John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there they go again. On Monday the Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, added another account to its litany of shameful actions by refusing to preclear a commonsense Texas State law that would require all voters to show a photo ID prior to casting their vote. The Justice Department's refusal to preclear this change in Texas law by the Texas Legislature is simply inexcusable. The Texas voter ID law is constitutional, and it is a popular measure necessary to protect the integrity of the Texas election process. This is not and should not be a partisan issue. The polling I have seen shows that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the 70 percent range all agree that voter ID laws are commonsense responses to the concerns many have about the integrity of the election process. But, unfortunately, I can only conclude that Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department have chosen the low road of politics as opposed to the high road of the rule of law. I believe, unfortunately, the evidence supports the conclusion that this represents the lowest form of identity politics. In the face of high gas prices, the sluggish economy, and a struggling and rising national debt, the Obama administration has used every tool in its political toolbox to try to distract the American people from their priorities--jobs, the economy, and debt--and, unfortunately, divide the American people while they distract them from the real issues. Political games should not force the State of Texas or any other State to spend its taxpayer dollars suing the Department of Justice in Federal court, which it now must do, to enforce a State law that is clearly constitutional. One does not have to take my word for it--just read an opinion by Justice Stevens in 2008 upholding the constitutionality of a similar Indiana law. It is nearly identical to the one in Texas, and it is justified by a valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. But the Justice Department continues to insist there is something wrong with requiring every voter to prove their identity before they vote, just as you are required to do before you board an airplane, buy a pack of cigarettes at a convenience store, or buy a six-pack of beer at that same convenience store. If you look on the Web site of the Department of Justice, in order to gain entry to the Department of Justice building, you need--you guessed it--a photo ID. Well, this may sound like common sense. Common sense is evidently not that common at the Department of Justice these days. You would have to be blind to reality to deny that a significant amount of voter fraud exists in the United States. Every State has had its experience with voter fraud. In Texas, back in the famous Box 13 election between Coke Stevenson and Lyndon Johnson for the U.S. Senate, they found a number of votes from voters who were not even alive--dead votes. Perhaps one of the most recent books on this was written by John Fund in 2008, a book called ``Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.'' In that book Mr. Fund demonstrates why the American people and Texans fear that their legally cast vote will be diluted with the vote of people who are not legally qualified to cast a vote. Unfortunately, we also know that identity theft is rampant. We have seen this in our broken immigration system, where people claim Social Security numbers and identification that is not their own but is actually someone else's. It is also very difficult to prove because often the legal authorities lack what they need in order to dispute a voter's identity, thus the need for a government-issued photo ID. As a result, officials frequently hesitate to accuse someone of casting an illegal ballot even when they are almost certain a crime is being committed. It is easy for identity thieves to use another person's voter certificate to fraudulently cast a ballot when there is no real requirement for voters to prove their identity. We should be all about making their job more difficult, not easier. Every case of actual, alleged, or perceived voter fraud has the potential to drive prospective voters out of the Democratic process, undermine the legitimacy of our government, and swing the results in close elections. The Texas voter ID law is necessary to prevent these evils. This administration would have you believe that State ID laws are intended to drive down the turnout among certain ethnic groups, but this could not be further from the truth. If people are legally qualified to vote, this is a law designed to protect their rights and to make sure their vote counts and that in a close election it will not be swung by people who have no legal right to vote. In fact, in their own letter to the Texas secretary of state, the Justice Department presented no evidence--zero, zip, nada--of discriminatory intent in the Texas voter ID law. This is because the law was clearly intended to uphold the sacred principle of ``one person, one vote'' and is narrowly tailored to avoid all retrogressive effects on voting rights. For example, under Texas law every registered voter is entitled to receive a photo identification card free. So if you don't have a driver's license and you don't have any other form of photo ID, you can get one for free. It also exempts from its requirement anybody above the age of 70. What is more, let's say election day comes and you don't have a photo ID, but you want to vote. You can cast a provisional ballot even without a photo ID just so long as you come back within 6 days and produce one showing that you are who you say you are and thus prove you are legally qualified to vote. The Texas voter ID law will also make sure no legitimate voter is caught off guard by requiring the State to inform and educate all citizens as to what the new law requires. Despite these multiple layers of protection, the Justice Department insists on pushing their false narrative that this law will somehow suppress legitimate voter turnout. Just the contrary is true. The only votes this ID law will suppress are those people who have no legal right to vote, and it will protect and preserve the right of legitimate voters to cast their vote undiluted by votes of people who are not qualified to vote. We also know there is data from States that have recently passed voter ID laws that demonstrates there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim of the Department of Justice that it will somehow potentially suppress minority votes. For example, in Indiana the subject of the Supreme Court decision in 2008 was an Indiana voter ID requirement. Election data in Georgia shows that turnout has increased since the passage of these commonsense photo ID requirements. The data also shows that the voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana had no negative impact on minority groups. These findings should be unsurprising given some of the research that has been conducted by a number of universities, including the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska, among others. Research compiled by the University of Denver and the University of Nebraska from 2000 to 2006 leaves no doubt about the conclusion. They say: ``Concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.'' In spite of these facts, in spite of the evidence, in spite of the law, the Holder Justice Department continues to cling to their false narrative, claiming that Texas has not demonstrated significant enough evidence of voter fraud to justify its voter identification law. That turns the law of the land on its head. Texas is not required to prove to the satisfaction of Eric Holder and the Justice Department that there is sufficient basis for them to pass a State law. As the occupant of the chair knows as a former attorney general of his State, the burden is on those who would contest the constitutionality of the law to prove it is unconstitutional or to otherwise prove that it violates Federal law. Under Attorney General Holder's view, the State of Texas and any State that passes a voter ID requirement is presumed guilty until proven innocent. As I said, that turns the legal question on its head. It is exactly the opposite of what it should be. The Department of Justice also conveniently fails to mention that voter impersonation is almost impossible to detect or prove without a photo ID requirement such as the one passed by the Texas legislature. They similarly fail to mention that this type of law is perhaps the best way--the least burdensome way, the least intrusive way--to eliminate in-person voter fraud. Why would the Justice Department want to prevent States such as Texas from enforcing laws that help detect and deter voter fraud? I can't find an answer to that any other way other than to say that it is pure politics. The Federal Government should be doing everything in its power to encourage States to protect the integrity of the ballot, to make sure that every legitimate voter's vote counts and is not diluted by the illegal vote of someone who is not qualified under the law to cast a ballot. Instead, Eric Holder's Justice Department is throwing up roadblocks to those State-based efforts to protect the integrity of the election process, forcing my State and taxpayers in my State to waste money to try to go to court and now to override his decision, which the Court will do. Why will they do that? How can I be so sure? Because the U.S. Supreme Court is the law of the land, not Eric Holder and not the Justice Department, and the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. But that is irrelevant to Mr. Holder and the Justice Department, so my State has to spend--waste, really--taxpayer money to defend this legitimate and evenhanded requirement when we should be focusing on other important issues. This Washington game of divisive identity politics is reprehensible, and Attorney General Holder should be ashamed of himself for engaging in it. I hope my colleagues will join me in calling on Attorney General Holder to respect the rights of the people of Texas and of their States by reversing his decision to block our commonsense voter identification law. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to express concerns about the Menendez/Burr amendment, to include the NAT GAS Act in the transportation bill. This legislation would provide tax credits to promote natural gas vehicles and refueling infrastructure by imposing a user fee on natural gas fuel used as vehicle fuel. Although the tax credits are detailed in the legislation, it is less certain whether the imposition of a new tax applied to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) used for transportation will cover the costs of the subsidies. Instead of providing more directives from Washington to the marketplace, Congress should be concerned with the overall access to energy, and the President should work to alleviate the pain caused by his policies which raise energy prices. Companies and consumers can make their own choices about what fuel to use, and what kind of car to drive. We should be out of the game of favoring one choice over another, and ensure that fuel supplies are not unnecessarily restricted. Consumer choice should be the driver of technology in the marketplace, not securing favor in Washington. In fact today consumers can evaluate a myriad of vehicles that fit their needs, from hybrids to traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. In addition, the high cost of gasoline and lower cost of natural gas has already led General Motors and Chrysler/Dodge to announce plans to build natural gas fueled pick- up trucks. While the market is already seeing some transition toward natural gas vehicles, President Obama's policies to limit supplies of fossil fuels could cause economic pain for natural gas users in the future. President Obama's support of duplicative, unnecessary regulations at the federal level, raising taxes on producers, and restricting access to federal lands by keeping them off-limits or by slow-walking permits, will result in raising natural gas prices by reducing supply. Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to enact policies that harm oil and natural gas production. Consider the rising cost of gasoline and the Obama administration's failure to take concrete actions to alleviate the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. The average U.S. price of a gallon of regular gasoline has more than doubled since the week of his inauguration in January 2009, from $1.84 to $3.82. I have great pride for my home state of Texas, and the countless producers and operators who have made Texas the leading U.S. producer of oil and natural gas, and we know that America has only just begun to tap its vast resources. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's proposed offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan for 2012 to 2017 eliminates 50 percent of lease sales provided for in the previous plan, and imposes a moratorium on developing energy from 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Expanding access to federal onshore and offshore lands, and eliminating permit delays for leases, could help reduce prices and strengthen our energy security while creating jobs and boosting tax revenues. The moratorium on exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, and persistent delays for permits in shallow and deep water leases, could result in a 19 percent decrease in production in 2012 compared to 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration. At the same time the President highlights our Nation's vast natural gas resources, his administration through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering burdensome new regulations on which would make securing that fuel much more difficult. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that the EPA alone ``is moving forward with 31 major economic rules and 172 major policy rules'' that affect our energy supply. The Chamber rightly calls this ``an unprecedented level of regulatory action.'' Given the Administration's track record with gasoline prices, it is easy to see a similar direction for natural gas prices in the future-- particularly as the EPA continues to propose devastating regulations that lead to the retirement of coal-fired electricity generation and ensure greater demand for natural gas in power generation. American energy producers are also deeply worried about the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations, which will serve as an energy tax on all consumers. I know there are natural gas producers and transit authorities in my State who favor this legislation, however, instead of directing demand for a product, I believe we should concern ourselves with ensuring ample supplies of the fuels we need. We should promote access to our Nation's natural gas, and discourage duplicative regulations, and stay out of the business of manipulating demand for its use and leave that to the marketplace.