John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to some of the debate on the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, which I believe misstates the law and the content of the underlying bill specifically as it relates to tribal court jurisdiction. First of all, I start from the premise that tribal courts should be able to prosecute domestic violence cases that occur on tribal lands involving tribal members. The question is, Under what procedure--what practice--is it appropriate for them to attain jurisdiction over nontribal members who commit these acts of domestic violence whom they wish to prosecute in tribal courts? I am not here to question the integrity of the tribal court system for tribe members. The only question on the table is whether tribal courts, under the law that applies to these tribal courts, is required to protect the constitutional rights of nontribe members whom they seek to assert jurisdiction over. In order to protect constitutional rights, the Constitution as interpreted by the Federal courts must be applied, and there must be an opportunity given to individuals who are prosecuted in these tribal courts who are not tribal members to appeal to a Federal court if, in fact, they are convicted. First of all, the distinguished Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, has said there is a right of removal to Federal court in the underlying bill, and that is incorrect. There is no right of removal to Federal court in the underlying bill. However, in the amendment which I had contemplated offering--which the distinguished bill manager, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said is not acceptable to him-- would include a right of removal to Federal court under some circumstances. So I want to correct the record: There is no right of removal in the underlying bill to the Federal court that might otherwise correct an unconstitutional provision. Under the tribal court jurisdiction they operate under the Indian Civil Rights Act, which is, by definition, a statute and not the Constitution. So the rights provided to tribe members and nontribe members under the Indian Civil Rights Act are not constitutional rights. They don't incorporate the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution which would be applicable to any American citizen tried in any State or Federal court. Since Indian or tribal courts claim to be sovereign and don't incorporate those constitutional rights, then American citizens who are not tribal members who would be tried in those tribal courts under the underlying bill would be unconstitutionally deprived of the protections of the Bill of Rights which they have by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, argues that habeas corpus protections are sufficient to vindicate the constitutional rights of nontribal members, but that is not the case. Habeas corpus is a remedy which cannot be accessed until direct appeals are exhausted by definition. Since that is the case, under the underlying bill, the maximum length of sentence an individual can be given under the Leahy bill is 1 year. So what would happen is an American citizen, nontribe member, would be tried in a tribal court and would wrongfully be deprived of their constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights. Yet they could not vindicate those rights until such time as they exhausted all direct appeals, and then habeas corpus would be potentially available to them. The only problem with that is it is very unlikely that would happen before they would have already served their sentence under the underlying bill, which is a maximum of 1 year; thus, the habeas corpus remedy is illusory and is not real. I hope that helps clarify some of the misunderstandings under the bill and my concerns about it. We start from the premise that domestic violence on tribal lands is a serious problem. With the current situation, these crimes are not deemed sufficiently serious for U.S. attorneys to typically prosecute these cases. They are serious cases. They deserve to be prosecuted but only consistently with the U.S. Constitution. If the tribal courts wish to assert jurisdiction over nontribe members, the only way they should be allowed to do so is if they incorporate the protections of the Bill of Rights. That is something I have proposed to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which he has rejected. We also have to have a means for an appeal to a Federal court if a nontribe member is convicted in a tribal court. That is not in the underlying bill. It strikes me as somewhat bizarre to have a remedy which is in the form of my amendment which would confer on tribal courts the requirement that they incorporate the provisions of the Bill of Rights when a nontribe member is being tried in a tribal court and that a right to an appeal to a Federal court also be included. That would remove the constitutional objection to the assertion of tribal court jurisdiction over nontribe members, but this has been rejected for some reason that escapes me. Our only remedy is to go to the House of Representatives once this bill passes the Senate--and it will. Ironically, this is a bill that historically has passed with unanimous agreement--Democrats, Republicans alike. It has not been a political bill. Apparently, in a desire to make it a political statement and to somehow suggest that some people don't believe we ought to prosecute violence against women in tribal courts, an erroneous argument has been made by two Senators, whom I mentioned here, which I hope my statement has corrected. We don't need to go there. There is a commonsense solution, but unfortunately it has been rejected by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Our only recourse is to take the Senate bill and reconcile it with a bill that will be passed by the House of Representatives, which I hope will fix this provision and have it resolved in conference in a way that protects victims of domestic violence on tribal lands when perpetrated by nontribe members and when those nontribe members are tried in tribal courts. I know that sounds a little convoluted, but it is an important constitutional right we are talking about, and I am amazed that such a simple solution, which is right at hand, is being rejected in favor of trying to make some kind of political statement that some Members don't care as much as others do about vindicating the rights of victims of domestic violence on tribal lands. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as a preliminary matter, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Lotus, a fellow on Senator Grassley's staff, and Angela Sheldon, a fellow on the staff of Senator Hatch, be allowed privileges of the floor during debate and votes while the Senate considers S. 47.