiration and respect. John told me that while ``Justin was there for his buddies, they were there for him, too.'' Soldiers like Justin and his squadmates are a prime example of the great commitment all of our troops share, not only to each other but to our country as well. As such, they serve two of the most noble principles the world will ever know. What is Justin doing now? Having found his focus and oriented his priorities, with an example of true courage and dedication, Justin reenlisted in the Army just before finishing his first tour. Despite his harrowing experience, Justin stood in the sands of Iraq and he raised his right hand and swore to continue his service to the defense of our great Nation. Recognizing his great courage and leadership, Justin is now training with the hopes of joining the special forces. That is why I wanted to come to the floor today and honor Justin's exemplary service to our country. He is just one example of the bravery, courage, and strength of thousands of Texans, both past and present, who have served in the U.S. military. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I, too, am confident that we will pass important legislation on a bipartisan basis this week to provide the benefits to veterans that they have earned and that they deserve, but we can't forget the unfinished business of this Congress last December when we wrapped up the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill and we left a balance of more than $100 billion that the Department of Defense said it needed to fight the global war on terror. In other words, it is important to support our veterans, but I would submit it is equally important to make sure we are supporting our troops currently in the fight and in harm's way, and this Congress has an unfortunate record of delaying that and playing political games with that money. It is time that should end. In the Army alone, this shortfall amounts to $66 billion. As a result, the Army will run out of pay for Active Duty and National Guard soldiers in June unless Congress acts promptly. At the same time, funding for extra vehicle armor, hospital construction and renovation, and new service vehicles will dry up. Our troops will not have the resources they need to carry out their mission unless we act soon to pass this emergency supplemental appropriation. Provincial reconstruction teams will also run out of funding. These teams are an integral part of our strategy in Iraq and go a long way to fostering growth, freedom, and good ties to the Iraqi communities and ensuring we win the battle for hearts and minds as well. We have also appropriated less than half of what the military leaders in Iraq tell us they need for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program, or CERP, which is essential for continued bottom-up reconciliation efforts. We should not hold this funding hostage to political gains, and it should not become a vessel for porkbarrel projects and bloated spending. We should pass a clean emergency supplemental funding bill for our troops as soon as we possibly can, and I hope immediately following the passage of this legislation we are on today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much more time remains for business on our side?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, recently, I noted a story in the Wall Street Journal that preceded the primary date of March 4 in Texas, and Ohio as well. Not to pick on our friends in Ohio by any means, but I was interested to see the story discussed of why it is jobs and people were leaving Ohio and why people were moving to Texas. We have had 3 million people move to Texas since 2000. Basically, the journalist said it boiled down to three things: He said, No. 1, Texas is a State that believes in free trade. We believe NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, has actually increased jobs in our State and in the United States by creating jobs for those goods that are manufactured here and then sold in Canada and Mexico. No. 2, the article pointed out Texas is a right-to-work State. In other words, you don't have to join a labor union in order to get a job. You can if you want to, but you are not required to do so as a condition of employment. No. 3, this article pointed out Texas did not have a State income tax, and I assure you we never will. The people in my State like government as small as possible. They like to keep taxes low, and they realize the decisions we have made in our State have made it a conducive environment for job creators to move to our State to create opportunity for people to move there, to get a job, to raise their family, and to seek to achieve their dreams. Today, we are talking about tax day for the Federal taxpayer, and I think we ought to learn something from the lessons we have found demonstrated in places such as Texas, where we have kept taxes low. Having lower tax rates is perhaps the best stimulus package you could ever pass. We have passed a couple stimulus packages so far this year. First, the bipartisan package, which will result in a check being written to many taxpayers that they will receive in the next few weeks, and then we also passed a housing bill last week. But I submit the best stimulus we could pass is by keeping taxes low. This first