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my concerns on behalf of the 26 million constituents I have in Texas about the rising gas prices and the administration's failure to take reasonable and rational and practical steps to help ease the pain Americans are feeling at the gas pump. Just think about it. We know unemployment is unacceptably high and intractable, notwithstanding our private sector economy's best efforts to grow and to create jobs. So we know people are out of work. We know many of them are unable to pay their mortgages and are literally losing their homes to foreclosure. Those who are fortunate enough to have jobs are experiencing higher prices when it comes to food, when it comes to health care, notwithstanding the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, of which the President said the average family would save $2,500 in health care premiums. Last year alone, there was almost a double-digit increase in the cost of health care for most American families. Now, to add insult to injury, we have higher gas prices, which are crowding out other spending and lowering the standard of living for American families who are struggling with the slow economic recovery we are experiencing. The average price of gasoline in the United States has more than doubled since the week of the inauguration of President Obama in January 2009. In January 2009 a gallon of regular gas was $1.89. Today it averages $3.79 a gallon. The Associated Press reports that the average American household spent $4,155 filling up at the pump in 2011. That is the annual cost of gasoline for a typical U.S. household. I remember arguments--passionate arguments--about the payroll tax holiday and the President holding press conference after press conference saying, if we would just pass the payroll tax holiday, then families would have $40 more a month spending money in their pockets. Well, higher gas prices have wiped that out and more. Gasoline costs now amount to 8.4 percent of the median household income--8.4 percent. I am not telling anybody something they do not already know and they have not already felt, that they have not already experienced. Everyone has experienced the higher prices. This is the highest price for gasoline since 1981 when costs soared because of another crisis in the Middle East. Weeks ago President Obama said there is very little he could do about high gas prices in the short term. I tell you, it is good he made those comments in Miami, FL, and not Midland, TX, because Texans know that greater domestic energy production would help reduce oil prices and, therefore, reduce gasoline prices. Roughly 70 percent of the price of gasoline is the price of oil from which gasoline is refined. You know, sometimes I feel as though in Washington, DC, we are operating in a parallel universe that has very little in common with the rest of the country. And here it is--not to mix my metaphors--ships passing in the night. But the fact is, the laws of supply and demand cannot be suspended by the Congress or the President of the United States. President Obama used to agree with that. Last March, for example, he said producing more oil in America would help lower oil prices. Well, lipservice will not produce lower oil prices, but, yes, producing more oil will because the greater the supply--we know the laws of economics say, demand being the same, greater supply will lower prices. The fact is, there is greater demand all around the world, not just in the United States, as economies are growing in China, in India, and Brazil and places such as that. To add insult to injury, this administration has adopted policies that have directly conflicted with the goal of lowering oil and gasoline prices. I do not know how to reach any other conclusion but to say it appears to me that the administration has intentionally enacted policies that will raise gasoline prices. I know they will deny that. They will say it is not true. But I do not know any other explanation. Let me provide the evidence that leads me to that conclusion and perhaps you will agree. Today we learned that President Obama has been busy calling Senators on the other side of the aisle and asking them to vote against an amendment being offered by Senator Hoeven of North Dakota that would allow the Keystone XL Pipeline project to move forward--the President, on the phone calling Senators saying: Vote against the Keystone XL Pipeline amendment offered by Senator Hoeven. The President has previously said there is not a single morning he wakes up that he does not think about creating jobs. But, apparently, he woke up today thinking about how to lobby against jobs because the Keystone Pipeline, in addition to providing an additional supply of crude oil from the tar sands in Canada that would be transported to the United States, would be turned into gasoline in places such as Port Arthur, TX--apparently, the President got up and thought: How can I obstruct additional supply? How can I destroy the jobs that would be created, which is directly contrary to what he professed he does when he wakes up each morning thinking about how to create new jobs. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a $7 billion private investment that will create 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing alone. It will add tens of thousands of additional jobs throughout the economy in other sectors that will support the pipeline construction. This is kind of personal for me and my constituents in Texas because we are an energy-producing State. We actually think that is good because it has created a lot of jobs. It has allowed us to weather this recession. People have voted with their feet, and they have moved from other parts of the country to Texas because that is where the jobs are so they can provide for their families and they can try to achieve the American dream. Texas as a whole provides more than one-quarter of America's total refining capacity. Last month, when the subject of the Keystone Pipeline was very much in the news, I visited with a number of refinery workers in Port Arthur, TX, who expressed concern about the future of their livelihood. These constituents of mine in Port Arthur, TX, could care less about the politics in Washington, DC--who wins, who loses, the sort of stuff that seems to facilitate an obsession inside the beltway. But they were particularly upset--not just Republicans but Democrats, Independents, unaffiliated folks. They were particularly upset with the Obama administration's rejection of the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline which, as I said, would terminate in the Port Arthur region and allow our State to refine an extra 700,000 barrels of oil each day and turn it into gasoline and other refined products that would increase the supply and thus, according to the laws of economics, have a tendency to bring prices down as we increase supply. President Obama's behind-the-scenes maneuvers, this crusade, is the starkest reminder yet. He is the only thing standing between this country and more jobs and energy security. I regret to reach that conclusion, but I do not know of any other reasonable conclusion to raise. Rather than asking Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries to produce more oil in a region where our troops have been deployed for 10 years or more, is it any coincidence that in the oil-producing regions of the world that we depend upon for oil, where our American troops have fought and some have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our country, to protect our economy, to protect our way of life, that there have been some in this Chamber who have suggested we ought to go, hat in hand, to Saudi Arabia, and say: Will you please open the spigot a little wider? Will you please supply us more oil so we do not have to do it in America? You can do it for us, and we can buy it from you. Well, I believe this administration should work closely with our partners in Canada, a friendly country where we do not have to worry about a disruption of supply because if the Iranian threat to block the Strait of Hormuz comes to pass, 20 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. You know what that would do to prices, not to mention other consequences which are entirely negative. Canada is a reliable and geographically secure trading partner. Their oil exports are insulated from the potential supply disruptions in the Middle East. Rather than demonizing oil and gas companies that employ millions of hard-working Americans, while wagering more taxpayer dollars on boondoggles such as Solyndra, the Obama administration should take its regulatory boot off the necks of our domestic energy producers. As I said, this is personal for me and my constituents because Texans are proud that our State remains the leading U.S. producer of oil and gas. As I stated, it is what has helped us grow and create an awful lot of jobs for which people are grateful. We know for a scientific fact that America has just begun to tap the potential of its vast resources. According to the Congressional Research Service, our country has more recoverable energy resources than Canada, China, and Saudi Arabia combined. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Kenneth Green has noted, the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States alone contains enough oil to fuel 85 million cars for 35 years. Yet more than 97 percent of that territory is not under lease as a result of Obama administration policies. Expanding access to Federal onshore and offshore lands, eliminating permit delays in the issuance of leases could help reduce polices and strengthen our energy security while creating jobs and boosting revenue to the local, State, and Federal Government that would help us close our budget gap. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's proposed offshore oil and natural gas leasing plan for 2012 to 2017 eliminates--eliminates--50 percent of lease sales provided for in the previous plan and imposes a moratorium on developing energy from 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The moratorium on the natural resource rich Gulf of Mexico and persistent delays in permits for shallow and deepwater leases could result in a 19-percent decrease in production in 2012--a 19-percent decrease in production. So we are not only talking about keeping the production static, we are talking about actually decreasing supply as a result of Federal administration policies. Decreasing supply will have the inevitable effect of raising gasoline prices as that happens, and then there is the regulatory impact. Everywhere I go in my State, and as I talk to people around the country--they come to visit us in the Capitol. If they are in the private sector, they say the biggest threat to their ability to start a new business or grow existing businesses and create jobs is regulatory overreach. We know during the last election the voters gave us divided government. They made it harder for the Obama administration to single- handedly pass policies such as the President's health care bill, such as the stimulus, such as Dodd-Frank on a partisan basis. So we got divided government. What we did not get is an ability to stop the regulatory overreach of executive branch agencies. If the President is serious about looking for every single area that we can make an impact on gas prices, as he pledged in Miami, he must reverse the regulatory overreach of the last 3 years. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports that the Environmental Protection Agency alone is moving forward with 31 major economic rules and 172 major policy changes. That is not something Congress is legislating. That is what the EPA is doing on its own because they are an executive branch administrative agency. But they are going to have a negative impact on our energy supply. The Chamber of Commerce rightly calls this an unprecedented level of regulatory action. It has a chilling effect not only on energy production, it has a chilling effect on jobs, something we need more than anything else as our economy struggles to recover. Even as gas prices have approached $4 a gallon, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a tier 3 rule to cut air emissions from fuels in light-duty vehicles. This rule alone would force refiners of oil to gasoline to make dramatic changes in the way they do business. A recent study concluded the rule would increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline by 12 to 25 cents per gallon. So as high as they are now, once this rule goes into effect, the price we pay at the pump could go from 12 to 25 cents higher. It could also inflate the refiners' operating costs by $5 billion to $13 billion annually and lead to a 7- to 14-percent reduction in gas supplies from U.S. refineries and force as many as seven U.S. refineries to shut down. We have already seen recent reports of a number of refineries on the East Coast that produce gasoline in America shutting down because they cannot do business economically under this regulatory burden. Beyond the tier 3 rule, the American energy producers are deeply worried about the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations which will serve as an energy tax on consumers. They are also worried, as if that wasn't enough, about the agency's new source performance standards and its boiler maximum achievable control technology rule. I know a lot of this sounds arcane and is not something people talk about over the kitchen table. But each one of these cumulatively have had a negative impact on the gasoline prices that are directly harming American families in their pocketbooks, lowering their standard of living and making it harder to get by even as they struggle with the slow economic recovery. Collectively, if we were to have a moratorium on these regulations at least until we begin to see unemployment come down and the economy grow, gas prices come down--collectively, these regulations will put more U.S. refineries out of business and will lead to ever higher gasoline prices at the pump. Conversely, if we were to have a temporary moratorium, it would provide much needed relief to hard-working American families. If that weren't enough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been