John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, President Obama recently told the Speaker of the House of Representatives that we do not have a spending problem. Last week he told ABC News that we do not have an immediate crisis in terms of the debt. These comments indicate that the President just does not seem to understand the negative impact of $16.5 trillion in debt on our economy. For that matter, based on the new budget, Senate Democrats do not seem to get it either. Not only would the budget that was passed out of the Senate Budget Committee last week raise taxes by an additional $1.5 trillion, it would also increase Federal spending by roughly 60 percent and increase our national debt by $7.3 trillion. I should say that as bad as it is, the budget that was passed out of the Budget Committee last week represents progress. How could I possibly say that? Because it has been 1,419 days since the Senate has passed a budget under Democratic control. So I guess we could say actually passing a budget out of the Budget Committee and having the budget come to the floor this week represents progress. The reason I said Democrats have raised taxes again--or proposed an additional revenue increase in this budget--is because they already did so previously by $1 trillion with the passage of ObamaCare. In my experience, ObamaCare is unique compared to other legislation we have passed here. We passed it in 2009 and early 2010. Many of its provisions have yet to even kick in, and some of the provisions-- including the tax increases--will not kick in until 2014. As I said, it will raise taxes by an additional $1 trillion. Earlier this year--we know as a result of the fiscal-cliff vote at the end of December--there was an additional $620 billion tax increase at that time, but apparently that was not enough. There is an important lesson here. For those who believe that bigger and more government is the answer to every problem that confronts our country, more taxes is never enough. In fact, the Leviathan is insatiable. This debate comes down to a basic philosophy in how we should govern ourselves as a free people. Our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be focused incessantly on the government and growing the government in the hope that if the Federal Government spends enough money--even if the money is borrowed from our creditors--some of that might trickle down into the private sector economy. Meanwhile, this side of the aisle fundamentally believes it is the job creation in the private sector which helps grow the economy and creates opportunity and prosperity. We look for ways to rein in wasteful Washington spending to a more sustainable level so it stops hampering private sector investment and job creation. I wish to ask President Obama: If we don't have a spending problem, why is it we have accumulated more than $6 trillion in additional debt since you took office about 4 years ago? If we don't have a spending problem, why is it we still have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities because of programs that literally are not funded into the future? Why is it that today we are spending more than $200 billion a year on interest payments on the debt? We cannot borrow $16.5 trillion interest free. Even at the low interest rates we have today, we are paying $200 billion a year on interest on that debt. Is the President arguing we should postpone measured spending cuts and measured entitlement reforms until we have experienced a full-blown European-style meltdown? I hope not. I don't think so because that would be grossly irresponsible. I will remind the President and his allies that after $4 trillion in deficits--that would be the annual difference between what we bring in and what the government spends. After four times in a row of deficits that are more than $1 trillion, after more than $1.6 trillion in tax increases, after hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new regulations, our country is mired; we are mired in the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. That is a direct consequence of this huge debt and our creditors' lack of confidence that we are actually serious about dealing with it. Indeed, many workers have simply given up on finding work, which is one reason why our labor force participation rate is now at a 32-year low. Unemployment is almost 8 percent, but that doesn't take into account the millions of people who have simply given up looking for work after a long period of unemployment. Since June 2009 when the recession officially ended, median household income has fallen by more than $2,400. So instead of treading water, the average American family is seeing their buying power decrease by more than $2,400 since 2009. At the same time they are finding that not only are their taxes going up with the return of the payroll tax to its previous level, but they are finding their costs for gasoline, food, and the other necessities of life are going up. Does this sound like an economy that can stand another massive tax increase? I don't think so. President Obama said to ABC News that we should not try to balance the budget ``just for the sake of balance.'' Well, once again, the President was knocking down a straw man. We weren't talking about doing something symbolic; we were talking about doing something real, something that would benefit the economy and job growth and getting people back to work instead of dependency, which I know none of them want. We see more and more people on food stamps, more people receiving disability benefits, and more people on unemployment. These are people who would like to get back to work and regain their sense of dignity and self-sufficiency, but because the economy is growing so slowly, they cannot do that. We believe that balancing the budget and reducing our debt burden is absolutely essential to long-term economic growth-- long-term economic growth--which creates more jobs, more taxpayers, and people who are actually putting money into the Treasury to help us balance our deficits. We also believe that balancing the budget and reducing our debt burden is essential to saving important programs our seniors depend upon, such as Medicare and Social Security. If we want to remain an opportunity society with high levels of upward mobility--something we call the American dream--we must act sooner rather than later. The longer we delay, the more expensive and the more difficult the challenge of fixing these problems will become. Again, the basic question is: Are we more concerned with growing the job-creating private sector or with growing the Federal Government? The budget that passed out of the Senate Budget Committee--along a party-line vote with strictly the votes of Democrats--last week makes it clear they are ultimately more concerned with growing the Federal Government. We will have a chance on the floor of the Senate this week for Democrats and Republicans alike to offer amendments and get votes, which I think will provide a lot of clarity to the contrasting approaches of the major political parties. We have simply had the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, and so it is now time to do something different. I cannot recall who the original author was of the saying that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and to expect different outcomes. Well, if that is the definition of insanity, that is what is happening here in the U.S. Congress. It is time to put economic growth ahead of government growth. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the passing of Nancy Lee Bass, the State of Texas has lost one of its finest citizens. I consider it a great honor to have known Nancy and her husband, Perry, and I join a grateful State in mourning her passing and celebrating the remarkable life she led. A native daughter of Fort Worth, Nancy dedicated her life to her city. A mother of four, she was a community leader and philanthropist of the highest order, working endlessly for the greater good of her fellow citizens. Nancy's generosity was matched by her hard work and her unyielding support of the arts, health care services, and education. Her good works have touched the lives of countless people, not just in Fort Worth and Texas, but across our country. Nancy Lee Bass has left a legacy of generosity that epitomizes the highest ideals of our great State. She will be missed, but we will find solace in the notion that her giving spirit will forever live on as both an inspiration and an aspiration for all Texans.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor on the 1,414th day since the Senate has passed a budget and on a day where, amazingly, the President of the United States is reported to have said: ``We don't have an immediate crisis in terms of [our] debt.'' Well, we do have a debt crisis that threatens both future generations--because somebody is going to have to pay that debt back, and thanks to abnormally low interest rates, right now they are not spiraling out of control, but if interests rates were to return to historic norms, I believe for each additional percentage point in interest we would have to pay on our national debt, it would result in roughly $1.7 trillion more we would have to pay back. So in many ways the United States is lucky, even though we are on the brink of what scholars such as Reinhart and Rogoff have said--we are on the precipice of a debt crisis because once interest rates begin to rise, the creditors lose confidence in our ability to repay that debt, and our economy spins out of control, resulting not only in a severe recession or worse but also harm to some of the most vulnerable people in our society who depend on the safety net that government provides. It is also, in a debt crisis, impossible for the Federal Government to do what it must do in terms of national security. Indeed, that is what led the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, to say that the single greatest threat to our national security is our debt. And it keeps getting worse and worse because the President seems unwilling to deal with the obvious and to enter into what he likes to call the grand bargain but one that can only occur if the President is willing to talk about the entire economy and not just raise taxes. The President has said that we must embrace a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Of course, reasonable people can disagree on what a balanced approach looks like, but we all know what a balanced budget looks like. Yesterday morning House Republicans released a plan that balances the Federal budget over the next 10 years. We still do not have the President's proposed budget even though it was due on February 4, and we are now advised that we may not see the President's own proposed budget until sometime in April, which, coincidentally, is after the time that the House and the Senate will act on their proposed budgets. It seems once again that the President has taken to leading from behind. For that matter, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has told us that the President's proposed budget will not even try to balance the budget but, instead, put us on what he calls a ``fiscally sustainable path.'' But that cannot be true. Unless the Federal Government adopts serious reforms to Medicare and Social Security, mandatory spending programs which occupy roughly 61 percent of all Federal spending--the kinds of reforms the President has constantly rejected--we cannot put our country on a fiscally sustainable path by definition. As the President knows because his own bipartisan fiscal commission told him so in December 2010, to save Medicare we must make structural changes that ensure the program will be affordable over the long term. I do not know any young person the age of my two daughters--30 and 31-- who actually believes Medicare and Social Security are going to be there for them when they retire. They simply do not believe it because they see the irresponsibility of the present generation in not only racking up bills they are going to have to end up paying, they are seeing us do nothing to address the fiscally unsustainable path for Medicare and Social Security. Any of us who have studied the problem understand what the problem is with the Medicare system. Right now, an average couple will put, let's say, $1 in the Medicare trust fund for every $3 they will ultimately take out of it. This is not a pay-as-you-go system by any means, as opposed to Social Security, where basically you will get $1 out for every $1 you put in Social Security--but not Medicare because of its unique problems. The current Medicare system incentivizes quantity over quality, and its price controls distort the entire health care market. In my State, in Texas, about one-third of the doctors will not even take a new Medicare patient because of government price controls that basically provide compensation to them roughly one-third less than what private health insurance plans would provide. Expanding those price controls, as the President has proposed, would only make Medicare's problems worse. For all the challenges Medicare has, Medicaid--which is designed to provide health care to low-income Americans--is even worse in terms of the compensation provided to medical providers, hospitals, and doctors, and so many of them simply will