John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been working on the front lines of the battle for greater transparency and openness in our Government because I fundamentally believe the more the American people and my constituents in Texas understand about the Government and how it operates, the better accountability can take place, and people will once again feel they are in charge, which is absolutely the case. Knowledge is power, and transparency permits the accountability necessary for our system to work. Just a few months ago, Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I were successful in getting a bill signed which modernized and greatly improved our Freedom of Information laws for the first time in many years. Now it is my intent to try to accomplish that same thing with the Federal spending, and that is why today I am introducing the Federal Spending and Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. The first thing this bill would do would be to create an online earmark tracking system that taxpayers can use free of charge to search for specific earmarks by recipient, by appropriations bill, by State, and by Member, and to do so in a real-time frame of reference during the appropriations process. Of course, earmarks are especially designated appropriations for particular projects in particular locations. There is a lot of controversy about earmarks, but I think greater transparency would limit the number of earmarks introduced because were they to be completely transparent, it would discourage the use of earmarks and make certain only meritorious ones are accepted by the Congress as part of the appropriations process. Secondly, my legislation would direct the Internal Revenue Service to provide each taxpayer with a concise, easy-to-read personal record of the amount of taxes they have already paid and an estimate of the amount of taxes they will pay in the timeframe before they retire. As you know, the Social Security Administration currently already mails out a similar statement, called a Social Security account statement, which gives taxpayers a record of the earnings on which they have paid Social Security taxes and a summary of their estimated future benefits. So this taxpayer account statement would be sort of the mirror image of the Social Security statement, and it would let people know how much taxes they have paid and what their tax obligation would likely be into the future. I think this tax statement could play an important role when taxpayers are planning their future finances and provide them with a better idea of how much in taxes they will pay in the future. It will also have the added benefit of making them much more aware of what Washington is doing when it comes to their hard-earned money and the money they send to Washington to pay the bills. Finally, this legislation builds upon the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 that created a one-stop, searchable Web site for all Federal contracts and grants. My legislation would expand on this Web site by including all expenditures of all Federal agencies, such as salaries, rent, supplies, and transportation. As this chart shows, taxpayers will have to work 74 days during the year just to pay their Federal taxes without getting one red cent for themselves. Additionally, local taxes and State taxes account for an additional 39 days of work, and that is before they begin to work to pay their own bills, their other bills. For housing, it is roughly 60 days out of the year; health insurance, 50 days out of the year; food, 35; and transportation, 29 days out of the year. So these living essentials are being squeezed by the Federal tax burden, and I think it is important for people to understand that. Frankly, once they do, I think their voices are then much more likely to be heard when loose talk in Washington occurs about raising taxes. I was interested to hear our colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, talk about the alternative minimum tax. That is a perfect case study of why, when people talk about taxing the rich, really what they are talking about is taxing people who earn a living. That was a classic case where the alternative minimum tax was passed to target 155 taxpayers who did not otherwise pay Federal income tax because of their deductions, due to State and local taxes. Well, no surprise those 155 targeted taxpayers grew last year to 6 million taxpayers, and this year it would have grown to 23 million middle-class taxpayers because it had not been indexed. Once again, taxing the rich turns into taxing the middle class. Well, I think greater transparency in the process would allow the middle class to tell Washington: Wait a minute, you need to cut out some of the waste and inefficiency of Government before you come back to me and ask me for more of what I earn, which I need to spend on housing, health insurance, food, transportation, or whatever else I see fit. I think it is about time for taxpayers to see where their money is going, and it is in this spirit I am introducing this Federal Spending and Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. I think it answers the fundamental question: Should the people who foot the bill for the Federal Government know what it is they are getting? Never would you ask a person to make an investment without giving them the ability to monitor that investment. But when it comes to taxes, that is precisely what we are asking. It is time for us to open up the process of Federal spending to the public and let the American people see where their money is going. That way they can hold their elected officials accountable and play a closer role in the determination of where we spend their hard-earned money. