John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not merely about hunting, recreational shooting, or marksmanship, nor is it discretionary. This is one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Founding Framers of our Constitution were so passionate about that they made sure it was included in our Constitution as part of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. But its real significance is much greater. Indeed, the Second Amendment has long been viewed as a bulwark of individual liberty. It guarantees the most basic civil right in a free society, the right that allows responsible, patriotic, law- abiding citizens to defend themselves, to defend their families, and to defend their homes--all of this without having to rely on the government. It is no mystery to any of us that the Federal Government--or State or local governments, including law enforcement--is not omnipresent. There are many parts of our country where law enforcement is a long way away or simply unavailable. So the Second Amendment preserves the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their homes without having to rely upon an omnipresent law enforcement presence. The Founding Fathers understood that the right of self-defense can become meaningless without the right to keep and bear arms. Some are pushing to curtail Second Amendment rights in the hope of preventing another mass shooting. I share the sorrow of the families who are grieving over their loved ones who were lost. I have had the privilege and honor of meeting some of the families. I wish it were as easy as some would suggest to solve the problem with the wave of a magic wand or to pass some bill. Here is the inconvenient fact that advocates of strict gun control ignore--one of the facts. Every mass shooting committed in the United States over the last 63 years, including the Newtown shooting, occurred in a gun-free zone. In other words, in each of these horrific instances the attacks took place in an area where law-abiding citizens had effectively been disarmed. I listened to the remarks of the distinguished Senator from California who I know passionately believes there has to be some solution legislatively we could pass that would prevent the repetition of some of these terrible tragedies. But she conceded herself that no background bill would have prevented Adam Lanza from acquiring these weapons which he effectively stole from his mother and then murdered her with those same weapons before committing further atrocities at Sandy Hook Elementary School. We do know that if the current law was enforced that the Virginia Tech shooter would have been prevented from acquiring guns legally because we know he had already been adjudicated mentally ill by the State of Virginia. But those records were never transmitted to the FBI to be included in a background check. We know the shooter in Tucson failed a drug test, a disqualifying fact for somebody to be able to legally purchase firearms, given a background check. But that information was never transmitted to the FBI, so the Tucson shooter was not prevented from buying weapons, even though he should have been disqualified if the background check system had been working the way it should. I believe the most appropriate response to the recent mass shootings is to make sure that our current laws involving mental illness, drug use, mental health adjudications are enforced more aggressively and more efficiently. But at the same time, while we are trying to find a solution to these problems and not just engage in meaningless symbolism, we should not be making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. We can and we should embrace realistic, effective solutions to the mental health problem because no one I know believes that a mentally ill person should be able to purchase a firearm. But we also should not erode the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. I think we will have an opportunity to vote on such a bill during the course of these debates. In order to bolster the freedom of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, I am offering an amendment that would allow Americans with concealed handgun licenses issued by their own States to exercise those rights in other States whose State law authorizes the issuance of a concealed handgun license. This is not a national standard. This is respecting the rights of individual States to determine whether they will in fact issue a concealed handgun license and to allow those persons who have a concealed handgun license issued by their home State to have that firearm legally in another State. This is an interesting chart. You will notice that only two places in the country--the red, the District of Columbia and the State of Illinois--are the only two places in the country that do not have a regime of concealed handgun license issuance--only two, the District of Columbia and Illinois. This amendment would not allow for concealed carry in Illinois or the District of Columbia, both of which have banned that entirely. Nor would this amendment affect the right of every State to set its own laws with regard to concealed carry. It would not establish a national standard for concealed carry and it would not allow anyone to disobey the laws of his or her home State. What it would do is effectively treat concealed carry licenses as a driver's license. If you are driving from Virginia to Texas, you do not have to obtain a separate driver's license for each State you drive through, but you do have to obey the speed limits and other laws of the State in which you are driving. This legislation would create a similar system for concealed carry permits. If it becomes the law of the land, someone with a concealed carry permit in Texas would no longer have to worry about obtaining a separate one when he or she was traveling across the country. However, all Texans would still have to follow the concealed carry laws in the State in which they happen to be located, just as residents of other States still have to follow the traffic laws of the State, even if they have a Texas driver's license. If they are in New York they still have to obey the traffic laws of New York. This bill is very similar to an amendment that won the support of 58 Senators back in 2009, including 13 Democrats who are still serving in this Chamber. I would add that, for those who argue about the effectiveness of background checks--and I certainly agree that for people in the business of selling guns that background checks are and should be the standard--but a concealed handgun license is like a background check on steroids. It is far more intrusive into the privacy and the background of the person who applies for a handgun license, so this standard ought to be one that those who support a robust background check regime could also support. It is also a bipartisan idea that would make it easier for law- abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and it would avoid the ``gotcha'' and a prosecution that might otherwise occur. If concealed handgun licensees happen to be traveling across the country and possess a firearm, without this law they might otherwise be prosecuted for a criminal offense. Just one final point. For more than two decades now, one of the biggest supporters of concealed carry has been a remarkable Texas woman by the name of Suzanna Hupp. In October 1991, Suzanna and her parents were finishing their lunch at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX, when a mentally ill man drove his truck into the restaurant, pulled out his gun, and began opening fire on customers. When Suzanna realized what was happening, she reached into her purse to retrieve her handgun, but then she remembered her gun was not in her purse, it was in her car because Texas law at the time did not authorize a concealed handgun permit. As Suzanna told the Senate Judiciary Committee in chilling testimony a few months ago, ``I wanted to be a law-abiding citizen.'' Her father courageously tried to tackle the gunman but was shot in the chest. Her mother was also eventually killed too. Thankfully, Suzanna escaped and she quickly became a powerful champion of concealed carry, which Texas legalized in 1995. Suzanna later on ran for the Texas legislature, where she served for 10 years. I thank her for all she has done to bring this issue home in ways that all of us can understand, and to protect the Second Amendment rights of responsible, patriotic, law-abiding citizens. Suzanna understands very well that we must never ever criminalize law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights by passing misguided legislation which encroaches on those rights and does not solve the real problem, which we can do and I hope we will take up in enforcing existing laws and dealing with the mental health component that is a common element in so much of this legislation.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know this afternoon at 4 p.m. we will vote on a series of amendments. For all of us who were worried and concerned about these episodes of senseless gun violence, I think we can actually find a solution not by encroaching on the rights of law- abiding citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights but by focusing on the areas where we can make a difference. We need to enforce current laws on the books better, more efficiently, and more uniformly. We also need to deal with the mental health component which is common to so many of these mass shooting atrocities.