not take Medicaid patients, leaving Medicaid-eligible beneficiaries ``coverage'' but no access in many instances. By restructuring the Medicare Program and increasing competition, we can hold down cost growth in Medicare and make it available not only to the present generation of seniors but also to future generations of seniors. That is the sort of serious issue that is not going to go away that the Senate budget should deal with. It should also provide a framework for sensible Tax Code reform. We all know the Tax Code is way too complicated. We also know it is riddled with tax credits, deductions, credits--what the Simpson-Bowles Commission called tax expenditures. Yet the President does not want to eliminate those tax deductions, credits, and expenditures for the purpose of reforming the Tax Code, bringing down marginal tax rates not only for businesses and individuals, he wants to use it to raise taxes again. There is a bipartisan consensus, however, that tax reform should lower the rates and broaden the base. Indeed, those are the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson Commission and the Domenici- Rivlin panel as well. But, as I said, the President wants to use what he calls tax reform as a Trojan horse to raise taxes again. He argues that we will not have a balanced approach to deficit reduction unless we pass another massive tax hike, and that is after the President raised taxes by $600 billion in January. From what I understand, our friends across the aisle--Senator Murray, as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee--are about to unveil a budget proposal that would raise taxes again by at least $1 trillion. I realize that if you think government is the answer to almost every question that comes up in America today, you are going to need bigger government, more intrusive government, funded by higher tax revenue. But they seem to be forgetting a few things. First of all, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that Federal tax revenues in 2014 are already projected to exceed the historical average. Secondly, the President's health care law, ObamaCare, already contains another trillion-dollar tax increase that is discouraging job creation and hurting our economy. Finally, as I pointed out, Democrats in this body already got a $600 billion tax increase earlier this year, while hard- working Americans--the middle class in America--got a tax increase with the return of the payroll tax. By my view, no one should be talking about another tax increase until the Federal Government quits wasting so much taxpayer money. My colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, who was just on the Senate floor, has singlehandedly worked tirelessly to expose frivolous and unnecessary spending, and the numbers are remarkable. For example, when Senator Coburn asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate how much Federal spending was duplicative, the Government Accountability Office found that more than $364 billion of duplicative spending existed. And the President wants to close down tours at the White House because of the budget sequester. Give me a break. How can anyone support another massive tax increase when the Federal Government is literally spending hundreds of billions of dollars on redundant services? For that matter, how can anyone support another massive tax increase when we are spending nearly $15 million each year to give millionaires unemployment checks? How can anyone support another massive tax increase when we are spending $\1/2\ million on shampoo products for dogs and cats? That is your Federal Government at work for you. How can anyone support another massive tax increase when we are spending $181,000 studying the effects of cocaine on Japanese quail? I know these sound ridiculous to the extreme, but that is the whole point. The Federal Government is littered with spending that we simply do not need, and yet, rather than do something about that, our friends across the aisle want to raise taxes once again, along with the President of the United States. No one said cutting spending or reforming entitlement programs or overhauling our Tax Code would be easy. But if the President truly wants a balanced approach to our fiscal and economic challenges, he will stop leading from behind and start leading from the front. I am shocked the President would say in an interview with Jon Karl, ABC News, that there is no immediate crisis in terms of the debt. What he might be forgetting is what economists tell us: When the debt gets so large, it retards economic growth. Forget the debt crisis part. That has an immediate impact on job creation in America. We are all wondering why the recovery from the recession of 2008 has been the slowest since the Great Depression. Well, one reason is people are worried about tax rates going up because they see debt upon debt being piled up. They are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what is going to happen. They are also experiencing additional costs in terms of health care, when they were told by the President back in 2008-2009 if we passed ObamaCare, the average family would see a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500. They were also told a lot of other things, such as if you like what you have, you can keep it. That did not end up being true either. The President needs to listen to his own experts, such as the bipartisan fiscal commission he himself appointed. Not only do we risk a debt crisis if we do not deal with the $16.5 trillion debt we have if interest rates were to go up, it is having an immediate impact on unemployment. More than 20 million people in this country are either out of work or working part time and want to work full time. That ought to be enough to get the President to act. Should he choose to act, should he choose to lead, we will be happy to meet him halfway to deal with the single most important issue facing the country today. But it starts with passing a budget, something Senate Democrats have not done for 1,414 days. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to mark this 1,413th day that the Senate has not had a budget. We will be talking a lot about the budget this week, as we should, in a debate that has been long overdue. Since the Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921, no President has missed the legal deadline for submitting a budget to Congress. Unfortunately, for the fourth time in 5 years, President Obama will miss that deadline. Given that our gross national debt is already larger than our entire economy, and given that we are facing more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, one would think the President would make this a priority and he would feel a greater sense of urgency about America's fiscal dilemma. In fact, not only will President Obama be late with his budget this year, he will not even be submitting it to the House and the Senate until after we have released our own budgets. So the President will not have any input whatsoever by submitting his budget--which he should have done on February 4--he will not have any input whatsoever on the deliberations of the House and Senate as we take up our proposed budgets. As I say, since the Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921, no U.S. President has ever done that. The White House has always gone first. In fact, the President is the leader of our Nation not only as Commander in Chief but also as the one the Constitution looks to in the law to bear the responsibility to make at least an initial budget proposal. The White House has always gone first, providing a blueprint that helped guide negotiations on Capitol Hill, but not under this President. The budget process is an opportunity for the President to outline his priorities. It is an opportunity for the President to tell the American people what we can afford and how we are going to pay for it. Above all, it is an opportunity for the President to show real leadership on issues of national importance. As ADM Mike Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: The greatest national security threat to the United States is our budget. What he meant by that is, unless the Federal Government gets its fiscal house in order, we are not going to be able to afford even the safety net for the most vulnerable of our people, nor are we going to be able to afford the national security that helps keep America strong and America and its allies safe. Unfortunately, the President has failed to demonstrate the required leadership in this area. He has also ignored the recommendations of his own bipartisan fiscal commission. He submitted two consecutive budget proposals that failed to receive a single vote in this Chamber. His administration has racked up $6 trillion in new debt since he became President, and he created a massive new entitlement funded by a trillion-dollar tax increase--something known as ObamaCare. Now he is refusing to send us a budget until after the Senate and the House vote on their own budget proposals. If the President really wants to play a constructive role in the budget process, he will send us his proposal right away. Further delays will only complicate and hinder our negotiations. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks today by remembering a great Texan who passed away just yesterday. Sandy, my wife, and I are deeply saddened by the loss of Borah Van Dormolen, a remarkable patriot, a respected leader, and a loving wife. Borah rose through the ranks of the U.S. Army, achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel. After more than two decades serving her Nation in the uniform of the U.S. Army, she poured her energy and sense of duty into helping our State. Frequently offering frank advice in only the way Borah could, she was a leader by example and a great friend. Borah's legacy will live in many ways, including in the young Texans she helped me select for nominations to our Nation's military academies through her service on my Military Academy Selection Committee. Sandy joins me in sending our thoughts and prayers to Borah's husband, LTC Rich Castle, their families, and all those whom Borah touched throughout her journey in life.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, be recognized.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to pose a few questions to my colleague from Kentucky. First, I would say that I admire his fortitude and his willingness to ask appropriate and reasonable questions of the administration on a matter of grave importance. This is a matter no less important than our constitutional government itself that does not give sole power to the administration to make these decisions but recognizes that the Congress is a coequal branch of government. Indeed, we have important oversight responsibilities in the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and there isn't a more delicate and important matter than the limitations placed on the government when it comes to dealing with our own citizens. I would like to ask the Senator from Kentucky whether he is aware of some of these issues. First of all, shortly after President Obama took office, the Holder Justice Department declassified and released detailed, previously top- secret legal memos attempting to explain the legal rationale for the enhanced interrogation program the Central Intelligence Agency used during the Bush administration. These memos were written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, which is frequently called the lawyer for the executive branch, which issues those authoritative memos. President Obama, Eric Holder presumably decided that they would release those previously classified memos that explained the legal rationale for the enhanced interrogation program. I would further ask the Senator if he recalls that when the Obama administration made these legal memos--highly classified legal memos-- public documents, does he remember the Attorney General made some specific comments? In fact, he said: We are disclosing these memos consistent with our commitment to the rule of law. Yet today, that same Justice Department refuses to release to Members of Congress--including this Senator, the Senator from Kentucky, and other Members who have oversight responsibilities--the very same legal rationale in this case for the drone strikes the Senator from Kentucky is talking about. So I wanted to ask, first of all, of the Senator from Kentucky whether he believes I have accurately recited the facts, but then to ask him whether he sees a double standard here on the part of the Obama-Holder Justice Department where on one hand they release these legal memos from the Office of Legal Counsel, and in this case, instead of releasing the legal rationale for the authority to make drone strikes, they issue what is, in essence, a white paper, or press release, that was linked to the news media. I would ask the Senator from Kentucky to respond.