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the introduction of S. 2852 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been working on the front lines of the battle for greater transparency and openness in our Government because I fundamentally believe the more the American people and my constituents in Texas understand about the Government and how it operates, the better accountability can take place, and people will once again feel they are in charge, which is absolutely the case. Knowledge is power, and transparency permits the accountability necessary for our system to work. Just a few months ago, Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I were successful in getting a bill signed which modernized and greatly improved our Freedom of Information laws for the first time in many years. Now it is my intent to try to accomplish that same thing with the Federal spending, and that is why today I am introducing the Federal Spending and Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. The first thing this bill would do would be to create an online earmark tracking system that taxpayers can use free of charge to search for specific earmarks by recipient, by appropriations bill, by State, and by Member, and to do so in a real-time frame of reference during the appropriations process. Of course, earmarks are especially designated appropriations for particular projects in particular locations. There is a lot of controversy about earmarks, but I think greater transparency would limit the number of earmarks introduced because were they to be completely transparent, it would discourage the use of earmarks and make certain only meritorious ones are accepted by the Congress as part of the appropriations process. Secondly, my legislation would direct the Internal Revenue Service to provide each taxpayer with a concise, easy-to-read personal record of the amount of taxes they have already paid and an estimate of the amount of taxes they will pay in the timeframe before they retire. As you know, the Social Security Administration currently already mails out a similar statement, called a Social Security account statement, which gives taxpayers a record of the earnings on which they have paid Social Security taxes and a summary of their estimated future benefits. So this taxpayer account statement would be sort of the mirror image of the Social Security statement, and it would let people know how much taxes they have paid and what their tax obligation would likely be into the future. I think this tax statement could play an important role when taxpayers are planning their future finances and provide them with a better idea of how much in taxes they will pay in the future. It will also have the added benefit of making them much more aware of what Washington is doing when it comes to their hard-earned money and the money they send to Washington to pay the bills. Finally, this legislation builds upon the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 that created a one-stop, searchable Web site for all Federal contracts and grants. My legislation would expand on this Web site by including all expenditures of all Federal agencies, such as salaries, rent, supplies, and transportation. As this chart shows, taxpayers will have to work 74 days during the year just to pay their Federal taxes without getting one red cent for themselves. Additionally, local taxes and State taxes account for an additional 39 days of work, and that is before they begin to work to pay their own bills, their other bills. For housing, it is roughly 60 days out of the year; health insurance, 50 days out of the year; food, 35; and transportation, 29 days out of the year. So these living essentials are being squeezed by the Federal tax burden, and I think it is important for people to understand that. Frankly, once they do, I think their voices are then much more likely to be heard when loose talk in Washington occurs about raising taxes. I was interested to hear our colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, talk about the alternative minimum tax. That is a perfect case study of why, when people talk about taxing the rich, really what they are talking about is taxing people who earn a living. That was a classic case where the alternative minimum tax was passed to target 155 taxpayers who did not otherwise pay Federal income tax because of their deductions, due to State and local taxes. Well, no surprise those 155 targeted taxpayers grew last year to 6 million taxpayers, and this year it would have grown to 23 million middle-class taxpayers because it had not been indexed. Once again, taxing the rich turns into taxing the middle class. Well, I think greater transparency in the process would allow the middle class to tell Washington: Wait a minute, you need to cut out some of the waste and inefficiency of Government before you come back to me and ask me for more of what I earn, which I need to spend on housing, health insurance, food, transportation, or whatever else I see fit. I think it is about time for taxpayers to see where their money is going, and it is in this spirit I am introducing this Federal Spending and Taxpayer Accessibility Act of 2008. I think it answers the fundamental question: Should the people who foot the bill for the Federal Government know what it is they are getting? Never would you ask a person to make an investment without giving them the ability to monitor that investment. But when it comes to taxes, that is precisely what we are asking. It is time for us to open up the process of Federal spending to the public and let the American people see where their money is going. That way they can hold their elected officials accountable and play a closer role in the determination of where we spend their hard-earned money. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the remarks of the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been listening to my friend and colleague, Senator Wyden, talk, and I am going to study his bill. It sounds like it is an answer to a long overdue problem and one that, as he said, is a train wreck getting ready to happen. This is something we ought to be able to work on in a bipartisan fashion, and I look forward to studying his proposal. I want to spend just a few minutes talking about another important issue when it comes to our economy and job creation, and that is the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which the Speaker of the House, last week, said she would not allow to come to the floor of the House of Representatives. It now remains indefinite as to when, if ever, that free-trade agreement would be allowed to come to the floor. It is very important for the public to understand that this is more than just about free trade. It does, not coincidentally, create a market in Colombia for about $2.3 billion in goods and farm commodities sold by the State of Texas into Colombia. And because of a previous Andean Free Trade