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. My amendment is called the Constitutional Concealed Carry Act because it is designed to protect the fundamental Second Amendment rights of American citizens who are traveling or temporarily away from home while they hold a concealed handgun license. There is only one State and the District of Columbia that do not recognize some form of concealed gun carry law. In other words, it is part of the public policy of 49 States that concealed handgun licenses may be obtained by lawful owners. Our amendment would allow persons with concealed handgun permits be allowed to carry those weapons as they travel between jurisdictions and avoid any sort of prosecution. This does not create a national standard. It does not apply to jurisdictions that don't otherwise recognize the right to the conceal carry law. In effect, it would act like a driver's license so the gun owner doesn't have to get a separate license in each State they travel through. For those who believe background checks are important, this is a background check on steroids. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday afternoon we were reminded that America faces determined enemies willing to engage in barbaric acts against innocent civilians--men, women, and children. On Patriots' Day--a day that has always been a celebration of American heritage and American freedom--terrorist bombings took the lives of at least three people standing near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, including an 8-year-old boy. His name was Martin Richard. He was watching runners complete the race alongside his family. His mother and his sister also sustained injuries, along with more than 150 other people. We still don't know who is responsible for this terrible atrocity, but we do know the people of Boston responded to this attack with courage and compassion. As the smoke rose, the American people saw their fellow citizens running toward--not away but toward--the scene of the blast. From the police officers and the first responders who secured the bomb site and loaded the injured into ambulances to the marathon participants who literally ran to hospitals to donate blood, to the doctors and other medical professionals who performed emergency lifesaving treatments on the victims, to the Boston area residents who opened their homes to those who had been left stranded, this attack brought out the very best in our country. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, so many people rushed to donate blood, the Red Cross literally had to turn them away. Dr. Richard Wolfe, the head of the emergency medicine department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, called it ``the smoothest sort of handling of mass casualty I've ever seen in my career''--something I hope none of us have to see again. This Chamber has spent the last 4 months, and even years before that, debating issues such as taxes, spending, and health care. But the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep the American people safe and secure. Our response to this attack must be firm and unequivocal. We must send a clear message that we will never compromise our values or our freedom in the face of terrorist violence. We must stay on the offensive against the enemies of civilization and remain vigilant in our day-to-day lives. The victims of Boston deserve nothing less. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2013, SBTBOR. As millions of taxpayers across the country race to meet today's deadline to file their Federal tax return, it is important to note that their tax burden is more than just the amount of tax paid to the Federal Government. Taxpayers also bear the compliance cost of complying with a byzantine tax code. Analysts predict that taxpayers will spend over $350 billion this year alone to comply with the tax code. An analysis of IRS data by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate shows it takes taxpayers more than 6.1 billion hours to compete filings required by a tax code that contains almost four million words and that, on average, has more than one new provision added to it daily. A dispute over a complex tax code with the IRS can become an expensive endeavor for small businesses, who have limited resources to fight off frivolous IRS claims. With the passage of the 2010 health care act, this burden is expected to increase in the future. At a time when job creation remains weak, small businesses should be spending their time and resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome IRS red tape. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights seeks to mitigate this problem. It would ensure that small businesses spend less time dealing with the IRS and more time creating jobs. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights, among other things, provides more protections and safeguards for small businesses during administrative procedures with the IRS. It would lower the compliance burden on small business taxpayers; strengthen safeguards against IRS overreach; increase taxpayer compensation for IRS abuses and; improve taxpayer access to the court system. Amid the weakest economic recovery since World War II, American job creators urgently need such relief. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will reduce the compliance and administrative burdens faced by small business taxpayers when it comes to dealing with the IRS. The bill provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure through which a small business taxpayer may be able to request arbitration with an independent, neutral third party not employed by the IRS. In addition, the bill will make more small businesses eligible to recoup attorney's fees when a court finds that the IRS's action taken against a taxpayer is not substantially justified. The legislation also reinforces the independent nature of the IRS Appeals Office by prohibiting it from discussing the merits of a taxpayer's case with any other department at the IRS, unless the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to participate. Second, the bill will prevent an Appeals Officer from raising a new issue that was not initially raised by the IRS in the examination process. The SBTBOR would help to ensure the Appeals Office remains a neutral entity that effectively facilitates the taxpayer's appeals process. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will make the IRS more accountable to taxpayers by increasing the amount of damages taxpayers may receive for any collection action the IRS takes against them that is reckless, or by reason of negligence disregards the law or its regulations. Second, it increases the amount of damages taxpayers may be awarded when the IRS improperly discloses their tax returns and tax information. Third, the bill raises the monetary penalty on IRS employees who commit certain unlawful acts or disclose taxpayer information. Finally, the legislation will improve taxpayer access to the Tax Court by expanding the role of the current ``small tax case'' procedure--an informal and efficient method for resolving disputes before the Tax Court--to include a wider variety of cases. The bill will permit taxpayers to obtain judicial review from the Tax Court when the IRS fails to act on their claim for interest abatement due to an error or delay by the IRS. And taxpayers whose property has been wrongly seized to satisfy a tax debt will have more time to claim relief and bring a civil suit against the IRS. It also makes procedural improvements for taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief. By requesting innocent spouse relief, taxpayers can be relieved of the responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if their spouse improperly reported items or omitted items on their tax return. This legislation is also supported by the Texas Association of Business, National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. Small business owners face an especially crushing burden of paperwork, but they lack the key financial and legal resources that multinational corporations do when dealing with the tax code and the IRS. This legislation will provide relief for small businesses and will allow small businesses to spend more time expanding their business and creating jobs and less time dealing with the IRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act of 2013, SBTBOR. As millions of taxpayers across the country race to meet today's deadline to file their Federal tax return, it is important to note that their tax burden is more than just the amount of tax paid to the Federal Government. Taxpayers also bear the compliance cost of complying with a byzantine tax code. Analysts predict that taxpayers will spend over $350 billion this year alone to comply with the tax code. An analysis of IRS data by the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate shows it takes taxpayers more than 6.1 billion hours to compete filings required by a tax code that contains almost four million words and that, on average, has more than one new provision added to it daily. A dispute over a complex tax code with the IRS can become an expensive endeavor for small businesses, who have limited resources to fight off frivolous IRS claims. With the passage of the 2010 health care act, this burden is expected to increase in the future. At a time when job creation remains weak, small businesses should be spending their time and resources creating jobs, not cutting through miles of burdensome IRS red tape. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights seeks to mitigate this problem. It would ensure that small businesses spend less time dealing with the IRS and more time creating jobs. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights, among other things, provides more protections and safeguards for small businesses during administrative procedures with the IRS. It would lower the compliance burden on small business taxpayers; strengthen safeguards against IRS overreach; increase taxpayer compensation for IRS abuses and; improve taxpayer access to the court system. Amid the weakest economic recovery since World War II, American job creators urgently need such relief. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will reduce the compliance and administrative burdens faced by small business taxpayers when it comes to dealing with the IRS. The bill provides an alternative dispute resolution procedure through which a small business taxpayer may be able to request arbitration with an independent, neutral third party not employed by the IRS. In addition, the bill will make more small businesses eligible to recoup attorney's fees when a court finds that the IRS's action taken against a taxpayer is not substantially justified. The legislation also reinforces the independent nature of the IRS Appeals Office by prohibiting it from discussing the merits of a taxpayer's case with any other department at the IRS, unless the taxpayer is afforded an opportunity to participate. Second, the bill will prevent an Appeals Officer from raising a new issue that was not initially raised by the IRS in the examination process. The SBTBOR would help to ensure the Appeals Office remains a neutral entity that effectively facilitates the taxpayer's appeals process. The Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Act will make the IRS more accountable to taxpayers by increasing the amount of damages taxpayers may receive for any collection action the IRS takes against them that is reckless, or by reason of negligence disregards the law or its regulations. Second, it increases the amount of damages taxpayers may be awarded when the IRS improperly discloses their tax returns and tax information. Third, the bill raises the monetary penalty on IRS employees who commit certain unlawful acts or disclose taxpayer information. Finally, the legislation will improve taxpayer access to the Tax Court by expanding the role of the current ``small tax case'' procedure--an informal and efficient method for resolving disputes before the Tax Court--to include a wider variety of cases. The bill will permit taxpayers to obtain judicial review from the Tax Court when the IRS fails to act on their claim for interest abatement due to an error or delay by the IRS. And taxpayers whose property has been wrongly seized to satisfy a tax debt will have more time to claim relief and bring a civil suit against the IRS. It also makes procedural improvements for taxpayers who request innocent spouse relief. By requesting innocent spouse relief, taxpayers can be relieved of the responsibility for paying tax, interest, and penalties if their spouse improperly reported items or omitted items on their tax return. This legislation is also supported by the Texas Association of Business, National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and the National Taxpayers Union, among others. Small business owners face an especially crushing burden of paperwork, but they lack the key financial and legal resources that multinational corporations do when dealing with the tax code and the IRS. This legislation will provide relief for small businesses and will allow small businesses to spend more time expanding their business and creating jobs and less time dealing with the IRS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the solemn privilege of meeting with some of the families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting. As a father, I can hardly begin to comprehend the enormous grief these individuals have suffered, losing such a young child or a spouse or a mother in an act of what would appear to be just senseless violence. Burying your child is something no parent should have to do. The families and friends of the victims at Sandy Hook are owed the dignity and respect of a transparent, good-faith effort to address gun violence. I do believe there is common ground upon which Republicans and Democrats can come together. The issue of mental health of the gun owner is that common ground for me, along with enforcing current laws that are on the books. If there is one thread that connects the horrific series of gun violence episodes in our country, particularly in recent times, it is the mental illness of the shooter. In every case, the perpetrator's mental illness should have been detected. In some instances it was detected but not reported. These individuals should never be allowed access to a gun. This is actually something we can and should do something about. We need to make sure the mentally ill are getting the help they need, not guns. As I said, this is something I believe all of us can agree on. In response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, the Senate and the Congress unanimously passed a measure to bolster mental health reporting requirements on background checks. Some States, such as mine, Texas, have received high marks for their compliance. But many States have essentially been noncompliant, and the Department of Justice has failed to adequately back implementation of the law. So essentially the law that we passed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting to require reporting of people who are actually adjudicated mentally ill in their respective States is not working the way it should. Rather than string along an ineffective program, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for us to fix it. And we should fix it. I want to say a word, though, about symbolism versus solutions. I am not interested in Congress voting on a measure that would have no impact on the horrific violence we have seen in recent months. I am not interested in a symbolic gesture which would offer the families of the Sandy Hook shooting no real solutions. They told me they are not political. They don't come with an agenda. They are not asking us to pass a specific piece of legislation. They just want to know that their loved one did not die in vain, and that something good can come out of this terrible tragedy. So I think dealing with this mental health reporting issue is a common ground we could come together on. But we also need to make sure we are not just going to pass additional laws that will not be enforced. What possible solace could that be to these families, for Congress to pass additional laws that will never be enforced? Take, for example, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--the NIC system, as it is called--which flags people who lie on their background check. The annual number of cases referred for prosecution fell sharply during the first 2 years of the current President's term of office. Indeed, there was a 58-percent drop in referrals and a 70-percent drop in prosecutions for people who lie on the background check. We can fix this. Let's make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people who we all agree should not have them. We could be doing this right now with broad bipartisan support. Let me conclude with a couple of observations about where we find ourselves with an 11 o'clock vote on an underlying bill which remains controversial and which I think the majority leader and all of us know has very little chance, if any, of going anywhere. We heard yesterday that our colleagues from West Virginia and Ohio have come together on a bipartisan background check bill. I asked my staff as recently as on my way over here whether the language had been released so we could actually read it and find out what is in it, and it has not. We have no commitment in front of the Senate by the majority leader that there will be a robust debate and amendment process, because there are a lot of amendments that need to be offered to whatever that so-far-unwritten bill says, I am sure. And we need to have a full, robust, transparent discussion of this issue in front of the American people. So I am not going to vote to proceed to a bill that has not yet been written, no matter how well intentioned it may be. We need to make sure that what we do is address the cause of this violence, and to come up not with symbolic gestures that will have no impact or to pass other laws that will not be enforced but to come together with real solutions. Rather than put on a show and pat ourselves on the back and call it a day, let's do something good to make sure we have done everything in our human capacity to prevent another Sandy Hook. This is what these families want. This is what they deserve. And this is what the American people deserve. This calls on the Senate to exercise its historic and its central role in bringing all sides together to try to come up with solutions. But if we can't do that here, if we can't do that now, when will we ever address this tragedy? The President has told some of these victims' families that this side of the aisle doesn't care about their loss. That is not true. That is false. The President is wrong. All of us care about these families. All of us should care about violence in our communities, and we should try to work together to find ways to address this--not in a symbolic sort of way but in a real way that offers a solution and maybe a little bit of progress on this issue that would allow these families to say, no, my loved one did not die in vain; something good came out of this. We want to work together to find real solutions to this type of senseless, incomprehensible violence that has taken too many lives. I hope we will. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in about an hour the President of the United States will release his budget--65 days after the statutory deadline of February 4, the first Monday in February. Since taking office, President Obama has raised taxes roughly $1.7 trillion--a number that I know none of us can actually comprehend. But now he wants to raise taxes once again. I heard the majority leader on the floor this morning advocating for another tax increase. The President's proposed budget will ask for another $800 billion, and that is on top of $600 billion that was the subject of the fiscal cliff negotiations at the end of last year. The President's budget, which will be released in an hour but which we have heard a lot about already, will never, ever actually balance. Every household in America, 49 States, every municipality, county government, everyone else in America has to live within their means but not the Federal Government. The President's budget, as I said, does not purport to live within our fiscal means, and it does not balance, but the President says this is a compromise. I heard his spokesman on television say this is not the President's ideal budget; this is what he views as a compromise. But here is the simple reality: America cannot afford this budget, and America cannot afford the President's so-called compromise. Let's review some recent history. In November and December of last year, Republicans were asking the President to embrace serious entitlement reform. Everyone who has looked at Medicare and Social Security realizes that both of those programs are on a path to insolvency and that they will not be there for future generations. And we asked for some smart reductions in Federal spending--what we have come to know as wasteful Washington spending--in exchange for more revenue. The President refused, citing the need for a ``balanced'' approach. But I do not want anyone to confuse that with a balanced budget; the President calls for a ``balanced'' approach but never a balanced budget. Meanwhile, his Treasury Secretary made clear that the White House was absolutely prepared to go over the fiscal cliff--this was in December-- unless Republicans agreed to raise taxes. Well, we did not have much choice because after the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts, they were going to go up by operation of law. But now, after getting more than $1 trillion in new tax revenue as part of ObamaCare and after getting a separate $620 billion tax increase on January 2, which I have just talked about, as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the President is back for more. It seems as though that is his knee-jerk solution to every fiscal issue: more taxes, more spending, and more debt. Not only would his proposed budget raise taxes by more than $800 billion, it would increase annual spending by $2 trillion by 2023 and increase our national debt even more, by $8 trillion. For those keeping score, our gross debt has already increased by more than $6 trillion since the President was sworn into office. It is already larger than our entire gross domestic product--in other words, our entire economy-- and we are already spending more than $200 billion a year just on interest payments. Here is the risk--one of the risks--of this huge overhang of debt: If interest rates were just to go up by 1 percentage point that we had to pay our creditors, such as China, to buy our debt, that would be $1.7 trillion in additional interest we would have to pay on the debt for each percentage point over a 10-year period of time. So you can begin to see very quickly how payment of interest and payment of mandatory programs would quickly crowd out everything else, including national defense expenditures. A serious long-term fiscal plan must include three elements: progrowth tax reform, which we stand ready to do; structural Medicare reform, which we stand ready to do because we believe we need to preserve and protect Medicare for future generations; and, No. 3, a realistic strategy for reducing our long-term debt burden before we experience a European-style debt crisis. Unfortunately, President Obama's budget does none of that. Last year, speaking about America's national debt, President Obama's Treasury Secretary told the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee: We're not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term [debt] problem. What we do know is we don't like yours. Since that time, our national debt has grown by $1.4 trillion. Now more than ever, America needs a definitive solution to our debt problem. Now more than ever we need a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, like one that has been cosponsored by every Member on this side of the aisle. Now more than ever, amid the longest stretch of high unemployment--the highest unemployment--since the Great Depression, we need innovative, progrowth tax reforms that encourage investment and private-sector job creation. Yet the President is still offering more of the same--more taxes, more spending, and more debt. To paraphrase a famous diplomat, it seems the President never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have a couple matters I wish to discuss, but before I get to that, we have been advised--through the news media--that there have been multiple victims who have been injured during a stabbing attack at the Lone Star College CyFair campus in Texas. One person has been taken into custody. Unfortunately, this is the second time, in a short period of time, that the Lone Star College campus has been struck with acts of senseless violence, and I think it is appropriate to say here and now that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We hope law enforcement does its typically good job and finds those responsible to make sure those who are responsible are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Border Security Madam President, I wish to remind my colleagues that if they don't know where they are going, then they will probably never know when they get there. Stated another way: If you don't measure the size of a problem, you will never know how close or how far you are away from solving it. It seems like common sense. But since 2010, the Department of Homeland Security has used the metric or the measuring stick of operational control to determine how successful it is about detaining those who cross our southwestern border illegally. This is a matter of basic public safety since we know drug cartels, human traffickers, and other criminals regularly exploit this porous southwestern border in order to do their dastardly deeds. For some reason, the Department of Homeland Security has dropped this metric or measuring stick of operational control altogether, and so far they have yet to replace it with some other measuring stick or some other way to determine how successful or unsuccessful they have been. It has literally been 3 years since the Department of Homeland Security has had a functional measurement of border security. Again, this is about public safety. This is about deterring and stopping criminals and others who come across the border to deal in drugs or in human lives. During this same time period, the Government Accountability Office has reported that the Department of Homeland Security had achieved operational control--this was about 3 years ago-- of less than 45 percent of the southwestern border. The Los Angeles Times wrote a story recently that showed between October 2012 and January of 2013, the Department of Homeland Security failed to apprehend at least 50 percent of the people who attempted to cross the border without proper paperwork; in other words, illegal border crossers. I think, by any measure, whether one is a Democrat or Republican, Independent, no matter what your political stripes, this is unacceptable, and we need to do better. Earlier today, I introduced legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security officials to verify how much operational security we actually have along our borders. The Border Security Results Act of 2013 would also require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive strategy--something we have been missing for a long time--for achieving operational control of every single border sector. My State has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. We know that much of the illegal activity does not even start in Mexico but comes up through Central America. People around the world know that if they can get to Central America and pay the human smugglers enough, they can make their way into the United States. Even though we have beefed up the Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, and applied new detection techniques so our border is more secure than it was, last year alone 360,000 people were detained by coming across the southern border. If we believe the Los Angeles Times story, which I think rings true, at least twice that many people actually tried--half were detained, half made it across. This bill would define operational control as a threshold in which U.S. authorities in a given sector are apprehending at least 90 percent of the people who are coming across, and it would require the Department of Homeland Security to gain full situational awareness through technology, boots on the ground, and results-based metrics. Metrics is just a fancy word. It is a measuring stick. It is a yardstick. Not only do we need to talk about the numbers, we need to talk about the very human tragedy associated with these numbers and inadequate border