very active as well. I mentioned Midland, TX, which is part of the historic Permian Basin, which is a huge source of oil and gas production. Thanks to new technology and innovation, it is experiencing a second boom and creating lots of jobs and a lot of American energy. What a surprise it was when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intention to list the sand dune lizard--a 5-inch lizard in the Permian Basin--as an endangered species without adequate investigation of the science. It threatened the jobs of nearly 27,000 Texans in the Permian Basin, which is home to more than one-fifth of the top 100 oilfields in America. Looking at all of the evidence on energy prices, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that higher energy prices are part of President Obama's plan. He talks about green energy and green jobs. Those are great, but they only supply a low single-digit percentage of our energy needs. We have to produce American energy, our oil and gas reserves. President Obama's policies have intentionally elevated the price of gasoline to the detriment of the American consumer. One of the things we can do is pass this Keystone XL Pipeline amendment. It will eventually provide 700,000 barrels a day of oil from Canada to be refined in America, creating jobs and creating more supply, which will have a beneficial impact on gasoline prices, notwithstanding the other policies I have mentioned this morning. I hope my colleagues will support Senator Hoeven's amendment. I certainly will. I would love to hear the contrary argument. Unfortunately, we hear nothing but crickets when we start talking about all of the beneficial effects of this policy. I invite my colleagues who might not come from an energy-producing State to go on the Internet and Google or use Bing or whatever search engine they use and type in ``U.S. oil and gas pipelines'' and look at the picture that comes up. They will be astonished, perhaps, to see all of the pipelines that are operating safely, without the public knowing about it, providing the oil and gas and other refined products we need in order to keep our economy growing. This pipeline is not a threat to the environment because we have adequate safeguards in place, and have for a long time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Wyoming, it seems to me that what the intent is behind this Independent Payment Advisory Board and the President's health care law, sometimes called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--I think it needs to be named ``Unaffordable Care Act'' for reasons we can go into later. But the purpose behind it we can all understand; that is, to try to contain health care costs and spending by the Federal Government because, of course, health care inflation is going up much faster than regular inflation of the Consumer Price Index. It strikes me that, as in a lot of the policy debates we have in Washington and Congress, we all agree we need to do something to contain costs, but we disagree about the means to achieve that affordability that we all know we need and to contain the inflation of health care costs. I would like to ask my colleague, rather than have Congress outsource its responsibility in this area to an unelected, unaccountable group of 15 bureaucrats, from which there is no appeal and which would have the consequence, as he said, of limiting people's access--because if all they are going to do is cut provider payments to hospitals and doctors, then fewer and fewer doctors and hospitals are going to be able to see those patients. Does he see an alternative that would perhaps help contain costs more by using transparency, patient choice, and good old-fashioned American competition? I am thinking, in particular, about the rare success we have had in the health care area containing costs in the Medicare Part D Program, to me, perhaps a model even where seniors have a choice between competing health care plans and where they get their prescription drugs. But because of the choices they have and the natural competition that occurs, we get market forces disciplining costs. Indeed, it is a very popular program, but the projected costs for Medicare Part D have come in at about 40 percent less than what was originally projected. It strikes me that is one of the missing elements with outsourcing of this responsibility to this unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats, where the only thing they try to do is cut provider payments. Does the Senator see any alternative along the lines of Medicare Part D or otherwise?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his response. I think that shows there is an alternative to this outsourcing of our responsibilities to try to make care more affordable to this group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and cutting provider payments, which actually limits access to health care. But I tell my colleague from Wyoming, I had an experience a couple years ago visiting with some folks at Whole Foods, the grocery chain that is headquartered in Austin, TX, where I live. John Mackey, the CEO, is very proud of this. They vote each year on their health care plan. What they have chosen--the employees choose year after year--is a high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic losses, but then to cover the rest of their care it is a health savings plan that actually Whole Foods makes contributions into, which is owned by the worker and could then be used to pay for their health care for their regular sort of routine needs. I remember sitting at the table with a number of the workers and talking about why they like this alternative so much, and it is clear: Because it gave them the choices we all would want for ourselves and our families in terms of the doctor we want and the kinds of treatment we want, and it provided incentives because people were spending not the government's money, some sort of a credit card they would never see the bill for, but they were spending their own money in their health savings account; thus, realigning incentives for not only providers but also for consumers in a way that creates more transparency, more choices, and the kind of market discipline to hold down the costs. I ask my colleague, my impression is, while there was great division in Congress over the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, what some people call ObamaCare--60 Democrats voted for it, 40 Republicans voted against it in the Senate--that on this issue, on the IPAB, Independent Payment Advisory Board, there actually is bipartisan support, particularly in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to take out that particular provision because people now, on further examination, have seen how it could actually backfire in limiting people's access to health care. I would ask my colleague, does he see a way for us, on a bipartisan basis, to narrowly address that provision while we continue to wait on the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate? We don't know how things, such as the State- based insurance exchanges, will operate and the subsidies and whether those are going to be affordable. But on the narrow issue of repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, does he see the possibility for bipartisan support for that?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to my colleague from Wyoming Senator Barrasso, who has been not only a Senator but a medical doctor and who has been on the receiving end of government policy, that while it may be well intended, backfires, particularly this bipartisan support now we have seen in the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, where they voted to repeal this Independent Payment Advisory Board--Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB--not iPOD, IPAB. The reason this is so important, and I would like to ask my colleague, from his long experience as a medical practitioner, the purpose of this 15-member, unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to actually set prices for health care, what happens if, to the exclusion of all other health care reform, the IPAB or the Federal Government generally cuts reimbursement to providers? It would seem to me we get a phenomenon that we get the illusion of coverage, but we have no real access to health care. The experience we have had in Texas is, for example, Medicaid and the President's health care bill puts a whole lot of people into Medicaid, but only about one-third of Medicaid patients can find a doctor who will see a new Medicaid patient in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, one of the most populous parts of our State. I know, particularly in many rural areas--and I know Wyoming has a big rural population as well-- many times it is hard for seniors to find a doctor who will see a new Medicare patient, again, because reimbursement rates are so low. So I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming what his experience has been in that area.

Mr. CORNYN. I would like to ask my colleague one final question. Whenever we talk about reforming, saving, and securing Medicare so we can keep the promise we made to seniors that when people reach the appropriate age, they can actually qualify for this benefit and it actually will be there for them--and people do, in fact, pay into this fund, and they expect to get their money's worth back--sometimes the charge is made that various reform proposals will destroy Medicare as we know it. I would like to ask the Senator from Wyoming, a medical doctor by profession, whether Medicare as we know it, as currently constructed under the President's health care bill, with this IPAB provision in place--does it have any chance of survival as it currently operates now with this new board of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats setting prices and limiting access? Because doctors and hospitals simply cannot afford to provide the service at that cost. Doesn't that have the potential to radically transform Medicare as people have come to know it?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we approach the 2-year anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--otherwise known as ObamaCare--there are a lot of things you are going to hear from across the street at the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutional challenge to this individual mandate, which is a very important constitutional question for the Supreme Court to decide-- whether there is any limit to the power of the Federal Government when it comes to forcing you to buy a product approved by the government and penalizing you if you do not do it, whether that is within the constitutional power of the Congress under the commerce clause. Then there are other important questions about the workability of the law, the affordability of the law. I think today we can just see if we could work together in a bipartisan way to repeal the IPAB requirement. Senator Reid is the only one, as the majority leader, who can bring it to the floor, but hopefully, in light of the bipartisan support this has on the House side, he will see fit to do that. I certainly encourage him. I know Senator Barrasso will encourage him to do that. I hope we can do this and help ensure that people, when they qualify for Medicare, do not just get a card but actually have a good chance--I should say better than a good chance--they will be able to find a doctor who will treat them for the price the government is willing to pay.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to express my gratitude to the Senator from Missouri for his leadership on this issue. This used to be a topic that was a bipartisan issue dating back to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. But just so people can refresh their memories, there have been a number of allusions made to the language of the Constitution. But let me just read the first amendment to the Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, the fundamental law of the land that cannot be abridged or changed by a mere act of Congress, which is what we are concerned about; that the President's health care bill, the Affordable Care Act, so-called, purports to change the Constitution, which it cannot do. When there is a conflict between the Constitution and a law passed by Congress, that law falls as unconstitutional. But the first amendment to the Constitution says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . Let me repeat that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . That is what we are talking about is the free exercise of religion. I agree with Senator Risch that one of the biggest problems with this legislation, the President's health care bill, the so-called affordable care act, which we have came to learn is not so affordable, is that it forces each individual in this country to buy a government-approved product according to the dictates of Congress. That is one of the issues the Supreme Court will be ruling on, whether that is even within the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause. But Senator Risch makes a very good point; that is, the basic problem with this legislation generally is it is too big, it is too expensive, and it is too intrusive on the individual choices and freedoms of American citizens. As I said, it used to be that religious freedom was a bipartisan issue. That is why I am so concerned this has turned into a purely partisan issue. It is very obvious to me that some of our colleagues on the floor believe they can make political hay by scaring people, by misleading people; that this is somehow about denying women access to contraception when that is not the issue. This is about protecting our sacred constitutional freedoms. When I said religious freedom used to be a bipartisan issue, I was referring to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. I think it is interesting to see who the sponsors were and people who were some of the principal proponents of the bill. That demonstrates it was bipartisan. The lead sponsor in the House was Senator Chuck Schumer, now a Member of the Senate. Cosponsors included then-Representative Maria Cantwell, now in the Senate; then-Representative Ben Cardin, who is presiding today; and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In the Senate it had 60 cosponsors. Ted Kennedy was the lead sponsor. We have heard Senator Brown from Massachusetts saying the position he is taking on this issue of religious freedom is exactly the same position Senator Kennedy took during his lifetime. But 60 other Members of the Senate cosponsored this, including Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy, Senator Levin, Senator Murray, and Senator Reid, the majority leader of the Senate today. It was signed into law by then-President Clinton, demonstrating that religious freedom was not a partisan issue, it was a bipartisan concern of Congress and the reason why this bipartisan legislation passed to protect religious freedom. So similar to members of the Catholic Church who are concerned about being forced to provide coverage for surgical sterilization or drugs that induce abortions or other forms of contraception, members of the Muslim faith, if they are a woman, need not be concerned about restrictions on their ability or desire to wear a head scarf in public or in government buildings or dietary rules practiced by observant Jews or that Christians would not be somehow interfered with when it came to wearing religious symbols such as crosses or rosaries. This is not about those rules or those items of clothing or religious symbols, this is about religious freedom, over which Congress shall pass no law, under the words of our Constitution. I am somewhat disappointed we now find ourselves--that the lines seem to have been drawn so sharply in a partisan way on an issue that used to enjoy such broad bipartisan support. It is my hope our colleagues will reconsider because it is not good for the country, it is not good for our Constitution, it is not good for the preservation of our liberties, for the very fundamental law of our land, the Bill of Rights, to become a partisan issue. But if there is a fight, if there is a disagreement, I believe it is our responsibility to speak in defense of religious freedom and to remind our colleagues that Congress shall pass no law restricting religious freedom. That is what we are talking about. I thank my colleague from Missouri for being the leader on this important amendment. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to voice the reasons for my support, and I hope our colleagues who are opposed to the amendment or have already publicly stated their opposition will reconsider.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I would like to commend the extraordinary career of Buckner International CEO Dr. Kenneth Hall, who will soon be retiring from the Dallas-based organization after 19 years of dedicated service. Throughout his tenure, he has promoted founder R.C. Buckner's mission of bringing unconditional Christian love to needy children. Hall has been instrumental in expanding the scope of Buckner's activities, which are inspired by the biblical principles of James 1:27: ``Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.'' A Baptist minister by training, R.C. Buckner devoted his life to helping children whose families had been displaced or broken by war, poverty, and other hardships. The mustard seed of Buckner International was planted on a hot July day in 1877, when Dr. Buckner gathered concerned citizens around an old oak tree in Paris, TX, and asked for their assistance in building a home for orphans. From a humble collection that day of $27, Dr. Buckner created Buckner Orphans' Home in Dallas in 1879. Now known as Buckner Children's Home, it is one of the oldest orphanages west of the Mississippi River. One hundred and thirty-five years after the famous oak tree meeting, Buckner International is aiding more than 400,000 people in countries across the world. Dr. Hall became its fifth President and CEO in 1994. Under his leadership, the endowment surpassed $200 million, and the organization established a new global ministry program. It now does charitable work in China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Sierra Leone, South Korea, and Vietnam. Buckner also runs several retirement communities in Texas, and provides an extensive array of services to assist and empower families in crisis. I am grateful for all that Dr. Hall has done to improve the lives of the vulnerable and underprivileged, both at home and abroad. I join my colleagues in saluting him for his tireless efforts, which have brought joy and comfort to so many. He deserves recognition as a true humanitarian and a true American patriot.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to continue the comments along the line of our distinguished Republican leader and talk about the President's proposed budget that was released today. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposes more debt, more spending, and higher taxes. It is bad news for job creation and for America's job creators and portends nothing good; indeed, only does it portend ominously for our country getting back on the right economic track and creating the kind of growth that will generate jobs and prosperity. The President's proposed budget again ignores his own bipartisan fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which concluded in December of 2010 that America faced ``a moment of truth'' because we simply had spent more money than we were taking in for too long and had accumulated too much debt, which was killing economic growth and threatening to turn us into a Western European country, which we see today that the eurozone is in jeopardy. One week from today, millions of Americans will celebrate President's Day, our national holiday that honors all our Commanders in Chief. But this year, President Obama will share a distinction that no other President has ever had: He has proposed a budget that dwarfs all the debt accumulated over more than 22 decades by all his predecessors. When President Obama took office in January 2009, the national debt was about $10 trillion or, broken down for every man, woman, and child in America, about $33,000, something that neither political party could be particularly proud of. Today it is far worse: more than $15 trillion, an increase of more than 50 percent in 3 years. Under this budget proposal that the President released today, Federal borrowing will never stop. The national debt will more than double to $26 trillion or $75,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Simply put, the President's proposed budget makes it worse, not better. We all know we can't keep this up. The sad part is the President understands this too but simply refuses to provide the leadership necessary to put us on the right path. We have heard it before, but I will repeat it. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, said the debt is the biggest threat to our national security. How could that be? It is because, as Admiral Mullen knows and we are now learning, when we live in fiscally constrained times, some of the first cuts that occur are to the Defense Department. In fact, while the Defense Department incurs roughly 20 percent of discretionary spending, it has so far been planned for 50 percent of the cuts, increasing the national security risk to every American. After promising the American people he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the President's most recent plan means America will have an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion for every year of his Presidency. That is right, $1 trillion of deficit for each of the 4 years of his first term in office. This is unprecedented and dangerous. It is dangerous to our prosperity and to our Nation's future. While the President seems to be unwilling to come to grips with the nature of our debt crisis, my constituents in Texas understand that the national debt poses very real security risks because they are already beginning to see the cuts that are occurring or are planned in our national security spending. My constituents in Texas are also concerned, in a State that happens to be growing faster than almost any other part of the country, that the threat of higher taxes discourages the people to whom we look to create jobs, to start new businesses. Rather than have a comprehensive review of our Tax Code, as the Simpson-Bowles Commission proposed, this budget proposes to target certain industries, such as the domestic oil and gas industry, despite rising prices at the pump. The White House seems oblivious to what would happen to the jobs that are generated by this industry and all the revenue the government would lose if we outsource even more of our energy production to foreign Nations. The President appears to feel like small businesses are undertaxed because the so-called millionaire's tax he has proposed will hit many small businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. Indeed, as Senator McConnell just acknowledged, it was only December of 2010 when the President himself agreed to extend expiring tax provisions because, as he stated, higher taxes would be the last thing we would want to do during a fragile economic recovery because we know it will serve as a wet blanket; it will be a disincentive on job creation. We need a serious discussion on tax reform. The Simpson-Bowles Commission made a responsible proposal--not perfect but a good start. But the President has simply ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission since those recommendations were made in December of 2010. The President's budget also proposes about $1.9 trillion in new taxes, as I indicated. The good news, from my perspective, is that we already had a number of votes last year on these kinds of tax increases, and the Congress has rejected them. The bad news is these assumed tax increases help mask the true size of the deficits in the President's proposed budget and will do damage to any hope of sustained job creation. Then there is the phony accounting, the gimmicks. Unfortunately, all we have to do is look at the Gallup poll to see in what regard Congress is held; and it is the kind of gamesmanship and the gimmicks in this budget which contribute to people's cynicism about their elected officials and about their government. What does the President do? He says we are going to save money from future war spending, and we are going to use that as an offset for new spending and to reduce the deficit. But I have to observe, that is cynical at best. His budget is claiming artificial savings from money that never would be spent in the first place for wars that hopefully will never be fought. But he is saying, because we will not fight this unspecified war, then we are going to take that savings as if we would and save it and offset it to try to balance the budget. Even this gimmick cannot hide the fact the President wants to continue the record-level stimulus spending that began on his watch. You will recall Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, told us if we just pass this $787 billion stimulus bill, unemployment will never go above 8 percent. If we go back and look at those same charts and what they say about the first quarter of 2012, they project unemployment at 6 percent. Obviously, that stimulus failed to meet its own projections, and what President Obama wants us to do is more of the same and to spend more borrowed money. The vacuum of leadership that starts at the White House extends, unfortunately, to this Chamber, a Senate led by Majority Leader Reid, in which he has no plans to present a budget for the third year in a row. Even before the President released his budget, the Senate majority leader already told the American people the Senate will ignore it. He was quoted in the press saying it would be foolish for the majority to propose a budget. Why? Because he doesn't want to subject members of his own caucus to hard votes, to tough decisions. These are exactly the kinds of tough decisions the American people sent us to make, and these are exactly the kinds of tough decisions every household and every small business in America is expected to make in order to cope with this economic crisis we find ourselves in. But this is exactly what Majority Leader Reid has chosen to protect his members from making. Why? Because it will help solve the problem? No. Because he doesn't want them to be held accountable in the next election. We know it has been more than 1,000 days since the Senate passed a budget, and it is just unthinkable, to me, that we would fail to meet one of our most basic responsibilities. Can you imagine a family or a small business operating without a budget? We know why it is so important and why the absence of a budget has encouraged and facilitated runaway spending: Because when we budget, we figure out how much money we have and we figure out what we must have and what our priorities are. Then we figure out what we would like to have but maybe can't afford to have now so we need to put off. And then we figure out what we want but we can't afford that so we are going to have to do without. Congress has simply, under Senator Reid and the Democratic majority of the Senate, refused to meet its responsibilities for fiscal discipline. It is clear they are running out of excuses. Senator McConnell pointed out that Jack Lew, the President's new Chief of Staff, said: The reason why Democrats can't pass a budget, even though they hold the majority, even though they control the agenda, is because of those mean old Republicans, because it takes 60 votes to pass a budget. Mr. Lew has been around a long time and he knows that is not true. I had hoped he would have corrected the record because he knows--and we all know--it takes a simple majority of the Senate to pass a budget. But before we can pass a budget, Majority Leader Reid has to call it up and bring it on the floor of the Senate and schedule a vote, which he has simply refused to do. So instead of acting responsibly and proposing a budget and voting on a budget and allowing it to be debated, the President has chosen to take the low road and, last year, simply to attack chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan and House Republicans for the budget they passed. It is not perfect, but it was trying to do their job and to make a responsible proposal. But rather than meet that responsible proposal with a counterproposal and try to work out the differences during the legislative process, the President, unfortunately, took the low road and attacked and attacked and attacked, rather than trying to offer a viable solution. It should come as no surprise that under the President's watch, the national debt has grown to more than $15 trillion and is now larger than the U.S. economy. That is right, our debt is 100 percent of our gross domestic product. Government spending is now 25 percent of our economy; unfortunately, revenue is about 15 percent. So we have a 10- percent gap, which represents the annual deficit, and the cumulative deficits make up that $15 trillion debt. We know our Nation has lost its AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's because they are becoming concerned about