Agreement, actually Colombian goods coming into the United States bear no duty or tariff, but goods made or grown in Texas or throughout the United States currently bear a duty that would be eliminated by this Colombian Free Trade Agreement. Now, that is important because it creates jobs and opportunity in the United States. It levels the playing field, and it creates a situation where Colombia and the United States can become equal partners when it comes to commerce and international trade. But this is important for many other reasons. Because of the war on terror, much of our attention recently, of course, has been focused on the Middle East. But we must be careful not to neglect other parts of the world that are also very important to U.S. security and our economic prosperity, and that is particularly the case in our own hemisphere. Not the least of these important regions is one of the closest to us; that is, Latin America. Unfortunately, Latin America's close proximity hasn't always translated into close ties and friendships. We have seen firsthand and heard firsthand how some Latin American leaders--most notably Hugo Chavez of Venezuela--have taken strong stances against the United States. That is one reason it is so important we embrace wholeheartedly our friends and allies and partners in the region. Countries that share our focus on freedom and democracy and work with us to fight against terrorism and the spread of narcotics need our support to counter those who support, tacitly or otherwise, the spread of hateful anti-American ideology and militant extremism and criminal drug cartels. We must remember, if we do not stand with our friends, if we do not stay involved in Latin America, someone else will. Already, nations such as China and Iran have dramatically increased their alliances and influence within the region. Not long ago, President Ahmadinejad of Iran toured Latin America, strengthening Iran's ties to the likes of Hugo Chavez and leaders of the terrorist group known as FARC. Not long ago, I met with the commander of the U.S. Southern Command, the U.S. military official who is in charge of that region from the standpoint of the Department of Defense, Admiral James Stavridis, and I talked with him about current issues, current developments, and challenges that our Nation faces in his area of responsibility, which includes Latin America. He made it very clear to me that there is a real threat of the spread of terrorism in Latin America. A major component of that threat that remains is this so-called Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, in short. It is noteworthy that recently, when Colombian forces tracked down FARC rebels who happened to be across the border in Ecuador, they confiscated not only some computers, but they were able to confiscate 66 pounds of uranium in the hands of the FARC in Latin America. That is something that ought to cause all of us pause, and ask a lot of questions--for what purpose did they have 66 pounds of uranium in Latin America? The FARC continues to carry out terrorist attacks throughout the region, which has caused the death of numerous innocent Colombians. They finance their terrorist activities through two of the most despicable forms of criminal activity imaginable--kidnapping and selling deadly drugs. Worst of all, the FARC continues to find sanctuary from Colombian prosecution inside neighboring countries such as Venezuela. If we do not stand firmly behind Colombia, we will see the advance of both terrorist organizations in Latin America and the smuggling of illegal drugs into the United States. If drug smuggling were not enough to convince us of the need to support our friends and allies in Colombia, we should consider the potential boost to terrorist organizations throughout the world that might otherwise occur. Through lessons leaned in the poppy fields of Afghanistan, we have been made painfully aware that the drug trade often finances global terrorism. Without a strong ally in Colombia to fight the expansion of drug cartels and terrorist-backed drug trade, global terrorism will find new financial roots from which to grow and carry out its murderous plans. I have had the privilege of traveling to Colombia and meeting with President Uribe personally. He affirmed to me his commitment to fighting back against illegal drugs and terrorism in his own country, and he expressed a sincere desire to continue to work closely with the United States. We have a chance now to further solidify that purpose with our best ally in Latin America. The Colombian people have heard the call to democracy and freedom and they are taking it seriously. We owe it to them and we owe it to ourselves to demonstrate that the United States is a nation they can depend on. While there is no doubt that more can be done to fully cement the principles of equality and justice, their commitment to the very same principles and rights we hold dear in this country is undeniable. The Colombian people deserve our firm support and it is time for the United States to enter into a free trade agreement with them. As I mentioned last year, Texas led the Nation in exports to Colombia. Even with damaging Colombian tariffs, Texas manufacturers and farmers sold $2.3 billion worth of products to that nation. This agreement will remove those tariffs and allow Texas manufacturers and producers to sell even more goods to this large and growing market. When this market is open, employers will be able to hire more Texans to work in good, high-paying jobs, right here at home. I might add, at a time when we are concerned about immigration into the United States by people who cannot find work where they live, this is another way for us to deal with our border security issues and our broken immigration system, by creating trading partners who are able to create jobs in Latin America so people do not have to come to the United States to find hope and opportunity. Already, Colombia has been granted one-way preferential access to our markets. That country has added jobs to keep pace with growing trade in the United States and now it is time to bring it full circle. This agreement will implement two-way trade and it will level the playing field for our own manufacturers and exporters and create jobs right here at home. At a time when our economy has suffered a bit of a downturn, it strikes