chart I have demonstrates an uncomfortable fact, and that is the American taxpayer has to work until April 23 of this year in order to pay their taxes. In other words, here we are on April 15, and taxpayers still have another few days, another week or so to work to pay their tax bill before they can begin to work for themselves and for their families and for their small business. This is another revealing chart, I think, because it points out how many days of the year an individual works, or the average taxpayer works, to pay for essentials such as housing, which is very much a part of our agenda recently because of the housing crunch; health care, health care costs are a significant portion of every family's budget, and the average taxpayer works 50 days a year to pay for their health care; food, equating to 35 days; and transportation, 29 days. As you can see, to pay Federal taxes, an individual has to work 74 days; to pay the State, local, and other taxes, it is another 39 days. Particularly at a time when the economy is not doing as well as we would like, Congress seems to be acting inconsistently, first of all, in passing a stimulus package which is sending checks to taxpayers because we are worried taxpayers don't have enough money to spend to help stimulate the economy. Yet at the same time, both the House of Representatives and this body passed a budget that raises taxes, imposing almost $2,400 more in taxes onto my constituents in Texas. Now, it may not seem like a lot of money to some here in Washington, but I can assure you that to many of my constituents, this is real money and money they would prefer to have to invest in their businesses and spend according to their own desires rather than to have Uncle Sam tap them for an additional $2,400. I would also note this has an antistimulus effect--raising taxes--and is inconsistent with what we are doing with regard to trying to get more money in the hands of the American people to help us boost and stimulate the economy. To turn around and impose an additional almost $2,400 per person in taxes is inconsistent, to say the least, and is antistimulus. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that if in fact this tax increase goes into effect--the one contemplated by the 2009 budget-- more than 70,000 Texans will likely lose their jobs because the budget assumes higher taxes, which will harm job creation and reduce economic output. I know there is a lot of revisionist history in Washington about what the last 5 or 6 years has been like in terms of the economy, but the fact of the matter is the economy has been very good, by and large. At least 8 million constituents of mine in Texas benefitted from the tax relief we have passed since 2001. I would note, roughly, that same number of new jobs was created across the country--roughly 9 million new jobs--since the tax relief we passed in 2003. In 2007, at least 6.9 million Texans benefitted from the new low 10-percent tax bracket created back in 2001, and more than 2 million Texas families used the $1,000 child tax credit, all of which are timed to expire in 2011, unless Congress acts to make that tax relief permanent. If there is one thing we could do that would have the surest impact of bolstering the economy, giving people more money to spend as they see fit, it would be to make the tax relief permanent--the relief that was made temporary back in 2001 and 2003. The dividends and the capital gains reductions we passed in 2003 will also expire as well. These, of course, most often impact people when they buy and sell things they own--when they buy stock in their retirement plans, the dividends tax relief in particular. We are going to see that increase dramatically, unless Congress acts to stop the antistimulative effect I mentioned a moment ago. Today, of course, as I said, is an important day for every American, but it is certainly not a day for celebrating. This is not a holiday for most Americans. Today is a day of observance that is mandated by the Federal Government and an observance which is universally dreaded by the American people--tax day. One of the biggest reasons people hate tax day is because it reminds them of the complex, incomprehensible system through which a faraway agency, known as the Internal Revenue Service, sends them a pile of forms they have to navigate to figure out how much they owe the Federal Government. They may ask: Do I get a W-2 or a W-4? Can I fill out the 1040EZ or should I get the schedule D form? Do I fill out the 1099 miscellaneous and the 1099 dividend form? What is form 5498 for or 1065 or 4562? Well, you get my point, hopefully. Our tax laws continue to proliferate and become increasingly complex and increasingly incomprehensible to most Americans. That is why so much money is spent by average Americans getting someone else to help them figure out how to comply with the law. The only thing going down is our comprehension and our understanding of the tax system; all other costs associated with this unnecessarily complex and impenetrable system are going up. Families and entrepreneurs, as I said, spend a lot of money--billions of dollars--and thousands of hours each year trying to figure out how to do the right thing and how to comply with the Internal Revenue Code. In fact, they will