our willingness-- indeed, about our ability--to meet our most basic responsibilities. All three major rating agencies have assigned a negative outlook to our Nation's long-term rating. What that means is potentially the specter of higher interest rates that we have to pay when China and other countries buy our sovereign debt. A 1-percent increase, if they became worried about our ability to repay our debts and they simply charged us more, would wipe out any savings we might otherwise be able to make through cuts. The warning sound has been heard, and the fiscal tsunami that many budget experts have said in the past would not hit this Nation is fast approaching. It is a challenge that faces the country today, not just tomorrow, and we need solutions. The way the American people feel about this overhang of debt and the lack of clarity with regard to taxes and regulation in our future is shown in the stagnant job growth we have seen. No sensible job creator is going to start a new business or to expand an existing business with such huge debt and such great uncertainty about their taxes, the regulatory overreach, and the economic environment. They are simply not going to do it. All we have to do is look across the Atlantic Ocean and watch our European friends and what they are going through today and see what will happen when governments overspend and debt is allowed to run unchecked. What is so disappointing is that President Obama has had multiple opportunities to embrace a bipartisan fiscal overhaul plan. The one I keep mentioning is the Simpson-Bowles plan, and the reason I do is because it is his debt commission that he appointed. It was bipartisan. We had three Republican Senators who were on that commission who voted for it; $4 trillion worth of cuts, tax reform that would lower the marginal tax rates, eliminate $1 trillion-plus in expenditures, and would create economic growth and certainty for our economy and help put America back to work in the meantime. Unfortunately, the President, instead of embracing that bipartisan proposal, with the budget submission he makes today indicates he has chosen once again to remain on the sidelines and to campaign rather than try to come up with real solutions. The President's plan fails to right the ship and will continue to lead us down the path of more debt, higher taxes, and runaway spending--a path that has brought the economies of many European countries to the brink. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will support this amendment that Senator Leahy and I have worked on. This is an expansion of our Public Corruption and Prosecution Improvements Act which passed the Judiciary Committee last year. Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor this important amendment with Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Our amendment is drawn from bipartisan, bicameral legislation-- including our Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, which passed the Judiciary Committee last year. Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a Washington, DC, problem. And it is a problem in statehouses and city halls across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch. The amendment we will vote on today will strengthen the enforcement of U.S. Federal laws aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and the public trust. Our amendment does this by making clarifications to public corruption laws and by giving prosecutors precise tools to use in their battle against corrupt officials. Our amendment increases the maximum punishments on several offenses, including theft and embezzlement of federal funds, bribery, and a number of corrupt campaign contribution practices. For example, it cracks down on theft or bribery related to entities that receive Federal funds, by increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 10 to 15 years and lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, from $5,000 to $1,000. It also clarifies the law in response to several court decisions narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the bill revises the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official acts,'' clarifying that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the result of bribery. Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case. And it expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to bring the case against corrupt officials in any district where some part of the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue for perjury and obstruction of justice. I would like to take a minute or two to address concerns that I have heard, including from some on my side of the aisle. One criticism I have heard is that this legislation ignores federalism principles. This concern is directed at a portion of the amendment clarifying that the mail and wire fraud statute applies to any public official who uses the interstate mails or wires to advance a fraudulent scheme involving illegally undisclosed self-dealing. The Supreme Court has interpreted the mail and wire fraud statutes more narrowly--asking that Congress clarify the definition of illegally undisclosed self-dealing. Under this amendment, the Federal government would only be able to prosecute State officials where they can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State official in question had knowingly or intentionally violated relevant State laws concerning the disclosure of material financial interests. In other words, this legislation expressly defers to the States to determine what financial disclosures their public officials should be required to make. Additionally, this provision would require the Federal government to show that the State official in question had engaged in an official act for the material purpose of benefitting the illegally concealed financial interest that they knowingly or intentionally failed to disclose. Finally, the Federal government would have to show that the course of conduct included a constitutionally-sufficient federal nexus via use of the interstate mails or wires to perpetrate the fraud. As for federalism principles generally, it is important to note that, under current law, the Federal government still has the authority to prosecute corrupt State officials for bribery and kickback schemes under the mail and wire fraud statutes. This amendment simply updates and clarifies the honest services fraud statute to reach corrupt conduct--i.e., undisclosed self-dealing--that Congress intended to be part of the criminal law. Some opponents of this amendment believe that we should repeal portions of current law so that the Federal government has no role whatsoever in rooting out public corruption at the State and local level. I fundamentally disagree. Consider the all-too-common case of a corrupt State governor or State judge that local prosecutors are loathe to indict--or even investigate--for fear of reprisal. Finally, I have heard some ask: Would this legislation criminalize the giving of baseball caps, jerseys, or other ceremonial gifts to Members of Congress? The answer is very simple: No, it would not. First, the amendment would only apply to status gratuities worth more than $1,000. Second, the amendment would also require prosecutors to prove that the government official in question knowingly accepted the illegal gratuity in violation of the relevant ethics rules or regulations governing their conduct. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I look forward to engaging with any of my colleagues who have concerns or questions. I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other legislation we have crafted together. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I agree.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can I kindly ask the assistant leader something, and this is a matter of accommodation. We have two speakers on the Republican side and two on the Democratic side. Would he be amenable to entering into an order to lock in the order and go back and forth?

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask whether the Senator from Illinois would agree that following his comments I be recognized for 10 minutes, and then go back and forth.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Illinois in expressing our concerns about the junior Senator from Illinois, Senator Kirk, who, unfortunately, suffered a medical incident, has had surgery, and is now recovering in Chicago. We know once again we are reminded that life is short and it is fragile. It could happen to any one of us or our families or anyone we care about and love. I know all of us extend our sympathy and our well wishes to Senator Kirk as he begins his convalescence and recovery from this surgery and this medical incident that he has experienced.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to observe that tomorrow night the President of the United States will make his annual State of the Union Address to Congress. This signals, of course, the beginning of the annual budget and appropriations process. But what has not happened for too long is the Senate passing a budget for the Federal Government. In fact, tomorrow, the same day the President will speak to the Nation, it will be the 1,000th day since the budget was passed by the Senate. That day was April 29, 2009. As the facts would reveal, it is our Democratic friends, led by the majority leader, Senator Reid, who have resisted bringing a budget to the floor for amendment and debate and a vote. I believe with all my heart that is one of the reasons why the American people hold the Congress in such low regard. It is because we have failed in our most basic responsibilities, now for more than 1,000 days. None of us can imagine a family or small business operating without a budget. It is unthinkable. I suspect there are not many, if any, small businesses that do not sit down and do the hard work of working out a budget. A budget, after all, is a matter of priorities. As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows as a former Governor, there is no way a State, a city, a county, a small business, or a family can get by without a budget because it is the discipline that comes with a budget where you decide what is absolutely essential, you decide what you want to have that you maybe could put off for another day, and it forces you to reach the conclusion in some instances that things you would like to do are simply unaffordable. Unfortunately, the majority leader has simply resisted those hard decisions. That is regrettable. As a member of the Budget Committee, I was especially disappointed that the Budget Committee, the very purpose of which is to debate and pass a budget, did not debate one this last year. The majority leader, when asked about this in the press, said that it would be foolish for the majority to produce a budget. I suspect he wanted to protect his Democratic Members from some tough votes and tough decisions. But that is what we were sent here for, to make hard but important decisions on behalf of our constituents and the American people, even if they are tough votes and even if they are unpopular decisions. That is our responsibility. But under the leadership of Senator Reid the Senate has completely abdicated that responsibility for now 1,000 days. Nothing could be more foolish or foolhardy than refusing to provide the Nation's job creators, investors, and, yes, the taxpayers, with a blueprint for our fiscal future. How is it that the majority can continue to shrink from the most basic responsibilities of governing? I am amazed sometimes. People say they want to serve in public office. They like the prestige, perhaps, the visibility, the power that goes along with it. Yet when it comes to actually discharging their responsibilities and making tough decisions, they may say, no, I don't want to make anybody mad. But that is what we were sent here for. It is our responsibility. It is plain fact that the American people cannot afford to have this body continue paying just lip service to fiscal sanity while seeing our fiscal ship so off keel. It should come as no surprise that during this period of time we have not had a budget for the Federal Government, the Nation has spent $9.4 trillion. And $4.1 trillion has been added to the national debt, if you account for the fact that the President recently asked for another $1.2 trillion in additional borrowing authority. The national debt has grown to more than $15 trillion and is now larger than the whole U.S. economy, our gross domestic product. Government spending has reached a post-World War II record and now makes up 25 percent of the economy. That is just government spending alone. The average has been somewhere around 20 percent of our gross domestic product. Now it is up to about 25 percent. Unfortunately, because the economy is so depressed, revenues are around 15 percent, hence a 10-percent annual budget deficit which, as it accumulates, adds to our national debt. As we all know, our Nation has lost its triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poor's, casting further doubt about the solvency of the U.S. Government and our commitment to pay our debts. All three major rating agencies have assigned a negative outlook, something short of a downgrade, but they have issued a warning to those who lend money to the U.S. Government that they have a negative outlook on the Nation's long-term rating. This is a signal too that future downgrades are more likely in the near future. You know what happens when the rating agencies downgrade our debt; it is more expensive for the Federal Government to borrow money. Indeed, I have read that over a 10-year period of time, a 1-percent increase in the cost of paying China or somebody to buy our debt, in terms of a return on that investment, a 1-percent increase over 10 years is roughly $1.3 trillion. So even if we were to cut $1.3 trillion, suffering a 1.3-percent increase in the cost of persuading somebody to buy our debt would negate and wipe out any savings by a cut. I fear the failure to pass a budget is simply a recipe for more debt and more out-of-control spending. While the majority has abdicated its responsibility to pass a budget, as required by law, and even refused to bring it to the floor, the House has acted responsibly and has passed its own budget. But instead of offering their own blueprint in the Senate, the majority leader and the majority party have simply demagogued the House budget. We have seen that from the President of the United States. Ultimately, Senator Reid brought the House budget up for a vote on the floor, knowing it would fail because it actually reduced