me as something desirable, to look for ways to bolster, indeed increase, jobs right here at home. This free trade agreement would be one way to do that. Open trade helps boost the economy and it is an essential ingredient to the growth of businesses, jobs, and our economy in general. But despite the numerous positive aspects to this agreement with Colombia, some of my colleagues continue to fight against it. In any other setting, it would be comical to lay side by side their complaints against this partnership with their vows to work with foreign governments, to supposedly improve our image in the world. While many of those on the left have vowed to work with enemies such as Hugo Chavez and sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they balk at the prospect of strengthening ties and working with our greater Latin American ally. How ironic indeed. It would seem their willingness to pander to some supersedes their desire to restore our image internationally. Shouldn't we be more willing to work with our friends and allies than our enemies? Now, more than a year after the President first began working with Congress on this agreement, and 90 days away from our scheduled recess, the majority is outraged. Speaker Pelosi particularly is outraged that this agreement is on the fast track and the President actually asked they vote on the agreement. It is sometimes comically tragic to compare the work we do here in Washington with the jobs ordinary Americans do every day. Only in Congress would a 3-month deadline not be enough to finish a project that started about a year ago. I hope the Speaker of the House will reconsider and not take the Colombian free trade agreement with all of its ramifications as merely a negotiating chip she can use against other projects in which she is interested. We have seen that happen already with the Foreign Intelligence Act modernization. The failure of the House to pass that bill has left us literally deaf to emerging terrorist activity that cannot be monitored because of the failure to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Why the Speaker of the House would compound that mistake and add insult to injury now by sticking a thumb in the eye of one of our greatest trading partners and allies in Latin America frankly escapes me. I hope she will reconsider. This free trade agreement is in the best interests of the United States. It will help create jobs here at home during a time of a softening economy. It will allow us to have a closer working partnership with one of our best allies in the region and to demonstrate to the likes of Hugo Chavez and Raoul Castro that being a friend to America produces some reward, which is closer economic ties and a better quality of life and security for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to join my colleagues because I share their concerns about the immediate need to schedule hearings and then up-or-down votes on 10 highly qualified judicial nominees currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This immediate need for judicial confirmations is especially true in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which serves the residents of Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. As a matter of fact, there are currently 19 judicial emergencies across the United States, 9 including circuit court judicial emergencies, and it is imperative that the Senate do its duty to schedule hearings and then have votes on the nominees who have been sent over by the White House. The Fourth Circuit is currently operating without a third of its judges. The Washington Post observed that: The Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies, not as a favor to the President but out of respect for the residents, the businesses, defendants and victims of crime in the region the 4th Circuit covers. I sincerely hope the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee will work with Republican Members to remedy this unfortunate and untenable situation in the Fourth Circuit. Chairman Leahy and I have a solid record of working together on a bipartisan basis on a variety of issues, ranging from open Government to public corruption, and I am hopeful we can add this to that list. I am also grateful for his cooperation in dealing with two recent Fifth Circuit nominees. The latest of these Fifth Circuit nominees is Catharina Haynes, a distinguished member of the bar in Dallas, TX, and former State court judge. In February, the chairman held a hearing for Ms. Haynes. That hearing, by the way, was the first--and is still the only--circuit nominee hearing that has occurred since last September. Thus, the problem is painfully obvious. We need more hearings and more markups of nominees and more votes on the floor. Later today, the Senate will vote on Ms. Haynes's nomination and, I hope, confirm her to the Federal bench. She is an outstanding circuit court nominee, well qualified in terms of her legal ability, her experience, and her judicial temperament. Her nomination has not been contentious or controversial. I am pleased our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rejected manufactured criticism of her record and the calls from the hard-left interest groups to stop her nomination from moving forward. I can only assume that my Democratic colleagues see these charges for what they are: reckless smears. I am hopeful we can persuade our Democratic colleagues to reject similarly spurious claims against the many well-qualified nominees who deserve to have hearings and who deserve up-or-down votes in committee and on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for moving this nomination of Catharina Haynes to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I am pleased she has been unanimously confirmed today by a voice vote. Judge Haynes is actually a former State district court judge. I am proud to call her now Judge Haynes as a confirmed United States circuit court judge. I am proud to concur with the American Bar Association's unanimous opinion that Ms. Haynes is well qualified for a seat on the Federal appellate bench. Her record as both a State judge and a member of the civil bar amply demonstrates the legal acumen, the commitment to justice, and the dedication to public service required for those nominated to serve on our Nation's appellate courts. It is truly a pleasure to recommend confirmation of a Texas lawyer with a career-long record of dedication to public service and equality before the law. Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal aid clinics, providing legal assistance to people who otherwise would be unable to afford to have a will probated or resolve family law issues. Ms. Haynes helped develop a brochure for pro se litigants, opening the doors of justice in what can be a daunting and intimidating system for disadvantaged litigants. This pattern of helping the less fortunate navigate the legal system bespeaks a commitment to the ideal of equal justice for all. This is but one aspect of Ms. Haynes's service to her community. Since 2005, Ms. Haynes has been a director of the Vickery Meadow Learning Center, a nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among the residents of a low-income Dallas neighborhood. Ms. Haynes teaches pre-GED classes at the Learning Center. Ms. Haynes's direct involvement her community demonstrates that her dedication to the rule of law is matched by her passion for public service. Ms. Haynes demonstrated this commitment to public service in 1998, when she gave up a prestigious and lucrative partnership at the Baker Botts law firm to take the bench as a State district court judge on the 191st District Court in Dallas. As a former district court and appellate judge, I can attest that the district judge's experience seeing actual litigants and the real-world consequences of their legal disputes is invaluable for later service on the appellate bench. The fundamentals of judging--analyzing the arguments presented to the court in light of the facts and the law--carry over from the trial court to the appellate level. And Ms. Haynes's experience as a trial court judge will undoubtedly remind her each day that the consequences of a judge's decisions always have a human face. As a State judge, Ms. Haynes gained deep experience in many areas of substantive law including commercial litigation, personal injury, employment, insurance bad faith litigation, and intellectual property. State court judges interpret and apply Federal statutory and constitutional law, which are, of course, the supreme law of the land, binding on judges in every State. In presiding over nearly 300 trials, Judge Haynes distinguished herself for her work ethic and commitment to the rule of law. Ms. Haynes's intellect and diligence have been evident throughout her legal career, starting with her extraordinary academic record. After graduating first in her class from Florida Institute of Technology at the age of 19, Judge Haynes went on to graduate, with distinction, second in her class at Emory University School of Law at the age of 22. In her 21-year legal career, she has been involved in a wide variety of complex civil cases in both State and Federal courts. Ms. Haynes's professional excellence has been repeatedly recognized and honored by her peers in the legal community. Her many awards include the State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Foundation Award of Excellence, and the Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, which is awarded annually to a Dallas-area attorney who has worked to advance women in the legal profession, shown outstanding legal proficiency and the highest level of ethics, and made a significant contribution to the profession. It is fitting that Ms. Haynes has received awards for her contributions to the legal profession, given that she has dedicated significant energy to promoting the professionalism and ethics that are central to the rule of law. She has written and spoken extensively on issues of civil trial litigation, professionalism, and ethics. Among her many professional leadership positions, she has served on the board of the Dallas Bar Association and the Professional Ethics Committee of the State Bar of Texas. Her life's work speaks to a belief in the high calling of a career in law and a steadfast and accomplished pursuit of the profession's highest ideals. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee recently approved Ms. Haynes' nomination and the Senate just confirmed her. The Federal bench needs more men and women of her caliber, drawn from among the best of the civil bar. Mr. President, the People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee last week urging the committee not to proceed with this nomination. To the credit of Chairman Leahy and my Democratic colleagues, they rejected this baseless and unfair attack. The lack of any substantial reason to deny this nomination is clear when we look at the pretense offered by People for the American Way for opposing Ms. Haynes. The letter claims that Ms. Haynes has no ``record of commitment to civil rights progress in this country.'' First of all, I do not know exactly what that means. I believe that this group is deliberately creating a vague standard that they can invoke to reject any nominee. I think that it is clear that there is nothing in Ms. Haynes' background that they can reasonably complain about with any specificity, so they fall back on vagueness. I don't know what this group means by a ``record of commitment to civil rights,'' so I can't respond to that other than by directing my colleagues to Ms. Haynes actual record--a record that was discussed at length in Ms. Haynes' hearing and that this letter ignores completely. Ms. Haynes has served as a volunteer for pro bono legal aid clinics, volunteering her time to protect the legal rights of those who can't afford a lawyer. Ms. Haynes helped write a brochure for pro se litigants, giving disadvantaged litigants the tools they need to vindicate their rights in courts of law. Ms. Haynes serves as a director of the Vickery Meadow Learning Center, a nonprofit organization that promotes literacy among the disadvantaged. Ms. Haynes teaches pre-GED classes at the center, aiding the less fortunate along the path to literacy, education, and a fuller civic life. By any fair reading, Ms. Haynes has an exemplary record of commitment to the high ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice before the law--ideals that I believe are at the core of civil rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before the Senator begins, I wonder if he will yield for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the clarification. I also note that the tendency in Washington and in Congress, and the Federal Government generally, is for things to get bigger rather than to contract. So while I appreciate the clarification, I am not consoled by the current limitation.