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. CORNYN. I would ask a further question of the Senator from Kentucky. I believe the question he has asked--whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil and without trial--is a very clearly stated question and one, I believe, the Senator and the rest of the Members of Congress are entitled to a very clear answer on. I was in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the Attorney General this morning where we attempted to ask him on a number of occasions what his answer would be to this question. Yet he equivocated and he was ambiguous. He seemed to be ambiguous when a clear answer would serve him just as well, a point the Senator from Kentucky has made. The question I have for the Senator is: Wouldn't in all likelihood the legal rationale or justification issued by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice include a discussion which would illuminate and elucidate the answer to the Senator's question? In other words, I would assume, without having seen that classified memo, that it would go through a rather lengthy analysis of the hypothetical situations under which these drone strikes might be used and would, in all likelihood, I think, shed some light on and clarify the answer to the Senator's question. Wouldn't that be a reasonable way to answer what is a very straightforward and reasonable question?

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for another question.

Mr. CORNYN. To the Senator's last point, I am reading from a letter dated March 4. It is from the Attorney General to Senator Paul, and he says: The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. But he goes on to say, in response to Senator Paul's question: It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. In other words, to the Senator's point, on one hand he said it was a hypothetical question, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President would ever have to confront; and then, on the other hand, he said it is possible to imagine a scenario under which it would happen. That would appear to cast a further lack of clarity on something that should be a straightforward yes or no.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I said that was my last question, but I would ask the Senator to yield for this last question.

Mr. CORNYN. It strikes me, Mr. President, that there is a clear double standard here. The Senator has asked a reasonable question, to which he has not gotten a clear answer, and one that is clearly within the purview of the Senate in our oversight capacity for the Department of Justice and as a coequal branch of government. On one hand, the Obama-Holder Justice Department not only released a white paper but released previously classified legal memos from the Office of Legal Counsel on the enhanced interrogation program, saying it was consistent with their commitment to the rule of law, but today, in response to an eminently reasonable request, is giving the Senator from Kentucky what I think can appropriately be called the Heisman, or stiff arm, and denying him access to that. So I wanted to come to the floor and make that point and ask those questions and say again that I admire the Senator's fortitude and willingness to stand up and challenge the administration on this issue. It would be easy to satisfy the Senator's request. He has made that very clear. He is not intending to block a vote on this nomination, but he is intending to get the information he has requested, and he is entitled to it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am not sure where the Obama administration is getting all of its talking points on the sequester, but the President might want to consider hiring a fact checker. Even before the sequester took effect, Education Secretary Arne Duncan declared that schoolteachers were getting pink slips. A few days later he had to walk those comments back. He said he was referring to a single school in West Virginia. But when the Washington Post contacted the superintendent of that school, he said not one teacher had gotten a pink slip because of the sequester. Then President Obama suggested that all of the people who keep the Capitol clean would be suffering a pay cut. But that wasn't true either, according to Capitol Superintendent Carlos Elias. We have been repeatedly told that the sequester would trigger drastic layoffs of Federal workers. Yet on Monday alone the Federal Government posted literally hundreds of job advertisements. Finally, just yesterday, when asked to provide evidence for the claim that 70,000 children would be denied access to Head Start because of the sequester, the White House had no details. While the President has been out there playing Chicken Little, Members of Congress have been waiting for the White House to send over its budget. The law requires the President to transmit a budget by February 4, and we have been now advised his budget will not be forthcoming until March 25. Ironically, that will actually be after the House and the Senate have taken up our own budget, and we will have no input from the President on his proposal. A few weeks ago I said a second term offers the President a second chance. I still remain hopeful that President Obama will eventually be persuaded to adopt a serious approach for long-term deficit reduction and long-term economic growth. One of the great tragedies in America today is the fact that our economy is growing so slowly that unemployment rates remain unacceptably high--roughly around 8 percent. That is only after many people have simply given up looking for work. Now more than 20 million people are either out of work or they are working part time when they would prefer to work full time. But that is not going to happen until we get the economy growing again--and that is not going to happen until we get our hands around our long-term deficit and economic growth. I realize the President and Democrats want to take the House of Representatives back in 2014. The President probably remembers the Halcyon days of 2009 and 2010 when his party controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. That got us ObamaCare, a $1 trillion stimulus, and a whole lot more debt, and the Dodd-Frank law--which was targeted at Wall Street but which hit Main Street, including a lot of our community bankers. There is a time for campaigning and there is a time for governing. But the 2012 election occurred 17 weeks ago and the 2014 election will not occur for another 20 months. Now is the time for governing, not for delivering more partisan stump speeches. In order to govern, the Senate needs to pass a budget, something this Chamber has not done for more than 1,400 days. Over that same period our gross national debt has grown by $5.5 trillion and we have experienced the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Since the official end of the recession in June of 2009, the median household income in America has fallen by more than $2,400. Meanwhile, since the President took office the cost of family