spend more than 6 billion hours complying with the Federal income Tax Code, with an estimated compliance cost of more than $265 billion. This has more than doubled since the mid-1990s. Estimates are it will continue to increase at an even faster rate. Every year, the National Taxpayer Advocate highlights this complexity in one way or another as one of the top 10 problems taxpayers face. We know the Tax Code is full of special interest loopholes and that with each year the American taxpayer spends more and more time and more and more money to try to figure out how to comply with its burdensome provisions. Taxpayers, as I indicate, are working longer each year to pay for Government--a total of 113 days this year. I think most American taxpayers, if you asked them the question: Do you like the system as it exists now or would you like tax reform, something simpler, flatter or fairer? they would say: Whatever our Tax Code, whether it be a flat tax, a sales tax or an income tax, it should be based on three fundamental ideas: simplicity, fairness, and transparency. I have to tell you our Tax Code does not, as currently written, meet any of those three requirements--of simplicity, fairness or transparency. I think these simple standards ought to guide us in reforming and simplifying the income tax code. I have heard several proposals made in the last couple days. Senator Wyden, from Oregon, has talked about a flat tax he has proposed. Senator Alexander, from Tennessee, likewise has proposed a tax return you could fill out in one page. Wouldn't that be great, to have a single page, something so easy to understand you could send in a single sheet of paper and know you have complied with your obligations to pay and report your income taxes due? While comprehensive tax reform may not be right around the corner, the last thing we should do is to raise taxes on families and entrepreneurs by letting the tax relief passed by Congress in 2001 and 2003 expire. I have already talked about the budget and its impact on people in my State, but the budget passed last month would now require 27 million small businesses all across the country to owe an additional $4,100. That is, if, in fact, the revenue projections in that budget are kept, 43 million families will owe an extra $2,300 each, and 18 million seniors will each owe an additional $2,200. Amazingly, these tax hikes and increased Federal spending come weeks, as I pointed out, after Congress actually voted to send money back to the taxpayers in order to get them to spend it so it would stimulate the economy. We did this at the same time we are raising taxes and basically taking that same money away and more. If we agree that putting more money in the pockets of the American people is the best way to stimulate the economy, why are we still looking to take more money from them during tax season? One of the most effective tools for combating this and wasteful spending, in general, is more information, and I think a proposal I made yesterday, which I would talk like to talk briefly about, will actually help us hold the Federal Government more accountable for the money it spends and give the American taxpayers more information so they can make sure their voice is heard when it comes to tax policy and how much money we take out of their pockets in order to fund the Federal Government. Yesterday, I introduced a bill called the Federal Spending and Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. This bill creates an online earmark tracking system taxpayers can use free of charge to search for earmarks by recipient, appropriations bill, State, and Member in real time during the appropriations process. This legislation also directs the IRS to provide each taxpayer with a concise and easy-to-read personal record of the amount of taxes they have already paid, as well as a projection of the taxes they will owe into the future, up until the time they retire. If this sounds familiar, that is because the Social Security Administration sends a similar statement of Social Security taxes paid and how much you can expect, upon retirement, to receive in benefits. I think it can play an important role when taxpayers are planning their future, to provide them with a better idea of how much they will owe in the future so they can take that into account. These statements would provide taxpayers with a reminder of how much our Government is spending and give them even more reason to keep track of how their money is spent, along with the political accountability that would flow from that. This legislation would also build on the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which created a one-stop, searchable Web site for all Federal contracts and grants. This legislation would expand the Web site by including the expenditures of all Federal agencies, including salaries, rent, supplies, and transportation. I know not every American is going to be interested in that level of detail, but I think it is important it be made available to everyone who is interested and particularly for the press who can report on it and let the American people know what the facts are. On this tax day, I urge our colleagues in the Senate to take a new stand against growing Government, growing spending, and growing taxes. I yield the floor.