security. As I said, a porous United States-Mexican border also encourages drug and sex traffickers, including all sorts of criminals who prey on children, the weak, and the vulnerable. By gaining operational control of our borders, we can save lives and protect innocent human life. We can also safeguard the basic property rights and civil rights of people who live along the border while we respect those who play by the rules and who are now trying to pursue their American dream as legal immigrants to the United States. This is not designed to deter people who want to play by the rules and who want to enter this country to work and provide for their family according to the law of the land and seek to achieve their American dream. This is also not an alternative to fixing our broken immigration system, but it is complementary of the work being done of the so-called Gang of 8--four Republicans and four Democratic Senators--as well as House negotiators who are trying to work out just exactly what border security actually means, how to measure it, and how to know if the Department of Homeland Security is doing the job. Even as we debate the larger issue of Homeland Security, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, believes this is an essential component of a comprehensive bill. In short, we should be doing everything possible to encourage the type of legal immigration that benefits our economy and our broader society while discouraging and deterring illegal entry into the country, which unfortunately, is being exploited by drug cartels, human traffickers, and other criminals. The United States-Mexico relationship is about far more than just immigration security. This is not limited to just Mexico. This is very important. Mexico is our third largest trading partner. There are 6 million jobs in America that depend on cross-border traffic and trade with the country of Mexico. By the way, their economy is growing at a much faster rate than ours. It is something we can look at and be envious of and hopefully we can ultimately emulate. The health and success of Mexico's economy is important to the economy of the United States for the reason I just mentioned. There are now millions of jobs which depend on trade with our southern neighbor, including hundreds of thousands of jobs in my State of Texas alone. Unfortunately, our land ports of entry along the United States-Mexican border have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of bilateral economic ties, and they are suffering from both inadequate infrastructure and inadequate staffing. Wait times at the border for people who are playing by the rules and trying to enter the country legally have grown unacceptably long. The Border Security Results Act would help mitigate this problem by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to devise a plan to reduce the wait times by at least 50 percent. I might add, when we think about security and the economy, these go hand in glove because the very same people who are working to provide security from illegal entry are the very same ones often facilitating legitimate trade and commerce. By reducing wait times at the United States-Mexican border, we would facilitate greater bilateral trade and faster job creation on both sides of the Rio Grande River. That is just one additional reason that the Border Security Results Act deserves to become law as soon as possible. Again, on this point, this is entirely complementary of the work and negotiations that are taking place now in the Senate among the Gang of 8, who will report to us any day now on their framework and how they think we ought to move forward on the immigration issue. But until we regain the public's confidence that the Federal Government is doing its job at this international border in terms of legitimate trade, deterring common criminals, and drug and human traffickers, then I doubt our chances for success on the larger issue are very good. President Obama's Budget Before I conclude, I wish to say a few words about President Obama's budget request. As we all know, the due date for the President's budget was February 4. One might say: February 4 has long passed. That is correct. It was the day after the Super Bowl. But here we are 2 months later, and the President has defied the requirements of the law which says the President must submit his proposed budget the first Monday of February. Unfortunately, he is the first President in modern history not only to have failed that deadline but to see the Senate and the House actually move forward with our respective budgets before the White House releases its own. If the President, who is obviously the leader of the free world and Commander in Chief of the United States military, wants to be relevant to the largest, most important domestic issue facing this country, which is how to get control of our debt and deficit and how to get the American Government to live within its means, I cannot think of anything more likely calculated to lead to his irrelevancy than to wait until the House and the Senate have already dealt with our budgets and submit his budget. That is what has happened. Tomorrow is the big day when we finally get to see the President's budget proposal. According to some press reports, we already have an idea of what is in it. For one thing, the President's budget will not balance. It is not a balanced budget. The President likes to talk about balance when discussing economic matters. Well, the President's budget doesn't balance in 10 years or in 20 years or ever. What it will do, we are told, is increase spending by hundreds of billions of dollars-- money we simply don't have. Right now the Federal Government is spending roughly 25 cents out of every dollar, of money we have to borrow from China or other creditors, just to pay to keep the government operating at its current level. We are also told the President's budget would impose hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes--this is after, on January 1, the President signed into law a $600 billion tax increase as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations. Meanwhile, the President's budget would make it harder for Americans to save for their own retirement. I find that bewildering. Why in the world would the President want to discourage the American people from saving for their own retirement, particularly at a time when he has done nothing to shore up Social Security or Medicare, which seniors rely upon. So if the Federal Government is not going to do that--in other words, not going to do its job of shoring up Social Security and Medicare--why in the world would we further discourage people from saving on their own? Indeed, from what we have heard, this budget is filled with the same sorts of tax and spend policies the President has been promoting since day one. I will give him credit--the President has been consistent throughout. Our country can't afford that kind of policy, not when we are suffering from the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression and not when millions of Americans have been jobless for more than 6 months. I would remind colleagues that President Obama has presided over an economy where half a million Americans left the workforce last month, bringing our labor force participation rate down to a 34-month low. What does that mean? Well, it means people have given up. People have been out of work so long--even though the unemployment rate has hovered around 8 percent, then 7.7, 7.6, the only reason it has come down is because hundreds of thousands of Americans have given up looking for work, so they have taken them out of that calculation, which actually gives a false impression of the unemployment rate decreasing. But we all know the economy is growing very slowly--.6 percent the last quarter. It needs to grow 3 and 4 percent for our economy to take off and create the private sector jobs that are important to get Americans back to work. The President of the United States may truly believe his proposed budget represents a compromise, but in the real world it does absolutely nothing to address our biggest long-term fiscal problems, including Medicare, which, for every dollar a typical Medicare beneficiary has put into the system, they draw down $3. That is unsustainable. The President's proposed budget contains, again, another massive tax increase even though President Obama has already presided over a Federal Government that has raised taxes on the American people by $1.7 trillion. Last week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the President's budget ``is not what he would do if he were king.'' Well, we haven't had a king in a long time--never in this country--and I can only assume Carney meant President Obama would like to raise taxes even more if he could and increase spending even more if he could and do even less if he could to reform our vital programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. In so many ways this budget sounds more like a PR stunt than actually being designed to address the Nation's biggest challenges. It may help the President secure favorable media coverage, but it fails to offer serious solutions to America's biggest long-term challenges. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which would facilitate passage of legislation that would deny pay to the personnel at the Office of Management and Budget for such time as they delay in the statutory requirement for the President to submit a budget for consideration by the Senate. As we all know, the law requires the President to submit a budget the first Monday in February, but the President has not done so 4 out of the last 5 years, nor will he do so this year reportedly until April. The problem with that is we will finish our work here this week, the House will finish their work, and the President has rendered himself entirely irrelevant. We know because the House passed the No Budget No Pay bill that it prompted the first budget in the Senate in more than 1,400 days, and that is good, that is progress. We would like to do the same now with the Office of Management and Budget to encourage the President to be relevant to the budget debate and require him to submit his budget on a timely basis. So I would ask my colleagues for their vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the Affordable Care Act--the law that President Obama said would reduce health care costs and strengthen our economy without forcing anyone to lose their existing coverage and without raising taxes on anyone making less than $200,000. Those were the promises of ObamaCare, but over the last 3 years we have seen the reality, which is far different. Reality No. 1: Amid the slowest economic recovery and the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, ObamaCare represents a $1 trillion tax increase that will affect all Americans, not just those making less than $200,000. Indeed, ObamaCare is a tax increase that will affect everyone, from young people with health savings accounts, to middle-class workers with families, to senior citizens on fixed incomes. It is a tax increase that will punish investment and hinder medical innovation, a tax increase that is already discouraging job creation and already hurting the economy. Reality No. 2: ObamaCare has not solved the problem of rising health care costs, and in the years ahead it will make the problem much, much worse. Remember, during the 2008 campaign, President Obama told us his health care plan would reduce family premiums by $2,500. Yet the cost of family premiums has increased by nearly $2,400 between 2009 and 2012. And once the President's health care law is fully implemented, premiums will soar even higher. All we need to do is look at the front page of the Wall Street Journal, which reports: Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own health plans. The truth is that young people will be hit the hardest, people the age of my daughters--31 and 30 years old. The American Action Forum recently projected that premium costs for young and healthy Americans will ``increase by an average of 169 percent.'' Such a dramatic increase in health care premiums will come at a time when middle-class workers and families are already struggling to make ends meet. After all, the median household income in America has fallen more than $2,400 since 2009. Reality No. 3: Even if you like your existing coverage, you probably won't be able to keep it. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 7 million Americans will lose their health insurance because of ObamaCare. Another study estimated that 30 percent of employers would drop their employees from their employer-provided coverage. In short, millions and millions of Americans who want to keep their existing coverage will be forced to give it up. Which brings me to reality number four. For starters, ObamaCare is a massive job killer. No. 1, it increases a new tax on medical devices that is already prompting companies to reduce investment in the United States and lay off workers, including in my home State of Texas. The Michigan-based company Stryker has recently shut down two of its facilities and is cutting 5 percent of its workforce; the Indiana-based Cook Medical has cancelled plans to build five new U.S. manufacturing facilities; and New York-based Welch Allyn is slashing its workforce by 10 percent. Texas has more than 66,000 jobs in the medical technology industry, which ranks as among the top 10 States nationwide. But those jobs are at risk. According to one study, the medical device tax could destroy as many as 1,400 jobs in Texas alone, and reduce our economic output by $252 million. This tax will also hamper innovation and reduce patient access to advanced medical devices. Not surprisingly, the medical device tax is now facing strong bipartisan opposition. In fact, last night 79 Members of this Senate-- Republicans and Democrats alike--voted to repeal it. Seventy-nine out of one hundred Senators voted to repeal it. Unfortunately, the medical device tax is not the only job killer in the President's health care law. But as we consider this litany of broken promises and as we sort through all of the unintended consequences of ObamaCare, I can only shake my head in frustration. Three years ago this Chamber had a unique opportunity to pass commonsense, market-driven reforms that would have made health insurance more affordable and health care more accessible, while safeguarding the doctor-patient relationship and boosting our economy. I still believe we can achieve those goals. But the President's health care law--now 3 years after it was passed--remains a huge obstacle standing in our way. That is why I supported an amendment to the continuing resolution that would have defunded ObamaCare and an amendment to the budget that would have repealed it. Both of these amendments were introduced by my colleague Senator Cruz. Along with Senator Cruz, I will continue pushing to replace the President's health care law with more sensible alternatives. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we would urge our colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment. It sets the goal of equal pay for equal work. Fortunately, it does not specify any coercive method by government to compel that outcome. We think it is a worthwhile aspiration. As a father of two daughters, I certainly hope their work is rewarded by equal pay to that of their counterparts who are young men. I urge all of our colleagues to support the Mikulski amendment, with that understanding that we are talking about the marketplace setting that outcome rather than coercive policies from the government.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there has been a complete abdication of fiscal responsibility in Congress, particularly in the Senate, for the last 4 years, in that there has been no budget passed in this Senate for that period of time. What better manifestation, what uglier manifestation of that fiscal irresponsibility than the $16.5 trillion in debt. Another symptom of that problem is the fact that in addition to the Senate not passing a budget for the last 4 years, in 4 out of the last 5 years, the President of the United States has missed the statutory deadline on submitting his proposed budget to the Senate for consideration and to the Congress. Really, when we are talking about budgeting, the House is going to pass a budget that limits the rate of growth of Federal spending from 5.4 percent to 3.4 percent. It limits the rate of growth. Now, most of America would not call that a cut. But for some reason that is called a cut in Washington. What I would call that is a limitation on the rate of growth of Federal spending. It is important we get the President's proposed budget, as required by the law. The law requires the President to send his proposed budget to the Congress by the first Monday in February. He has not done so, and we have been advised that we probably will not even see the President's proposed budget until our work here is done. I do not know what the President could do that would render himself any more irrelevant to this important process than not contribute his proposed budget on a timely basis, as required by the law. Because the President has not complied with the law, I am going to offer an amendment to this budget resolution called the No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013. OMB, of course, stands for the Office of Management and Budget, the executive branch agency responsible for preparing the President's proposed budget. The No Budget No OMB Pay Act would prohibit paying the salaries of the Office of Management and Budget Director, the Deputy Director, and the Deputy Director for Management for any period of time that the President is late in meeting the statutory requirement to submit his budget, as I said, by the first Monday in February. I have also filed an amendment to the budget that would allow the Senate to express its support for this legislation. It is certainly progress that now, after 4 years, Senator Reid has seen fit to bring a budget to the floor. That is his prerogative as the majority leader, something we in the minority have no authority to do. But it represents progress--some small progress--that Senator Reid has finally decided to bring a budget to the floor and that the Senate is now able to amend and debate that budget resolution. As you have heard, the proposed budget that has come from the Budget Committee, Senator Murray's budget, raises taxes by $1.5 trillion and increases spending by 62 percent. What is worse, it actually fails to balance within 10 years, which is the budget window. Equally as unfortunate, for the first time in recent memory, is that the Congress is acting before receiving the President's proposed budget. According to the National Journal, this marks an unprecedented break of 92 years of tradition in having the President make the first move in the budget process. This is called leadership. Current law requires the President to send his budget by the first Monday of February, which I have said. President Obama has ignored this requirement. He has missed the deadline 4 out of 5 years he has been President of the United States. This year he was required to issue the budget proposal on February 4, but he missed the deadline once again. While the Senate is acting this week, it has been 45 days since the President has failed to live up to the legal commitment for the President to submit his proposed budget. We all know nowhere else in America, whether in private life, private business, or in local or State government, can you fail to do your job and still be paid--only here in Washington, DC. We know it is important the President and the executive branch live up to their responsibilities, just as it is important we do so ourselves. If the Office of Management and Budget does not do its job and produce a budget, its top official should not be paid. Based on legislation we have already passed, both the legislative branch and now, if my budget amendment passes and if Congress embraces this requirement, both executive and legislative branches share responsibility when it comes to the budget. Without us doing our jobs and the President doing his job, spending will remain out of control. We all deserve better and the American people deserve better. They deserve the accountability which comes from the President fulfilling his legal responsibilities under the law of the land. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013. The No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013 will prohibit paying the salaries of the OMB Director, the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB for any period of time that the President is late in meeting his statutory requirement of submitting a budget by the first Monday of February. As many of my colleagues know, it has been over 1,400 days since the Senate has passed a budget. It is certainly progress that the Majority has decided to finally put forward a budget and that the Senate will be able to debate and amend a budget--a budget that raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases Washington spending by 62 percent, and fails to balance the budget anytime in the next ten years. Unfortunately, for the first time in recent memory, Congress is acting before receiving the President's budget. According to a recent headline in the March 11, 2013 edition of the National Journal this is unprecedented and is a break from a 92-year tradition of having the President exercise leadership in the budget process. Current law requires the President to send his budget by the first Monday of February. But President Obama has ignored this requirement. In fact, he has missed the statutory deadline four out of five times. This year he was required to issue his budget proposal on February 4, 2013. But he missed this deadline. So while the Senate is finally acting, it has been 44 days since the President has failed to live up to his commitment. We know that for Congress to get paid, it must live up to its responsibilities and pass a budget. The OMB Director and other high- level OMB officials also have obligations to meet. After all, these officials are responsible for putting together the President's budget. Both the executive and legislative branch share responsibility when it comes to the federal budget. But without Presidential leadership Washington spending will remain out of control. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve accountability. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know we have other speakers on the floor. This is all we need to know about the budget that was voted out of the Budget Committee, along party lines, with Democrats carrying the day: It would raise spending by about 60 percent, it would raise taxes by $1.5 trillion, it would increase our national debt by $7.3 trillion, and--this is the most important part--it would never ever, ever balance. That is the exact opposite of what America needs to get our economy moving again and get a handle on our long-term finances. We have already reached a point where the Federal spending levels are unsustainable. We all know that. We have already reached a point where our national debt is exerting a drag on our economy. I read the other day the President said there is no risk of an immediate debt crisis. We can debate that. But what we cannot debate is that our national debt is so big that it is dragging down economic growth, crushing job creation, and resulting in a loss of hope and certainly a loss of opportunity for 23 million Americans who are out of work or who are working part time and who want to get back to work and provide for their families. We also know, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that an unprecedented--or at least in the last 30 years--number of Americans have just simply given up looking for work. They have been so discouraged that the labor participation rate is at a 32-year low. When our colleagues across the aisle say all we need is just a little bit more revenue; in other words, more taxes, we have already seen taxes go up by more than $1.6 trillion since President Obama became President. Simply put, we cannot act as if the laws of fiscal gravity do not apply to the Congress or the Federal Government. That is why every single Senator on this side of the aisle has cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which would require the Federal Government to live within its means and require a congressional supermajority to raise taxes or raise the debt ceiling. I have heard colleagues across the aisle say: We can't pass a balanced budget amendment. That would tie Congress's hands. That is the point. It would tie Congress's hands in spending money we do not have, running up these dangerous debts, and being a wet blanket on economic growth and job creation. How do we know that government can live within its means? Virtually every State has some type of balanced budget requirement. Why should the rules in Washington be any different? Some across the aisle argue--I think they actually believe this--that embracing fiscal discipline will jeopardize the safety net. In fact, the opposite is true. If we do not embrace sensible fiscal discipline, our safety net programs will eventually collapse because we will not have the money to provide for the national security and we will not have the money to provide the safety net programs we all agree are necessary for the most vulnerable of our citizens. As I have said before, if we reform some of these programs gradually--as the Senator from Mississippi was referring to, Medicare and Social Security--we could minimize the impact and protect our most vulnerable citizens. But if we do nothing to reform and preserve Social Security and Medicare and we experience a Greek- or Spanish-style debt crisis, these programs will be slashed abruptly. The very people our colleagues say they want to protect the most will be hurt the most because the cuts will be much harsher and they will be disproportionately impacted. One last point. By reducing the growth of Federal spending--and that is all we are talking about doing; we are not talking about cuts in the sense that anybody else in America talks about cuts; we are talking about just reducing the rate of increase in Federal spending ever so slightly--but by reducing the growth of Federal spending, we would prevent the need for tax hikes in the future. Indeed, that is what I hear from so many people in the private sector. When we ask them: Why are you sitting on the sidelines with cash in the bank, and why aren't you investing in either new physical structure or jobs, they say: Because the debt is so high and Congress has shown a lack of willingness to deal with it, all we can do is expect that taxes are going to be a whole lot higher and greater burdens placed on job creators, and so we think the more prudent thing is to sit on it and not invest it in new job creation. But new tax hikes would increase long-term economic uncertainty, and they would discourage job creation. Conversely, if we work hard to keep taxes within reason and certainly not raise them any more than have already been raised, this would increase long-term economic certainty and encourage job creation. After all, investors and business owners and job creators are not stupid. They understand that without real spending restraint and real entitlement reform, we are ultimately headed for another massive tax increase. Indeed, that is what this budget, voted out by our Democratic colleagues along party lines, promises: higher taxes and more spending. That is exactly what this economy does not need for us to get back on track, to create the jobs and to create the opportunities for people to provide for their families and live the American dream. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013. The No Budget No OMB Pay Act of 2013 will prohibit paying the salaries of the OMB Director, the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB for any period of time that the President is late in meeting his statutory requirement of submitting a budget by the first Monday of February. As many of my colleagues know, it has been over 1,400 days since the Senate has passed a budget. It is certainly progress that the Majority has decided to finally put forward a budget and that the Senate will be able to debate and amend a budget--a budget that raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases Washington spending by 62 percent, and fails to balance the budget anytime in the next ten years. Unfortunately, for the first time in recent memory, Congress is acting before receiving the President's budget. According to a recent headline in the March 11, 2013 edition of the National Journal this is unprecedented and is a break from a 92-year tradition of having the President exercise leadership in the budget process. Current law requires the President to send his budget by the first Monday of February. But President Obama has ignored this requirement. In fact, he has missed the statutory deadline four out of five times. This year he was required to issue his budget proposal on February 4, 2013. But he missed this deadline. So while the Senate is finally acting, it has been 44 days since the President has failed to live up to his commitment. We know that for Congress to get paid, it must live up to its responsibilities and pass a budget. The OMB Director and other high- level OMB officials also have obligations to meet. After all, these officials are responsible for putting together the President's budget. Both the executive and legislative branch share responsibility when it comes to the federal budget. But without Presidential leadership Washington spending will remain out of control. Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve accountability. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am back on the Senate floor today with my favorite chart, one that I think is indicative of the fiscal dysfunction that is occurring here in Congress, particularly in the Senate, now marking 1,420 days without a budget. But people should be encouraged that as a result of the House passing a ``no budget, no pay'' bill, it has finally prompted our friends across the aisle to mark up a budget in the Budget Committee that will come to the floor in the next few days, and we will be having a lot of important discussions and debates about budgets, taxes, and debt ratios. I hope everyone remembers what this is really about. It is not just about numbers, it is about our obligation, our moral obligation to future generations of Americans. I would just footnote that the President in a recent interview said that we do not have an immediate debt problem, and to say: Mr. President, the debt is discouraging and retarding economic growth which we need in order to get Americans back to work. That is why unemployment is at 8 percent, roughly, with some 23 million Americans either out of work or underemployed, working part time when they would like to work full time. It is a national tragedy and why we need to get our fiscal house in order here so we can put America back to work and grow our economy and opportunity. Like many in this Chamber, my father was a member of what we call the ``greatest generation.'' I think Tom Brokaw coined that phrase, talking about the World War II generation that fought and won a world war. My dad was a B-17 pilot, and on his 26th bombing mission over Mannheim, Germany, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war. Thank goodness that after 4 months he was released from captivity thanks to General Patton and his Army sweeping through that part of Germany at the end of World War II. My father and others like him fought to ensure that his children and his grandchildren would grow up in a country that had greater opportunity than he himself and my mother had when they were alive. Indeed, that is every parent's dream, that their children and their grandchildren will enjoy more opportunity, more freedom, and a higher standard of living than they themselves had. That is the reason why parents and grandparents sacrifice and why they work hard for their kids and grandkids--because of their hope and their belief in that dream. As a result, my dad and my mother and countless other members of the ``greatest generation'' left this country better off than they found it. The question for all of us today is, Will the present generation do the same? I certainly hope so, and I am doing everything I know how to do, as one Senator, to make sure we do. As a parent, I want nothing but the best for my two daughters. My wife and I want and hope and pray for the best for them. As an American, I want to see every child, everyone's sons and daughters, succeed and prosper. But right now we have, in effect, a war being waged against America's youth. I know some might consider that hyperbole or perhaps unnecessarily inflammatory, but let me explain to you why I do believe that you could logically conclude that we have been waging a war against America's youth. Consider the following: Our national debt is close to $17 trillion. That means every child born in America today comes into this world owing $53,000 in debt. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is spending more than $200 billion a year on interest payments alone. The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund--Medicare--is projected to go bankrupt within 11 years, and we are looking at more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities; that is, promises we have made to future generations, and we currently have no clue how to pay for those. That is what ``unfunded liabilities'' means. We know the younger generation has virtually no hope that Medicare and Social Security will be there for them when they retire unless we act--and we must act. But rather than reform and protect our existing programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, the President chose in his first year in office to create yet another new entitlement program funded by a $1 trillion tax increase. Of course, we all know it goes by the name of ObamaCare or, if you prefer, the Affordable Care Act, which I think, if you look at it, history will ultimately conclude was unaffordable--not the Affordable Care Act but the Unaffordable Care Act. One impact of ObamaCare is that young people under the age of 40 are going to have to pay higher and higher health insurance premiums. You might ask how that is possible since they are the healthiest people in America today. This is a phenomenon known as age banding, which says under ObamaCare that seniors can pay no more than three times what young healthy people pay for their health insurance. But it is no secret that older Americans incur higher medical expenses by virtue of their advancing years. Yet they can only pay three times what young healthy people pay for health insurance. That will lead to much higher premiums for young people in America. Indeed, one recent survey found that premium costs for young and healthy Americans ``will increase on average by 169 percent.'' I have no way of knowing whether that prediction will be entirely accurate, but I can promise that health insurance premiums for young, healthy Americans will continue to rise under the current law known as ObamaCare. Such a dramatic rise in health insurance premiums will come at a time when young workers and middle-class families are already struggling to make ends meet. After all, the median household income in America has fallen by more than $2,400 since June 2009. In other words, average households in America are not just treading water, maintaining their place, they are losing, they are taking on water, and they are $2,400 poorer today than they were in June 2009. Not only will ObamaCare drive up insurance premiums for younger Americans, it also is destroying jobs. In fact, we already have evidence that many full-time jobs are being reduced to part-time jobs in preparation for ObamaCare's costs and regulation. In particular, in many places where young people get a start in their work life--working in restaurants, working in hotels, working for retailers--those very same employers are now replacing full-time jobs with part-time jobs in order to avoid the crushing costs of ObamaCare. So this will hurt younger Americans more than anyone else. Then there is this: While unemployment is, generally speaking, about 7.9 percent--the Congressional Budget Office expects it to go up to 8 percent by the end of this year--fewer and fewer people are still looking for jobs. It is called the labor participation rate. You can go online and look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they will show you that the number of people looking for work as a percentage of the population is as low as it has been for 30 years. So not only are people having a hard time finding full-time work, if they can find work at all, some have simply given up. A new study shows that the unemployment rate among teenagers is over 25 percent now, and a new study shows that Americans in their twenties and thirties are accumulating savings at a much slower rate than their parents did. What we find among many young Americans and not-so-young Americans is that they are living off of their 401(k) or retirement savings now at unprecedented rates. I ask my colleagues, is this really the future we want to leave our children and grandchildren? Will this leave them better off than we were or will it leave them worse off? I know that no one in this Chamber and no American in this country wants to leave their children and grandchildren worse off than they are. That is why we have to do everything we can to reverse the Federal overreach of the past 4 years and to boost economic opportunity with policies that will promote fiscal health and strong, broad job creation and upward mobility. In other words, we need to embrace policies that expand our economy and not government. We do not need people more dependent on government, we need more people independent and prospering on their own because we have a growing economy that provides opportunities for them to work, to save, and to support their families and deliver to their children and grandchildren greater prosperity than they inherited from their parents. That is the future Americans want, and that is the future we must strive to deliver. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.