health insurance has increased by $2,300. So not only has household income for most Americans--the median household income, that is--dropped by $2,400, they are seeing an additional burden of $2,300 because of ObamaCare. The bottom line is the American people are tired of the ``Chicken Little'' stories and they are tired of the fear mongering. They look at what is happening in Washington--I know my constituents in Texas do-- and they almost want to turn their eyes in another direction to avert their gaze because they understand that Washington is not serving their interests. If President Obama wants real change, it is time for him to get behind real tax reform and real reform of Social Security and Medicare, something his own bipartisan fiscal commission--Simpson- Bowles--recommended. After all, the American people did not send us here to kick and scream over a 2.4-percent budget cut. They sent us here to make some hard decisions to ensure long-term economic health and economic prosperity and it is time for the President as the leader of our country and the leader of the free world to take that message to heart. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate a very special day in history--a day that inspires pride and gratitude in the hearts of the people of the great State of Texas. I rise today to commemorate Texas Independence Day, which was actually this last Saturday, March 2. I will read a letter that was written 177 years ago from behind the walls of an old Spanish mission known as the Alamo--a letter written by a young lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army, William Barret Travis. In doing so I carry on a tradition that was started by the late John Tower, who represented Texas in this body for more than two decades. This tradition was later carried on by his successor, Senator Phil Gramm, and then by our recently retired colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. It is a tremendous honor that this privilege has now fallen to me. On February 23, 1846, with his position under siege and outnumbered by nearly 10 to 1 by the forces of Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Travis penned the following letter, ``To the People of Texas and All Americans in the World:'' Fellow citizens & compatriots-- I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual Bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man. The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion. Otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor and that of his country. Victory or Death. Signed: William Barret Travis. As we all know, in the battle that ensued, 189 defenders of the Alamo lost their lives. But they did not die in vain. The Battle of the Alamo bought precious time for the Texas Revolutionaries, allowing Sam Houston to maneuver his army into position for a decisive victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. With this victory, Texas became a sovereign and independent republic. For 9 years, the Republic of Texas thrived as an independent nation. Then, in 1845, it agreed to join the United States as the 28th State. Many of the Texas patriots who fought in the revolution went on to serve in the U.S. Congress. I am honored to hold the seat once occupied by Sam Houston. More broadly, I am honored to have the opportunity to serve 26 million Texans because of the sacrifices made by these brave men 177 years ago. May we always remember their sacrifices and their courage. And may God continue to bless Texas and these United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, here we are again, on the eve of this administration's latest manufactured crisis. Tomorrow, as we all know-- anybody who has been paying attention knows--the sequester will go into effect. And if we believe the majority leader, the President, and his Cabinet, this will be devastating for our economy and for our country. But I wish to suggest that the majority leader, the President, and his Cabinet put down the beltway Koolaid, because they are predicting a disaster that will not occur. Let's put the responsibility for this where it lies. The sequester was the President's idea in the first place. As much as he and his press secretary and staff try to deny it, the fact is, as he wrote in his recent book, Bob Woodward has made the point that they told him it was their idea. The White House proposed it to Congress and the President signed it into law on August 2, 2011. In the year and a half since the Budget Control Act became the law of the land, the President has done virtually nothing--nothing--about it. He has ignored it. He suggested during the Presidential campaign that the sequester would not happen, and it was as if he tried to simply wish it away. Certainly we know one thing, and that is neither the President nor his Cabinet nor the Defense Department nor any part of his administration has done anything to plan for it--no planning whatsoever--which, of course, makes the implementation more challenging, to be sure. At times, the President has pretended the sequester didn't even exist, even though he signed it into law, such as when the Department of Labor notified government contractors they didn't have to abide by another Federal law called the WARN Act, which requires them to notify their employees of potential layoffs that could result from sequestration. The timing, it seems, was inconvenient. Those notices would have gone out roughly around November 1, just 5 days before the last election. To be sure, there is bipartisan consensus the sequester is ham- fisted. These across-the-board cuts don't amount to smart budgeting. But what would we expect after nearly 4 years of no budgeting? And what I mean by that, as this chart reflects, is that it has been 1,401 days since the Senate, under Democrat control, has passed a budget. This is a shameful record and one that needs to be rectified as soon as possible. We are now told the President himself has missed his statutory deadline for sending his proposed budget for the year over to Congress. That deadline was February 4. And now they are saying we may not get it until after we have had to act ourselves on a budget. So they are predicting it will be roughly 7 weeks late. Well, no one could argue with a straight face--contrary to the doom and gloom and the apocalyptic predictions--that 2.4-percent cuts from our anticipated $3.6 trillion annual spending amounts to devastation or the end of Western civilization or whatever sort of apocalyptic terms you want to use. So let's look at what 2.4 percent in cuts would mean to the average American family. If you use 100 gallons of gasoline to run your car every month and you