spending, it continued much-needed tax relief, and it put the Government on a diet, something the Federal Government sorely needs. The Senate also had an opportunity to finally vote on the budget submitted by the President last year. This was something that was prompted by action of Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, because our friends across the aisle did not, apparently, even want to vote on the President's proposed budget. But while there was support for the House budget, not one Senator on either side of the aisle supported the President's budget. It went down 97 to 0, which was quite a remarkable vote. Even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle realized that the budget submitted by the President was an irresponsible budget, one that would increase taxes, increase spending, and increase debt. We know that higher debt leads to slower economic growth. Economic studies have shown that high levels of government debt inhibit economic growth by creating economic uncertainty about the economy, about tax increases, and it actually crowds out or displaces investment in the private sector. Slower economic growth means fewer jobs. According to Christina Romer, former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, a 1-percent change in gross domestic product growth is equivalent to 1 million jobs a year. I would recall, back during the time the administration proposed its stimulus to try to get the economy moving again--$787 billion plus interest, roughly $1 trillion--they projected growth of the economy during 2011-2012 to be roughly 4.3 percent of gross domestic product, a 4.3-percent growth. Unfortunately, in the third quarter of 2010, which is the last quarter for which some numbers are available, the economy grew at a rate of 1.8 percent--not 4.3 percent but 1.8 percent. So the warning sound has clearly been heard. The fiscal tsunami that many budget experts predicted could suddenly arise is fast approaching. It is a challenge that faces the country today, not tomorrow, and we need solutions today. But it takes leadership and it takes courage. All we have to do is look across the Atlantic Ocean and watch what many of our European friends are going through today to see what happens when government spending and debt are allowed to grow unchecked. When governments and nations live beyond their means and continue to rack up debt, passing it on to their children and grandchildren, at some point the creditors of that nation, the holders of that sovereign debt, lose confidence in the ability of those nations to actually pay it back and we see the kind of sovereign debt crisis like we are seeing in Europe today. All of these challenges require Presidential leadership, but I am confident we will not hear the President talking about these issues tomorrow. The President has had multiple opportunities to embrace bipartisan fiscal overhaul plans such as the one produced by his own bipartisan debt commission, the Simpson-Bowles commission. Unfortunately, the President has chosen to ignore the work of his own debt commission. Over the past 2 years we have also noted an explosion in the number of Federal regulations which have further created uncertainty in the economy and caused the entrepreneurs and job creators to sit on the sidelines not knowing what the cost is going to be of their doing business, whether their business model will actually work or whether in addition to taxes, regulation, and the cost of health care they can actually break even, much less make a profit. Well, it is no coincidence because of the higher debt, runaway regulations, and the threat of higher taxes that we have experienced the weakest economic recovery since World War II, leaving millions of Americans without jobs. My constituents--all 25 million of them in Texas--and everyone in America deserve better, and they are telling us in unequivocal terms that they think the country is on the wrong track. How could they possibly believe otherwise? When my constituents know Washington borrows 40 cents out of every dollar it spends and knows the national debt is a job-killing economic liability for the country, how would they say the country is on the right track when clearly it is not. Every man, woman, and child in my State and across the country is roughly $49,000 in debt, and that has increased by almost 40 percent since President Obama took office in 2009. The unemployment rate in Texas, while, thankfully, is lower than the national rate, consistently remains above what it was since the last time the Senate passed a budget. The unemployment rate in Texas is 20 percent higher than it was when the administration told Texans that its stimulus plan would make sure the national rate would not go above 8 percent. Well, if we go back and look at the projections--they said it would not go above 8 percent, and by the first quarter in 2012 it would be 6 percent--clearly, they were off the mark, and the stimulus failed to meet the administration's own stated goals. My constituents also believe, with some justification, the national debt is a national security risk. ADM Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the debt is the single biggest threat to our national security. It struck me as unusual to hear the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying it is our financial condition that is our national security threat. But when we think about it, if America cannot pay its debt back, if we experience a sovereign debt crisis, if the interest demanded by our creditors goes through the roof--as we have seen for Italian bonds and other bonds over in Europe--it means we will not have the money to pay not only for the safety net programs that are important for the most vulnerable of Americans and keep our commitments for Social Security and Medicare, it means we will not be able to protect the national security of the United States, which is the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the debt ``undermines our capacity to act in our own interest . . . and it also sends a message of weakness internationally.'' My constituents know that successful debt reduction measures must rely on spending cuts, not tax increases, and that economic growth is one of the main goals. Right now, if we don't act before the end of the year, due to expiring tax provisions we will see the single highest tax bill in American history, almost $5 trillion more by some estimates. For example, the State and local sales tax deduction--my State doesn't have an income tax, and income taxes are deductible under Federal tax law, but State sales taxes are not right now but for the provision that will expire by the end of the year. This is an important issue to my constituents and a matter of fundamental fairness. In 2009, 2.1 million taxpayers in Texas claimed almost $4 billion in deductions. According to tax comptroller Susan Combs, extending the sales tax deduction will benefit millions of Texans who are working hard to keep our Nation's economy vibrant. I am proud my State has been a beacon from the economic standpoint of opportunity where people have voted with their feet, and they have moved from places where they don't have jobs and don't have opportunities to Texas where they do. It is no coincidence that as a result of the most recent reapportionment, Texas got four new congressional seats. This is primarily due to people moving to where the opportunity is. It makes perfect sense. Why would we want to do anything that would threaten the economy of Texas or any other State of the Union? We know the President will give another speech to the American people tomorrow night, and he will send his budget--as required by law--to Congress early next month. At this time, the American people will be able to see for themselves if we have a leader who possesses the audacity to bring us together to right the ship or one who will lead us down a path that has brought the economies of Europe to the brink of economic disaster and a permanent lower standard of life. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. This is as close to a no-brainer as I think we can identify. But this also particularly benefits my State of Texas, which I am honored to represent. TransCanada's direct investment of about $1.6 million in Texas for the construction and development of the pipeline will lead to gains in business activity in the State of Texas of an estimated $2.3 billion in total expenditures and $2 billion in output. The increased economic activity stimulated by the TransCanadian investment in Texas will generate tax receipts in construction of an estimated $41.1 million to the State and $7.7 million to local taxing entities. Once these facilities are completed, they will have a useful life estimated at not less than 100 years. Using reasonable assumptions regarding valuation and tax rates, these assets are estimated to yield more than $1.1 billion in property taxes to local governments in the State, which are the primary source of funds for public education, among other things. I recognize the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is here on the floor and I wish to yield to him. I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. I would point out that this project has strong bipartisan support. I invite my colleagues--who perhaps are not as familiar with the importance of this pipeline project to the economy of the United States and job creation and who may not be aware that this is nothing new; this is something we have done before in a safe and environmentally responsible way--to join us and perhaps reconsider their view so we can get this done and help get 20,000 Americans back to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate on the subject of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which has been reported to be part of the proposed package that would contain the extension of the payroll tax holiday and the expiring unemployment insurance benefits. There have been some who have raised questions about the pipeline and some who have said they object to it being included in the package, but I would like to hopefully shed a little light--maybe not so much heat-- on the subject, coming from a State such as mine, which is an energy- producing state. We are very familiar with the oil and gas pipelines and the safety measures that need to be undertaken to keep them safe and to keep them from contaminating the environment. This is not some sort of alien technology or something the industry does not have the expertise to deal with in a safe and secure and appropriate manner. The legislation that is being proposed in the payroll tax holiday would require the Secretary of State to issue a Presidential permit within 60 days of enactment--and this does not take the President out of the equation--unless the President publicly determines this project is not in the national interest. So if for some reason--really beyond my comprehension--President Obama were to determine that building this pipeline was not in the public's interest, he could, under the terms of this legislation, essentially veto it. But once the permit is approved, TransCanada would be able to start construction on parts of the project outside of Nebraska. Now, why outside of Nebraska? As you may recall, Mr. President, a number of people in Nebraska, including their leadership here in the Senate, had concerns about the route of the TransCanada pipeline, the Keystone XL Pipeline within Nebraska itself, but Nebraska's leaders have taken it upon themselves to come up with a new route, which they will do in order to satisfy concerns about contamination of the aquifer in that State. The one point I would like to emphasize is that we have been talking for a long time--since the financial crisis in September of 2008--about what we need to do to get our economy back on track and to create jobs. Indeed, there was a lot of discussion back during the passage of the stimulus that we needed shovel-ready jobs. But, as you will recall, there were a lot of things that went into the stimulus that did not include infrastructure development. In fact, infrastructure was comprised only of a very small fraction of what the spending on the stimulus actually did. First of all, let me make clear what we are talking about. This chart demonstrates the existing Keystone Pipeline. In other words, there is already a Keystone Pipeline, but it goes from Alberta, Canada, and terminates in Illinois. That is the orange line. So what we are really talking about is an extension and expansion of the Keystone Pipeline, and it terminates in Port Arthur and Houston, TX, where we have the refinery capacity to make it into gasoline, jet fuel, and the like. So this is the proposed route, as you can see, of the expansion. It hooks up in Steele City, NE, with the existing pipeline going down to Cushing, OK, but then the expansion would be down into Houston and Port Arthur. I think this is another educational document. These actually are the crude oil and refined product pipelines that currently exist in the United States. So lest anybody feel as if we are doing something new and novel that has never been done, let me try to disabuse them of that notion. As you can see, this is a huge spider's web of oil and gas and refined product pipelines throughout the United States. Not surprisingly, you see a lot of them concentrated down in my State of Texas but, importantly, a good portion of that pipeline traffic emanates from our No. 1 trading partner in the world, Canada, which is a friend and an ally and a safe source of oil and gas into the United States. As to some people who perhaps wonder about this pipeline and wonder what it all means, this will help allay any concerns or some concerns they might have that we are somehow doing something novel or risky or that we have not done in the past. Pipelines are simply one mode of transporting oil and gas. You can do it other ways. You can put it on a tanker truck and drive it down our highways. I happen to think this is a better and safer way to do it than loading up a bunch of tanker trucks to drive down our highways. You can do it through barges, through our inland waterways. But the pipeline is simply the most efficient and safest way of doing it. Of course, as we all know, these pipelines are by and large buried and more or less unseen. So this is a transportation network for our Nation's oil and gas that most people probably are not even aware of, and I guess that is a good thing, but it is important that people understand what we are talking about. These pipelines move crude oil from oilfields on land and offshore to refineries, where it is turned into fuels