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has asked me to yield 1 minute of my time, and I will do so without yielding the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to address the Durbin amendment because I am concerned that the Durbin amendment would hurt low and middle-income families by making home mortgage interest payments higher, make them more expensive, by discouraging credit counseling and mortgage renegotiations and inadvertently steering more American homeowners into bankruptcy. Let me try to quantify what I mean in terms of the expense. It is estimated that the so-called cramdown provision would raise interest rates on average by about 1\1/2\ percent. In Texas the average home loan is $122,000 a year. The monthly payment for a 30-year fixed home mortgage at 6 percent is $734. If you add a percentage point and a half to that, it goes up by $122 a month. So if these estimates are correct--and I think they are the best information we have available to us now--the average increase to Texas homeowners would be almost $1,500 a year. It would be $1,465 a year. For that reason, among others, I oppose the Durbin amendment. The bill actually risks increasing the cost of owning a home for every American, and not just for people in my State, in Texas. There has been a little history to this provision as well. The Democratic Congress and President Jimmy Carter back in 1978 had a reason for excluding from cramdown the ability for a bankruptcy judge to actually go in and rewrite the interest rate so people could afford their home. As a matter of fact, the cramdown exception, which this amendment would eliminate, actually helps people buy homes. It is pretty clear--Senator Specter from Pennsylvania quoted a U.S. Supreme Court opinion relative to this, but it is pretty clear that the congressional intent to exclude home mortgages from cramdown was intended. Some have disputed that Congress was pursuing a policy of making home mortgages more available when we created the cramdown exception. Senator Durbin, I believe, has said that the cramdown exception for home mortgages makes no sense whatsoever. The record from the 1978 act clearly shows that Congress viewed exceptions to cramdown as a means of making mortgages more available. The Senate Judiciary Committee report explained that the purpose of the real estate exception was to: ``afford greater protection'' to real estate financing ``by creating a safe harbor that would facilitate, rather than discourage, this type of financing.'' As I alluded, the courts have recognized this policy in interpreting the act, most notable in Justice Stevens' concurrence in Nobleman v. American Savings Bank. So I would say that the Democratic Congress of 1978, President Carter, and Justice Stevens all have acknowledged that this policy of excepting home mortgages from cramdown makes sense and helps keep mortgage rates low, which I think ought to be our policy. Inadvertently, I think this amendment would also encourage more people to seek bankruptcy as a way to deal with their financial difficulties. It has been argued that this provision would actually encourage borrowers to negotiate with their lender. The one problem with that is, as we all know, most mortgages these days are actually sold by the lender; they are packaged and then purchased as securities and sold on the open market. It is, in fact, what has happened in the subprime mortgage market, which has created this crisis. The people who actually bought those securities now find that they are worth dramatically less than they thought because of the problems these mortgage holders are having. So it is certainly not a given that they will be in a position to negotiate with the lender, who no longer even holds that mortgage. I am concerned, though, that the amendment goes too far in those rare cases where negotiations are still possible to remove the homeowner's incentive to negotiate and, instead, steer them into bankruptcy. The Durbin amendment would, in fact, create a siren's song that would lure struggling families onto the rocks of bankruptcy. For most Americans, our homes are our largest and most-cherished investment. The chance to have their mortgage decreased by a bankruptcy court, basically to renegotiate what a negotiated interest rate is, would encourage struggling families to seek bankruptcy protection instead of trying to negotiate and get their finances back in order in a way that will preserve their credit and will not lure them into bankruptcy. I think it is worth noting that bankruptcy itself has lasting and serious consequences to the credit rating of the people who seek it. Bankruptcy is not in the long-term interest of every family who falls behind on their mortgage. We should encourage negotiation where possible. In fact, we know that is what happens anyway. Very few mortgage holders refuse to negotiate with the borrower when they get behind in their payments because, frankly, they don't want the property back. They want to continue the loan in effect, if possible. So I think the Durbin amendment actually discourages negotiation and creates an effective magnet, attracting people into bankruptcy. I have already talked about why I think that is a bad idea. Of course, this amendment also waives the bankruptcy law's counseling requirement when a home is in foreclosure, which is inconsistent with the underlying Shelby-Dodd compromise that provides $100 million to encourage credit counseling. The goal of the bill should be to help struggling families get back on their feet, not encourage bankruptcy filings that would raise mortgage rates for everybody, ruin the credit of the borrower, and ultimately not solve the problem it is intended to solve. For that reason, I oppose the Durbin amendment and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. CORNYN. I accept what the Senator says. I have no reason to dispute it. I, frankly, have no knowledge of it. I know that currently we have roughly 2 percent of the mortgages in America that are in foreclosure proceedings. While there is undoubtedly a serious problem, I don't think this is the right solution to it. I said that some estimates are that it would increase interest rates by 1.5 percent on mortgages. On a $122,000 mortgage in Texas, it would increase annual costs about $1,500. So I must oppose it.