had to cut that back by 2.4 percent, that means you would be able to use 97.6 gallons of gas. If you have a $250-a-month grocery budget, you would need to find $6 in savings. And on a monthly utility bill of, let's say, $175, you would have to trim it down by $4.20. These are the kinds of cuts the American people have had to make for themselves during the recession of 2008 and due to slow growth and high unemployment since then. Yet President Obama is either unwilling or unable to propose similar cuts to replace the sequester. If he doesn't like it, well, let's have his proposal for how he would fix it since he signed it into law. Instead, what we get is a proposal that we will vote on this afternoon from our friends across the aisle that would just raise more taxes after one of the largest tax increases in American history as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations just in late December. So the President is content to push through more spending to grow the size of government, notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Government is now spending more money than it ever has as a percentage of our economy. And we have $16.5 trillion in debt. We have important programs such as Medicare and Social Security that are unsustainable-- unless Congress and the President act on a bipartisan basis. This is not a mystery. This is not something that Republicans know that Democrats don't know; we all know it; and the President knows it because his own bipartisan fiscal commission told him in December 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the White House-backed bill offered by our Senate Democratic friends to replace the sequester would actually raise the deficit this year by tens of billions of dollars. Now, you may be wondering about that, thinking that the sequester was supposed to cut spending. But, actually, the proposal made by our friends across the aisle would raise the deficit this year by tens of billions of dollars--not exactly what I would call progress. It is absolutely ludicrous, especially when we consider that even with the sequester spending by the Federal Government will still be higher this year than it was last year. Let me repeat that in case people weren't listening. Even with the spending cuts mandated by the sequestration, $85 billion in cuts, this administration will still have more money to spend this year than last year. It is hard to see how that would wreak devastation. Yet last year we didn't see planes falling out of the sky, we didn't see empty supermarket shelves for lack of safe food, nor did we see the national parks shutting their front gates. We didn't see any of the doomsday scenarios the President and his Cabinet are now warning about after 1\1/2\ years of doing nothing. Of course, the President talks endlessly, it seems, of the need for a so-called balanced approach. Well, he got his pound of flesh. He got his $600 billion in additional tax revenue from the American people. So where is the balance to that? When all he and his party proposes is more taxes and more spending, that is not balance. Now is the time to cut spending. That is the only way forward, and that is the only way to begin--with one small step--to return our country to sound fiscal footing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, I want to start with some numbers that help put our spending budget debate in perspective. Since President Obama became President of the United States, our gross national debt has gone up by 56 percent--56 percent. Over the next decade, unless we act responsibly, it is projected to rise by another 57 percent and reach a staggering $26.1 trillion. I don't know anyone who can actually comprehend numbers that big, but that is what it is. By comparison, the sequester--the much-dread sequester that is supposed to go into effect on Friday--would cut only 2.4 percent out of Federal spending for this next year. It would authorize $85 billion in cuts for the current fiscal year, which, as I said, is only 2.4 percent of the total Federal budget--2.4 percent. Yet the President is now traveling around the country on Air Force One, telling us that a 2.4- percent spending cut will have a catastrophic effect on our economy and on jobs. Of course, this part is predictable: The only solution he seems to offer is raising taxes once again. We saw in December during the debate over the fiscal cliff--and I know the American people must be getting nauseated with us lurching from one financial crisis to another, with the fiscal cliffs, sequestrations, debt ceiling, government shutdown threats. It is no wonder the American people look at Washington and wonder: Can't you guys get your act together? But the solution is not to keep on keeping on and spending money we don't have and racking up more debt and deficits, nor is the solution to continue to raise taxes on the very people we are depending upon to invest in new jobs and grow their current businesses to create jobs and opportunities for middle-class families. Rather than the nightmare scenario the President likes to talk about, Republicans and Democrats would be happy to give the President and the administration some flexibility in how it implements these 2.4-percent cuts. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the President is looking for. He doesn't seem to want to figure out how to manage these cuts as every family and every small business in America who is left with less income coming in the front door would have to do. He doesn't seem to want to manage it; he seems to want to use this to scare people in order to grow the size of government by raising more taxes. He seems to believe that only Washington and only the Federal Government can revive strong economic growth by steadily raising our levels of taxation and spending. That is sheer fantasy. The President either doesn't realize or he doesn't care that Federal spending levels are already unsustainable. Everybody knows this. This is not a mystery to anyone who has been paying attention. For example, a single Federal program, Medicare, which our seniors rely upon to provide them the health care they need, already has $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities; again, an astronomical number that I doubt any of us can fully comprehend. But $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities is big. America's total unfunded liabilities--this is all the promises we have made which we have no current ability to pay for-- exceed $100 trillion. Meanwhile, the national debt keeps going up. It is now roughly $16.5 trillion. We are fortunate enough to now see interest rates that we have to pay on that debt at a