and other products. You can see down here in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, where we have tremendous reserves of oil and gas. You can see how the pipelines extend even beneath the water out into the Gulf of Mexico. These pipelines move crude oil to refineries, where it is turned into fuels and other products, and then from the refineries to terminals, where fuels are trucked to retail outlets. One amazing thing about this is this literally happens 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, out of sight and out of mind to most Americans. Let's talk a minute about safety because this is something on which no one has an exclusive claim when it comes to our environmental and safety concerns. Under the law, any spill associated with one of these pipelines has to be reported--a spill of 5 gallons or more--to the Department of Transportation. There are already a number of Federal agencies that regulate this industry, including the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Once this oil gets to the refineries, the U.S. refining sector has invested a lot of money upgrades throughout the country to adapt to the world's changing oil supply, including the increasing percentage of the world's oil that is so-called heavy crude. My understanding is that what comes out of the oil sands in Canada is heavy crude which requires a little different refining capability. But refineries in the U.S. gulf region have long received heavy crude from other countries and are well-positioned to receive and to handle these supplies from Canada. I think it is important for us to also contemplate not just the economic aspects of this source of oil to be consumed here in America but also that it is not dependent, for example, on imported oil from the Middle East and subject to weather conditions or hostile environments that might otherwise cause economic and national security concerns here in America. We hear from time to time that Iran, which we know has growing aspirations for regional influence in the Middle East--and now, with the end of America's involvement in the Iraq war, we know Iran is going to rush in to try to fill some of that vacuum there, and I am concerned about it. But more to the point today is that 90 percent of the Persian Gulf's oil exports and 40 percent of the global seaborne oil trade goes through the Straits of Hormuz, which would be a logical first place for the Iranian Government to choke off--should they decide to create havoc--the oil supply through that vital area. The Straits of Hormuz, of course, is very important in a geopolitical sense. The point I am simply trying to make is that this is not only a matter of jobs--but it is a matter of jobs in America with the construction of this pipeline--it is not just a matter of how we protect our environment, which is very important--how do we regulate this industry in a way that protects the health, safety, and welfare of the American people--but this is a national security issue as well. It is also very important in terms of simply the price of gasoline. I am not an economist by training, but I do understand that when there is more of something and given that there is stable demand, you will be able to lower the price when there is a greater supply. It is purely a matter of supply and demand. I looked online at the price of gasoline a year ago. It was $2.98 for the price of a gallon of regular gasoline. Today it is about 27 cents higher. Of course, it has been much higher, as you know. But my point is that this is a stable and secure source of oil used to make gasoline and other refined petroleum products that will help bring down or at least stabilize the price of gasoline for consumers. We all know that in the current economic environment, people are living under much more constrained circumstances. They are having to make choices that I wish the Federal Government would make more often; that is, what things you have to have today, what things you would like to have but you can put off until tomorrow, and what things you maybe would like to have but you are going to have to end up doing without because you simply cannot afford it. Well, gasoline is something people need in order to drive their kids to school or drive to work, and the increased price of gasoline because of geopolitical uncertainty, because of concerns about supply, disasters such as we had in the Gulf of Mexico--all of those cause disruptions or concerns about disruptions in supply that cause gas prices to go up. So this is another good reason why I believe we need a stable source of additional oil and, again, from a friendly nation, our No. 1 trading partner, which is Canada. Let me just quickly go over a few other little factoids that people might find interesting. This is a $7 billion project. As I said, it is the largest shovel-ready infrastructure project in the United States currently. It has been under review by the Federal Government for 3 years. This is not some knee-jerk or impulsive decision we are asking to be made here; this is something that has been carefully reviewed for its environmental impact. The good news at a time when unemployment remains unacceptably high is that this project is estimated to cause the creation of about 20,000 jobs. We all know that the No. 1 problem in America today is that too many people are out of work, the No. 2 problem in America today is that too many people are out of work, and the No. 3 problem in America today is that too many people are out of work. This would create jobs at a time when we sorely need them, and that is why this project has gained the kind of bipartisan support that gives me great hope that we will somehow knock down the impediments to building this pipeline so we can get people back to work and we can get that stable oil supply and create economic development in the private sector when we need it most. It is estimated this pipeline would ultimately generate about $20.9 billion in new private sector spending. We all know that with the Federal Government revenue down around 15 percent of our GDP because of the recession and slow economy, while spending is up around 25 percent of GDP, we need to do two things: We need to cut Federal spending, and we also need to increase growth in the private sector which will produce additional revenue to the Treasury and help us close that deficit gap and begin to chip away at the debt. This pipeline and the jobs it would create and the tax revenues that would be generated will help do that. This is also important to our relationship with our trading partner Canada. As the Presiding Officer knows, the North American Free Trade Agreement is a big deal in my State of Texas because of the trade agreements between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But this recognizes that our trading relationship with Canada is literally the most important one in the United States. There is something in it for us as well in that for every dollar the United States spends on Canadian products, 91 cents is returned to the United States. There is a close economic security relationship between the United States and Canada. This pipeline would also encourage development of additional oil resources in the northern part of the United States. North Dakota currently has I believe somewhere on the order of 3 or 4 percent unemployment. One reason why it does is because they have discovered--I can get a confirmation from Senator Hoeven, perhaps, but one reason why North Dakota has been booming, in addition to great leadership, has been the fact that the Bakken formation there has been the source of a huge supply of oil. Of course, building this pipeline would help further enhance the ability to develop domestic oil and gas resources and put them in the pipeline and get them to the refinery and get them to market. This is one of the big dangers I think we also need to highlight: In a world where we are so interconnected and where there are so many options available to our trading partners such as Canada, the fact is if we don't create this pipeline expansion for markets where these products come into the United States, then Canada is going to sell it to China or other parts of the world.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Maine for her leadership on the balanced budget amendment issue for so long now. This is a fight that people have fought for so long that some have become very cynical about whether we will actually ever act in a responsible fashion to deal with the runaway debt our country continues to accrue where about 40 cents out of every dollar being spent today is out of borrowed money. We know this is not just a theoretical problem, it is very real. When we look at what is happening in Europe, with countries engaged in sovereign debt crises that have made promises they cannot afford to keep, the day of reckoning has come to Europe. The day of reckoning for the United States may not be far behind. I think it is really important to lay a few foundational points. Let me start with the preface of the Constitution of the United States of America because what we are talking about doing is amending the Constitution--something we have only done 27 times since the founding of our country. But the Constitution of the United States starts this way: We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is important to recognize that this is a constitution created by the American people. This is not something handed down from on high that we cannot change or should not change. This is our Constitution. We own it. It is within our power to amend the Constitution when circumstances make it prudent for us to do so. Let me also refer to article V of the U.S. Constitution. This is the basis upon which we are seeking to amend the Constitution by this vote tomorrow. Article V says to Congress: When two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution. And then should the joint resolution pass with two-thirds the vote in both Houses, then it goes to the States, where 38 States--three- quarters of the States--would have to ratify that amendment before it would become the fundamental law of the land. There is another provision in article V that I will talk about in a minute which allows the States, in the face of inaction by Congress, to ask for a constitutional convention to be established for that purpose. As I said, I will save that for a later time. Madam President, all 47 Members on this side have cosponsored S.J. Res. 10. But this doesn't have to be a partisan endeavor. Indeed, the last time, in 1997, when there was a vote on a constitutional amendment--and it failed by 1 vote in the Senate--11 Democrats joined Republicans to come within 1 vote of passing that joint resolution, which had already passed the House of Representatives. So this doesn't have to be and indeed should not be a partisan undertaking. Let me remind my colleagues, what did our financial situation look like in 1997? Our deficit was $107 billion--that is right, $107 billion. Today, it is roughly $1.3 trillion. Our national debt, which recently broke the $15 trillion mark, back then was roughly $5 trillion. So we have seen almost a threefold increase in our national debt since 1997, when we came within one vote of passing a constitutional amendment and sending it to the States. We know that throughout American history, our government has faced fiscal challenges. Our Founders had their own when they had to amend the Articles of Confederation to provide for a constitution that allowed us to deal with our financial problems. But what are the differences between those faced by the founding generation and those we face today? Back then, government was the solution to the problem. Today, the size and growth of government is the problem. The American people understand the difference, clearly. As I said, the American people are absolutely repulsed by the idea that Congress continues to spend 40 cents out of every dollar that is spent in borrowed money. I know people like to say this is a problem for the next generation and beyond, but all you have to do is look across the Atlantic Ocean to what is happening in Europe today, and you realize, no, this is our problem, in this generation now, in Europe. The ramifications could easily extend to the United States and create a recession, if not worse, as we go through a sovereign debt crisis. The American people also understand this huge debt we bear is a job killer because it dampens economic growth. Only by the private sector economy growing do you get the sort of job creation that will help get us out of this mess. Right now, we are muddling along at roughly 2 percent of GDP, which is not even enough to deal with the unacceptably high unemployment. Yes, we had a break last week, when we saw the unemployment rate come down a little bit. But a closer look at the statistics reveals it was because so many people had quit looking for a job. They gave up. We also know this is a national security risk, this high debt. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said the debt was the single largest threat to our national security. This is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You wouldn't think that was part of his portfolio, but that is what keeps him awake at night and worries him--our debt, and the fact that China is the major purchaser of that debt, a country with interests that are not exactly aligned with ours, to say the least. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the debt undermines our capacity to act in our own interests and sends a message of weakness internationally. Then there is a quote from a former colleague of ours way back in 2006, who said this: Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. He also said: It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. You may have guessed who said that. Yes, that was then-Senator Barack Obama. What I think people find absolutely unnerving, disappointing, and, yes, even shocking is the lack of leadership on this issue, not only because our national debt is a growing fiscal problem as well as a national security risk, but it has created a crisis of confidence in our political system and people's confidence in the Congress's ability to do what we get paid for, what we got elected to do, and that is to solve our Nation's problems, including our Nation's fiscal problem. President Obama understands this very well. That is why he appointed a bipartisan fiscal commission, now called the Simpson-Bowles commission, which came up with $4 trillion in debt reduction along with other recommendations, such as tax reform, which would make us more competitive globally. But since December 2010, when that report was rendered, what has the President done with regard to that report that received bipartisan support--I believe it was 11 out of the 18 members, including 3 Republican Senators at that time, Judd Gregg, Mike Crapo, and Tom Coburn? The President walked away from it. He walked away from it. What did he do when he gave his State of the Union speech shortly thereafter? He didn't even mention it. But what did he do? Did he come up with a counterproposal or a different proposal? No, he held back, and he waited until the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, and House Republicans passed a budget out of the House--something that has not happened in the Senate for more than 900 days--and then the President attacked. He engaged in scare tactics that I believe are beneath the dignity and responsibility of the Office of the President of the United States. Leadership on the national debt has not only been lacking from the White House, but Congress hasn't done much better. It is true what the Senator from Maine has said, the basic conundrum we have had at times when we have passed deficit reduction legislation, such as Gramm- Rudman-Hollings and others, is that purely statutory fixes are fine but they can't bind future Congresses. We need a constitutional amendment that will make it the law of the land that cannot be ignored by future Congresses. This is what I hope we will do by embracing our responsibility and passing this constitutional amendment. The facts show that the time for a strong balanced budget amendment is now. It is today. Joint Resolution 10 is a strong balanced budget amendment that will protect the American people from runaway deficits and reckless spending. If ratified by three-quarters of the States; that is, 38 States, it would require a two-thirds supermajority of Congress in both Chambers to approve a deficit in any fiscal year. A supermajority would be needed in times of emergency to approve a deficit in any given year. And it can't be open-ended. It has to happen each year a deficit might be run. We can imagine that emergencies could occur, but it shouldn't be a routine matter, as it is now, where we engage in deficit spending. This amendment would provide exceptions where it would require a majority of both Chambers to approve a deficit during a time of declared war and a three-fifths supermajority in both Chambers could approve a deficit during military conflicts. So for those of our colleagues who are worried this balanced budget amendment would provide such a straitjacket it would deny us the flexibility to respond to our Nation's emergencies, the amendment itself provides the means to deal with those extraordinary circumstances. Joint Resolution 10 would also require a two-thirds majority to approve outlays beyond 18 percent of GDP. That is roughly what our revenue has been--roughly 18 percent of GDP--although today our spending is at 25 percent. Because of the recession and the fragile economic recovery, our income is roughly 15 percent. So we are running at roughly a 10-percent annual deficit. This amendment would require a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. We don't have a tax problem; we have a spending problem, and we are not able to keep up with the promises we have made both in terms of entitlements and other spending. This would require the discipline of a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes in order to balance the budget. So we could do it when there was a broad consensus that it was necessary but not provide the easy out to raise taxes in order to balance the budget unless two-thirds said that was all right. It would also provide for a three-fifths supermajority to raise the debt limit. Finally--and this is important--the balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10, would require the President to submit a balanced budget to the Congress each year. The President has historically submitted a budget in, I believe, roughly February of each year, but it is rarely balanced. Indeed, the last budget submitted by President Obama was not even brought up for a vote by our friends across the aisle. When we insisted upon a vote on that budget, it lost 97 to 0. No Democrat and no Republican voted for President Obama's last budget because it continued the reckless spending and the debt. It is important this body support a strong balanced budget amendment and not a fig leaf or cover vote, because Senate Joint Resolution 10 has the strongest provisions on spending and taxes in addition to provisions that would allow us to balance the budget. I know there is another alternative that will be voted on, but I am afraid this alternative offers more of a mirage than a real solution. First of all, it does not include all spending. This would make government accounting even more mystifying, even more opaque, less transparent. Can you imagine families and small businesses doing something such as that, saying, well, we are going to balance our budget, but we are not going to include all the spending we do? Small businesses and/or families don't have the luxury of moving things off the balance sheet--in sort of Enron-style accounting--and neither should their government. Either you balance the budget or you do not. The alternative we will be presented an opportunity to vote on, next to this strong balanced budget amendment, does not protect the middle class from higher taxes. It would not have stopped the 21 tax increases that were enacted in the first 3 years of the Obama administration. That is right, 21 tax increases during the first 3 years of this administration. The problem in Washington is not that it is too difficult to raise taxes, the problem is it is too easy. A real solution to our debt crisis must permanently change the propensity to tax and spend with reckless disregard. A strong balanced budget amendment will actually solve the problem. Let's remember the disease here in Washington the balanced budget amendment is designed to cure is out-of-control Federal spending, and big deficits are a symptom of that disease. Any doctor will tell you just treating the symptom doesn't cure the disease. Without treating the underlying cause of those symptoms, we would not be making matters better, we would be creating again another illusion of a solution. The strong balanced budget amendment which I support, along with 46 of my Republican colleagues--and I hope a significant showing on the other side--will treat the disease along with the symptoms. An amendment with too many exceptions and loopholes will not. A strong balanced budget amendment will reassure financial markets and the American people that we understand the magnitude of the problem. As I talk to my constituents in Texas and others around the country-- who are the type of people we are looking to to create jobs by making the investments, by starting businesses, and by growing existing businesses--they tell me with the growing debt, with uncertainty about tax policy, with overregulation, and with Washington's unwillingness to deal with a potential sovereign debt crisis, and slow economic growth in the private sector, they are going to sit it out. They are sitting on the sidelines. They are not going to take imprudent risks with the capital they have acquired after going through this recession and becoming leaner and becoming more efficient. They are not ready to get back in the game until they get a signal from us we are actually serious about solving our financial problems. Unfortunately, the President not only has neglected his own bipartisan fiscal commission--the Simpson-Bowles commission--and fallen for the siren call of his political advisers to not offer a constructive solution but, rather, attack those who do, the President has compounded his mistake in this area by saying, ``We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs.'' Presumably, that refers not only to our balanced budget amendment but to an amendment offered by the Democrats as an alternative to the Senate Republican balanced budget amendment. The President has claimed a balanced budget amendment is not necessary because ``the Constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices.'' Who does he think he is fooling? Who does he think he is kidding? The President does himself no credit, and, indeed, I think demonstrates a lack of commitment to dealing with our Nation's problems when he says things such as that. He knows the experience of this Congress--whether it is Republican administrations or Democratic administrations--has been that without a balanced budget amendment we simply are not going to have the tools necessary to get the job done. According to one White House spokesman, balancing the budget is ``not complicated.'' Well, if it is not complicated, why hasn't the President of the United States submitted a balanced budget proposal? His last one broke the bank, made the debt worse, didn't solve the problem, and was rejected 97 to 0 by a bipartisan vote in this body. The same White House spokesman said: All that is needed is that we put politics aside, quit ducking responsibility, roll up our sleeves, and get to work . . . get beyond politics as usual. I have to say, what bunk is that? Don't they know how little credibility that sort of rhetoric has when it comes to solving the problem? Just saying it does not make it so. What people are looking for is concrete action by the Congress. The strange thing to me was, when the President of the United States invited the Republican conference over to the executive office building several months back, he asked for ideas around the table. Several of us, including me, told him: Mr. President, if you would embrace solutions to solving these problems, we would work with you because we are Americans first and not members of political parties first. We are Americans. We didn't come here just to posture and to act like we were solving the problem while doing nothing. We actually are willing to do it because, frankly, we are concerned. Many of us are beyond concerned; we are scared. This is no longer just for our children and grandchildren. This is about the present generation. This is about us, and all we need to do is look at what is happening in Europe, and it could be our problem in the foreseeable future. I am not just talking about decades, I am talking about years. It could be earlier. Everything we read about the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the history of these crises in the past is, once the public loses confidence in the ability of a sovereign nation to pay back its debt, then things slip away very quickly. We have seen that happen in Europe with the price of the debt on Italian bonds and Greek bonds going through the roof because people know they can't be paid back. If people begin to doubt for a minute our lack of resolve at dealing with this fiscal crisis and this debt crisis, we could well be not just in a similar mess, we could be worse off because there will be no European Union, there will be no IMF to bail out the United States of America, the largest economy of the world. Let me close for now by saying this is not just a matter of conjecture whether a balanced budget amendment would help and would work; 49 different States have some form of balanced budget requirement. Vermont is the only one that does not. Of these, 32 States have constitutional provisions. Additional States require that their Governor actually propose a balanced budget or require a balanced budget indirectly by prohibiting the State from carrying a deficit into the next year. But the point is, this is not just a matter of conjecture and guesswork. We know because we have seen at the State level that balanced budget requirements are effective. What do they do? Well, we know State balanced budget requirements are only effective when combined with limitations on taxing and spending. States with limitations on taxing and spending are less likely to raise taxes to balance the budget than States without such a limitation. States with taxing and spending limitations have a slower growth of government than States without such limitations. In other words, States with taxing and spending limitations have a slower rate of growth and cost and size of government than States without them. So we know a balanced budget amendment could work. I hope my colleagues--as frustrated as I am, on a bipartisan basis, with the lack of leadership on this--will show leadership. We shouldn't just look for leadership at the White House or anywhere else. We ought to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask what can we do to solve this problem. I submit that a balanced budget amendment would go a long way to putting us on the path to fiscal responsibility. Now, we can't do it overnight because we didn't get into this mess overnight. But just as Vice President Biden said back in 1995: I have concluded that there's nothing left to try except the balanced budget amendment. That is what Vice President Biden said in 1995. I agree with him. But if it was true then, it is even more true now. So I hope tomorrow, when we have a chance to vote, we will vote for a real solution--a real balanced budget amendment, S.J. Res. 10--that will avoid the temptation to act once again as if we are doing something, without actually delivering a solution to the problem, by providing a cover, a fig leaf that, once again, will undermine the public's confidence in our commitment, in our willingness, in our leadership when it comes to the Nation's problems. Ultimately, the American people will have the final say. If we don't do it tomorrow, then the American people will have another chance to have an election and vote and presumably choose people who will deal with the problem. Ultimately, we know--getting back to article V of the Constitution-- if Congress does not propose a solution, to quote article V, the Congress ``on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.'' So the final word is not with the Members of Congress. Although we can solve the problem tomorrow if we voted on it and we passed it and encouraged our colleagues in the House to pass it, ultimately, there will be an intervening election. But, ultimately, beyond that, the Constitution--which is the Constitution of we, the people of the United States--the people of the United States will have the final word, whether it be in the next election in 2012 or by means of a constitutional convention called on the application of two-thirds of the States, of which I am told about 20 applications are already pending. Mr. President, I yield the floor, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.