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Montana be recognized and then I be recognized following the Senator from Montana.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we know Senators Dodd and Shelby are working on, hopefully, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will come to the floor this week that will help Congress do what needs to be done and, hopefully, what will actually work to try to relieve some of the crisis caused by the subprime lending credit crunch and the slowdown in the housing industry. We have all acknowledged this slowdown we have seen in our economy over the last few months, and we have resolved to work together to try to give the American people the confidence that if there is something we can do, we will try to do it in a way that actually works and relieves the problem in a bipartisan way. I think, frankly, that is met with some measure of relief by people across the country. I think we got off to a pretty good start when Speaker Pelosi and Republican leader John Boehner and Hank Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, came up with a stimulus package that passed with strong bipartisan majorities. I think as much as anything it demonstrated that we are capable of acting together in a bipartisan way rather than just engaging in gridlock and finger pointing. I hope we will continue along that trend as we consider the legislation that Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd are working on. To me, one of the best parts about the stimulus package we passed was the small business bonus depreciation provisions which gave small businesses that invested in new equipment an opportunity to write that off on an accelerated basis. It provided a great incentive for them to purchase that new equipment and hopefully allow them to continue to create jobs. It is no secret about 70 percent of the jobs created in America are created by small businesses. We ought to do everything in our power to try to help them continue to generate jobs for hard-working Americans. A little earlier today, I had a colleague come up to me and say, basically: We have to do something to deal with this crisis. Of course, I added: Well, I hope we do something. But more than that, I hope we do something good or something that will actually work and certainly not something that will actually make things worse. Like the medical profession, we ought to consider in the Senate taking a Hippocratic oath of our own that first we do no harm because, frankly, on the earlier stimulus package, where we believed it was necessary to act to give the public confidence--that we could on a bipartisan basis--basically we ended up spending about $150 billion to do so. I think extraordinary measures were called for, but it was with more than a little trepidation that I voted for that bill which added to the debt, particularly when we are not doing a good job of dealing with the deficit in other areas and unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government, particularly when it comes to entitlement spending. But for the same reason I voted for tax cuts in 2003--which I think helped contribute to about 50 months of consecutive job growth in this country, and about 9 million new jobs--I think sometimes extraordinary measures are called for to help stimulate the economy. But I do think the very best stimulus package we could possibly pass would be to lighten the tax load on small businesses and American taxpayers. It works. We know when people can work hard and keep more of what they earn, then it generates not only more income from them and a greater incentive to work hard, it also, ironically, generates more revenue for the Federal Treasury because more people are working, more people are paying taxes, and, thus, it helps us deal with the deficit in a way that is constructive by putting people to work. But at the end of the day, I think what we need to do this week is to make an immediate, palpable difference in the lives of families with distressed mortgages. The housing market ought to be our focus and helping people with distressed mortgages not have to unload those through foreclosure and perhaps lose everything they have invested. That is why I would like to see the provisions from something called the SAFE Act become law. The SAFE Act would expedite the delivery of the full $180 million appropriated for foreclosure counseling just last December. And to help stabilize the housing market itself, the SAFE Act includes a $15,000 tax credit over 3 years. This has been proposed by our colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson. I believe Senator Stabenow on the other side of the aisle has something similar. But basically what it would do is provide a tax credit that would give people an incentive to buy existing inventory of new housing or housing that was currently in foreclosure proceedings. Obviously, our housing market has a big impact on employment, and it has a ripple effect on the economy generally. I think this $15,000 tax credit over 3 years would provide a powerful incentive for people who are in the market to purchase a single family home in foreclosure or a new home from existing inventory which now in many cases just sits vacant. This would make it more affordable for families looking to start buying a home and will provide an incentive for people to reenter the market in the coming year. Finally, to make sure these same problems are avoided in the future, we need to focus on increasing transparency and information for prospective borrowers. I agree with Senator McCain who said we should not be about bailing out unscrupulous lenders who made bad loans or people who made the mistake of borrowing money they could not pay back, perhaps betting on the continuous bubble in housing prices in the housing market. But what we do owe the American taxpayer, the American consumer, is transparency and information which will allow them to consider--for example, when they buy an adjustable rate mortgage--and understand what they are getting into. That means letting borrowers know the full details of any new introductory rate