historically low figure, but each additional percentage point of interest we would have to pay--if interest rates were simply to go up to their historic norms--would increase the cost of our service on that debt by trillions of dollars. Simply put, we cannot spend our way back into prosperity. There are things the Federal Government can and should do to boost economic growth. We all understand this. The fact is the government is not what creates jobs. It is the private sector, small businesses in America, entrepreneurs, and the people who take a risk to start a new restaurant or open a hardware store. Actually, those small businesses are the ones that actually create many more jobs on a percentage basis than do the large Fortune 500 companies. All we have to do is look around the country, and I know the Presiding Officer understands what is happening. We see some parts of the country that are growing fast and where jobs are plentiful. One of those is Texas, another one is North Dakota. There are some common elements in our story that I will talk about in a minute, but for the past 8 years ``Chief Executive'' magazine has ranked the best States in the country to do business. I would not have brought it up if it were not true, but the No. 1 State is the State of Texas. This week Forbes ranked the 10 best cities for good jobs, and half of those cities were in Texas--including Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio. Texas has nearly 32 percent more jobs today than it did in 1995--32 percent. Over the same period the total number of jobs nationwide increased by only 12 percent. I would think curious people would wonder why. Our State accounts for 8 percent of the U.S. population, but we accounted for almost one-third of all private sector jobs in high- paying industries between 2002 and 2011. Let me say that again so everyone is clear. Our State accounts for 8 percent of the national population, but we accounted for almost one-third of all private sector job growth in high-paying industries between 2002 and 2011. That is remarkable. Some might wonder what the secret is, and thank goodness the States still are the laboratories of democracy where we can demonstrate the policies that actually work rather than trying to mandate a one-size- fits-all policy from Washington, DC, that doesn't work. The secret in my State is that we have, for example, no State income taxes. We are a relatively low income tax State, although people still pay sales and property taxes. We have minimal and sensible regulations because we know that not only do taxes depress economic growth, we know government--either State government, local government, or Federal Government--that issues punitive regulations can actually dampen economic growth and job creation. We also have a relatively low level of per capita government spending. People don't come to Texas because they want handouts. They come to Texas because they want an opportunity to work, to achieve, and to live their dreams and in the process creating a lot of jobs and opportunity for other people. We are also--and I know this is where the Presiding Officer can identify with this statement--unapologetic about harvesting our State's abundant oil and gas reserves. Indeed, Texas oil production increased by 94 percent between September 2008 and September 2012. Shale gas is natural gas that is produced by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. It has been around--actually fracking--for roughly 60 years now. When done properly, it is safe and does not damage the water supply. The shale gas now available due to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has produced a shale gas revolution in this country. The truth is that if we get out of the way and sensibly regulate this industry, open the Keystone XL Pipeline--which the President could do, but he has not yet done--it would not only create thousands of new jobs, it would create the potential for North American energy independence. Imagine how that would change the geopolitics of the planet. In instances where the Iranian regime threatens to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and block 20 percent of the world's oil supply, it would not have nearly the impact because our country would be North American energy independent within a decade or so. Well, I should also footnote the fact that down in Eagle Ford Shale-- which is south of San Antonio, and where I am from--they had some of the highest unemployment rates in our State. Much like the Bakken Shale, anybody who can get a commercial driver's license and pass a drug test can earn a lot of money. As a matter of fact, commercial truckdrivers in south Texas now can earn over $100,000 a year, and it is hard to find workers. They were suffering a shortage of workers because of the economic activity caused by natural gas exploration production. The President should also reject misguided policies by the Federal Government that are killing jobs and threatening to put many oil and gas producers and refiners out of business. He should loosen restrictions on Federal lands and offshore drilling, and he should certainly issue more drilling permits. Expanding domestic energy production and eliminating harmful regulations would promote job creation and reduce unemployment, just as it has in my State. In a larger sense, embracing this model would help the United States gain much of its economic competitiveness and fiscal credibility that we have recently lost. It would send a clear message that we are serious about rejuvenating our economy and reducing our long-term debt burden. Above all, embracing this model would show that Washington has discovered our founding principles of limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. I will close on this and say that I have not heard the President talk recently about 7.9-percent unemployment in this country, nor have I heard the President talk about the reduced number of people who are actually still looking for jobs. That number would be much higher because there are people who have lost their jobs and are still actively seeking jobs. Notwithstanding that, we know from the Congressional Budget Office that the unemployment rate will actually get worse by the end of the year. This is very urgent. It is not just about statistics; it is not just about numbers; it is about people who are hurting because they are out of work and unable to provide for their families. One would think this would be a cause we could all come together on and address to the best of our ability using some of the powerful examples in States such as North Dakota and Texas. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.