and payment and what their new adjustable rate will be and how much they can expect their payments to be. We must ensure consumers fully understand their mortgages and that they have a completely free and well-informed choice when it comes to their loans. That is the only way I believe we can hope to avoid future problems in the housing and banking industries in the future, beyond making sure that underwriters don't intentionally loan money to people they know can't pay it back. But those have to be resolved on a transaction-by-transaction basis, perhaps by the courts. The Senate should make sure that any proposal does not produce insurmountable challenges to prospective and current homeowners. Too often, the work we do in the Senate has the effect of unforeseen and unintended consequences. Here again, we should do no harm, and I think we should be careful not to cause problems while we are trying to fix problems. For that reason, I would be hesitant to support any proposal that increases the size of the Government's budget at the expense of the family budget. I could not support proposals that actually make home ownership more expensive, encourage costly litigation, or expand Washington programs. The Senate should not be making home ownership more expensive for working families. That is what I believe, for example, the bankruptcy provision would do, which would allow bankruptcy judges to actually cram down reduced interest rates, thus devaluing that particular financial instrument, which would actually in the long run have the unintended consequence of raising interest rates and the cost of mortgages. I think every Member of this body can agree the last thing the Senate should be doing is making things harder on families and making it more difficult for small businesses to grow and create jobs here at home. When this Senate passed the economic stimulus package, it affirmed the basic principle that economic growth is best served through taxpayers and people who are earning the money being able to keep more of it. It would be incomprehensible to me to now turn around and pursue a mortgage plan that would take that money away through bigger Government programs or higher costs for homes or mortgages. Let me say that in my home State of Texas, we continue to enjoy strong job creation. Although there has been a downturn in the housing markets, by and large, we are running in a countercyclical fashion to much of the rest of the Nation. Our unemployment rate is at a 30-year low, and over the past year, Texas has led the Nation in job creation. We have accomplished this by some things that are pretty obvious, but I think they are worth noting; things such as low taxes, commonsense regulation, and an economy based to a large extent on free trade. All of these factors give businesses the tools to grow and families the stability to live. Not coincident, naturally, it allows or encourages job creators and businesses to move to our State, thus creating in the last--well, since 2000 about 3 million people have moved to Texas. I think people tend to vote with their feet where they find opportunity, and I think this formula of lower taxes, less regulation, the right to work without having to join a labor union--you can if you want, but you shouldn't be forced to do so just to get a job--those, in addition to commonsense tort reform and some medical liability reform, which has reduced the cost of medical liability insurance some 17 percent, have encouraged a lot of physicians to move to our State and has created a lot more access to good quality health care. So from my standpoint, we kind of know what works, what helps encourage the economy, what helps stimulate the economy, and what provides the incentives for American workers to work hard and businesses to be attracted to a particular State or location. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting well-reasoned and proven measures such as these, while rejecting other proposals that would increase onerous regulation, drive up housing and loan costs, and build a barrier between more families and home ownership. We have worked well in the past when we have worked together, and I hope this week will be yet another example of good work we can accomplish when we put partisan politics aside to work out solutions in a way that addresses the real problems that face the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)2 of the Budget Act for consideration of this amendment to S. Con. Res. 70, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that will increase income tax rates on taxpayers, including, of course, middle-class families and others. If this looks familiar, it is because it is. Last year, we had a vote on this precise amendment. You will see that we had 63 Senators vote in support of this point of order against raising income tax rates, including our friends on the other side of the aisle whose names are indicated on this chart. I understand from the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee he may offer a procedural objection to this amendment, but we are prepared at the appropriate time to offer a motion to waive any objection. I ask for support on this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. CORNYN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4313 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment concerns pay-go or pay-as- you-go. Right now pay-go may be waived if 60 Senators support doing so. My amendment would strengthen the pay-go provision by requiring that all 100 Members of the Senate support waiving pay-go before it may be waived. Pay-go is so riddled with exceptions that the Wall Street Journal has referred to it as the ``pay-go farce.'' If the Senate is serious about fiscal discipline and believes that pay-go is a useful tool in helping control Government spending, then the Senate should be unanimous in passing any bill that violates pay-go, a tool the majority, including members of the Budget Committee, has advocated as a way to keep check on expanding or creating a new Government program. It has been criticized because it does not apply to discretionary spending and has failed to constrain the growth in entitlement programs. Pay-go needs to be honest. There needs to be truth in legislating when it comes to appropriations. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.