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this Chamber has the rare opportunity to pass legislation that would improve public safety, help secure justice for rape victims, and help get dangerous criminals off the street. We could very easily pass this legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, just as we have on two prior occasions. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues have decided to turn the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization into a partisan football, and I will explain that in a minute. As a result, not only are they dividing us when we ought to be united in the cause against violence against women, they are ultimately jeopardizing support for women's shelters, counseling programs, and legal services. They are also making it harder to do something I have committed to do for the last couple of years, and that is to reduce the rape kit backlog, which is a national scandal of the highest order. Ever since it became law in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has benefited from strong bipartisan support. As I have said, it has twice been reauthorized by a unanimous Senate vote. I never thought the day would come when this issue would become politicized, but I am afraid it has. I believe it is very important, and all of us who care deeply about this issue and this legislation must understand that this should remain a bipartisan cause. Just ask Carol Bart, Lavinia Masters, Lennah Frost, or Mica Mosbacher, all of whom have courageously shared with me and all of us their personal stories in the hopes of helping other victims against sexual assault. It has been my tremendous honor to get to know these women, and I admire their courage and willingness to share what is a profoundly personal trauma in their effort to help other would-be victims. I am proud to say each of them has endorsed and supported the SAFER Act, which is the rape kit backlog element in the underlying bill we are considering. The SAFER Act would make it much easier for State and local law enforcement officials to reduce the rape kit backlog, which may be as large as 400,000 untested rape kits. These rape kits are composed of DNA evidence collected at a crime scene, which then can be compared against an FBI database to get a hit or identification of a sample from an unknown assailant against a known criminal whose name is on the FBI database. When you get a hit, that provides conclusive proof of identity of the assailant where they may not otherwise be known or captured. This reform is not controversial. In a much less polarized environment, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act would be a slam dunk. In today's polarized Washington, it seems that no issue is immune from political gamesmanship. The problem with the underlying bill is simple: It denies constitutional rights to certain American citizens. I am stunned that some of my colleagues are okay with this. I am stunned that some self- proclaimed civil liberties organizations apparently have no objection to a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution. They believe somehow that Congress could legislate away constitutional rights. It cannot. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and no act of Congress can violate the Constitution and stand. Constitutional rights should not and are not negotiable. They are not bargaining chips in a Washington parlor game. They are permanent, and they are sacrosanct. Here is the good news. There is an obvious compromise that would resolve this dispute and guarantee bipartisan support for reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Senator Leahy's bill, the underlying bill, would let certain U.S. citizens be prosecuted for domestic violence in Native American tribal courts without their full constitutional rights and without an ability to pursue an appeal in the Federal court system. Once again, we all understand this. Congress cannot legislate away constitutional rights. This bill, if passed in its current form, would purport to do that. The solution is easy. I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator Crapo, who was the original cosponsor of the underlying bill, and Senator Alexander, that would let Native American tribal courts prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence, provided that all non- Indians were given their full constitutional protection, as provided by the Bill of Rights, and would be allowed appeals from a verdict in the Federal court system. In other words, if you compare our amendment with the language in Senator Leahy's underlying bill, we would both give Native American officials the exact same authority to prosecute people who commit domestic violence on Indian reservations. The difference between our proposal and the underlying bill is ours would not violate the Constitution. It would not deny American citizens the protection of the Bill of Rights, but the underlying bill does that. It denies American citizens accused of crimes of domestic violence in tribal courts their constitutional rights. Surely we all share the same goal of protecting victims of domestic violence, no matter who they are, but in this case they are people who are victims of domestic violence committed on tribal lands. We all want to do everything we can to protect Native American women from violent crime. We can do exactly what Indian leaders are asking us to do without violating the Constitution. It is just that simple. In the end, the choice is pretty basic: Either we will uphold the Constitution or we won't. I urge my colleagues to extend bipartisan support for this bill and the message it sends to America and particularly to the victims of sexual assault. I would ask them to put that unified message ahead of their desire to divide us by denying, in the underlying bill, the constitutional rights to those accused of domestic violence on tribal lands who are not themselves members of the tribe. I would remind all of us of the oath we have taken as U.S. Senators to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would urge them to remember everything they have said, we have all said, in the past about the importance of upholding civil liberties. Finally, I wish to say a few words to you, victims advocacy groups that have worked so long and hard to pass the VAWA in 1994, and have worked so hard to see it reauthorized. My message to you is this: I am grateful for your efforts, and I share your desire to make this law even better and even stronger than it is today. Make no mistake, the Violence Against Women Act is being held hostage by constitutional language in the underlying bill, but we can fix it. All it takes is the will and desire of Senators in this Chamber to work together to fix it so that it becomes constitutional, so that it becomes effective. I have done everything in my power to promote a reasonable constitutional compromise. Unfortunately, there are those who have chosen to put politics ahead of their desire to actually come to a solution on this issue. That is unfortunate, that is regrettable, but that is the state of play. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in my previous life, I was attorney general of the State of Texas. In that capacity, I had the opportunity to work with numerous victim rights groups, primarily because part of my responsibility--the office's responsibility--was to administer the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, which took a small portion of the fees paid by criminal defendants who are convicted of crimes or pled guilty to crimes and put it into a fund that could be used then to help victims. As attorney general of Texas, I became a supporter of the crime victims rights community and their interests as well as the VAWA. This is really an important point. Since it was first enacted in 1994, the VAWA has been reauthorized on two separate occasions, each time by unanimous vote of the Senate. Let me say that again. On the two previous occasions the Senate has voted to reauthorize the VAWA, it has been unanimous. There were no differences between Democrats and Republicans--we were all together in supporting this legislation. For that reason, I hope Members of both parties will think long and hard before turning this critical law into just another vehicle for scoring political points or bowing to special interests instead of the public interest. I am enormously proud and grateful that this bill contains a version of the SAFER Act, which I first introduced last year with strong bipartisan support. I had the privilege of meeting several extraordinary Texas women, including Carol Bart, Lennah Frost, and Lavinia Masters, all of whom decided to go public with their story in hopes of helping other victims of sexual assault. It has been a moving experience. I am delighted that our bill and our effort via the SAFER Act to address the untested rape kit scandal in this country is so close to the finish line. Why is this legislation so important? Right now there are as many as 400,000 untested rape kits sitting in police evidence lockers or labs across the Nation. Each one of those rape kits--which is a sample of DNA that could then be used to match up against an FBI database to make an identification of a sexual assailant--right now 400,000 of them, it is estimated; we really don't know the exact number--are sitting in evidence lockers and police storage facilities all across the Nation. Each one of these kits has the potential to solve a crime, to identify a rapist and deliver justice for a victim. The SAFER Act would help law enforcement officials reduce that backlog of untested rape kits and improve public safety. Indeed, it would help us address what can only be considered a national scandal. It would help bring peace of mind to rape victims. And it would help get dangerous criminals off the street before they commit another crime. That is why the SAFER Act has been endorsed by a wide range of victim advocacy groups, such as the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network; the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; the Fraternal Order of Police; and the National Organization for Women. That is why we are so eager to see this legislation become law. But beyond the SAFER Act, the VAWA provides funding for shelters, counseling programs, and legal services that help ensure that our justice system leaves no victim behind. For all these reasons, we can and we must reauthorize the VAWA. As we have done on previous occasions, we should do so with overwhelming bipartisan support. We could easily do that. Unfortunately, the underlying bill also contains a separate provision that is blatantly unconstitutional. It would deny U.S. citizens their full constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights in tribal courts. Needless to say, this is a big problem, but it is also a solvable problem. I have drafted an amendment that would allow Native American tribes to prosecute U.S. citizens for domestic violence as long as those tribes followed the Constitution and allowed all convictions to be appealed in the Federal court system. This amendment is a sensible compromise, and I have discussed it with all of the various organizations that are interested in passage of a reauthorization of VAWA. We have negotiated in good faith, but unfortunately that good-faith effort to try to find a solution has run into a brick wall of opposition, and the chairman has decided to not change the controversial language that would deny certain Americans full protection of the Bill of Rights. What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to pick a political fight and not find a solution if a solution is at hand and it makes so much sense. Once again, I passionately support the SAFER Act. I am grateful that provision at long last is included in this law, which will allow us to address that national scandal of hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits. This is a bill which could do so much good in the battle for victims' rights, but unfortunately it is being held hostage by a single provision that would take away fundamental constitutional rights for certain American citizens. And for what? For what? In order to satisfy the unconstitutional demands of special interests. I remain hopeful that we can eventually come to a compromise that upholds the Constitution, if not here in the Senate then in a conference committee between the House of Representatives and the Senate, so we reconcile the differences between the two bills passed by each House. For now I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a bill that violates the U.S. Constitution. I cannot, in good conscience and in fidelity to my oath of office, vote for a provision that I know is unconstitutional. I will, however, vote for the alternative bill that is offered by Senator Grassley which eliminates this unconstitutional provision. It reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act and contains the SAFER Act which addresses this backlog of untested rape kits. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the latest economic report came out yesterday, and it showed that the economy of the United States actually shrank in the last quarter of 2012, with U.S. exports plunging 5.7 percent. You heard me correctly--the economy is growing more slowly. In fact, it is contracting rather than growing. This news is a sobering reminder that we are still experiencing the weakest economic recovery and the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression, and it has very human consequences. Millions of Americans are out of work or they are working part time when they wish they could work full time so they can provide for their families. We cannot create more jobs in this economy unless the economy grows. We must never accept slow growth and high unemployment as the new normal. As I said, these are not just economic concerns, these are human concerns. When millions of people are unable to get full-time jobs, the social and psychological effects can be devastating for individuals, families, and entire communities. Yet it seems that the President is no longer focused on the economy. By shutting down the White House Jobs Council--with unemployment at 7.8 percent--the President is sending a clear message that the economy and jobs are no longer his top priorities and that his priorities lie elsewhere. This is greatly disappointing. We must do everything we can within our power to revive the American jobs machine and accelerate the pace of U.S. economic growth. That means doing some simple but apparently complicated things at the same time, such as reforming our Tax Code, abolishing unnecessary and harmful regulations, and removing the obstacles to greater domestic energy production. In other words, we should copy the simple economic blueprint that has proven so successful in my State of Texas: lower taxes, limited government, sensible regulations, and strong support for our domestic energy production. These policies have helped Texas turn a $5 billion deficit into an $8.8 billion surplus while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the private sector. Texas achieved that budget surplus by having the courage to make some hard decisions when it came to spending. Unfortunately, the Federal Government continues to spend and spend and postpone its own hard decisions about America's long-term finances. When we look back over the past several decades, for example, we see our programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, on an unsustainable path, and we see that virtually all of the increases in Federal spending come from those programs. When we look ahead over the next several decades, we see that these programs are headed for bankruptcy. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, this is unacceptable to all of us. Why aren't we doing everything in our power to preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security by taking the steps we all know need to be taken in order to save these for future generations? I know there are some people in the Chamber and across the Capitol who still believe we can solve all of our problems by raising taxes. Well, we just saw the American people's taxes go up by roughly $60 billion a year as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations. The President has gotten his tax increase. The President has gotten his pound of flesh. So now it is time for a little bit of what the President himself likes to call ``balance.'' Where are the spending cuts? Where is the spending restraint that would provide the balance to offset that revenue increase? The President knows these facts as well as anyone. He has acknowledged that tax increases alone cannot save programs such as Medicare. Instead, we all know we need measured structural reforms to make these programs sustainable in the long haul. With the national debt now roughly around $16.5 trillion, with the Medicare hospital trust fund projected to be insolvent within 11 years, with our unfunded Medicare liabilities approaching $27 trillion, and with our total unfunded liabilities exceeding $100 trillion, America's toughest financial decisions must not be delayed any longer. The politics, no doubt, are difficult, but the choice is pretty simple: Either we will reform these programs--Medicare and Social Security--gradually, slowing the rate of growth, or we will be forced to slash them abruptly when the bottom drops out of our economy. If we reform them gradually, starting now, we can minimize the impact and protect our most vulnerable citizens. If we wait until a debt crisis ensues and those changes have to be made abruptly, the impact will be much harsher and they will disproportionately affect low-income people and the needy. Nobody wants that. If we continue to kick the can down the road, pretty soon we are going to run out of road. I have one final point. I read in the Washington Post this morning that people were saying that the contraction of the economy has been because the Federal Government has not been spending enough. Well, I would remind everyone here that about 40 cents out of every dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed money. That racks up trillion- dollar-plus annual deficits and contributes to the $16.5 trillion national debt. We cannot keep spending our way out of slow economic growth. Over the past few years, we witnessed an explosion of new Federal spending, and that has not solved our economic problems. We have also seen the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. So we have seen a confluence of unprecedented Federal spending and weak economic growth. That is not a coincidence. In 2008 America ranked No. 1 in the world for global competitiveness. We were No. 1 in the world. In 2012 we ranked seventh. In 2008 we ranked fifth on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. Today we rank 10th. This decline is simply unacceptable and can be easily reversed--not with more government spending of borrowed money, thereby exacerbating our deficits and debt and crowding out the private sector, creating uncertainty as to what our tax policy will be or what the fiscal consequences will be when the bottom drops out. Instead, what we need are genuine progrowth policies designed to help small businesses and middle-class families. We don't need more government intervention; we need more entrepreneurship and more innovation. Government must simply take its boot off the neck of the great American jobs engine. After all, this is still the most dynamic economy on Earth, and America continues to attract the best and brightest from around the world who want to come to America to achieve their own version of the American dream. With better leadership--particularly from the President, whose leadership is required--there is no reason we cannot turn this slow economic growth around and turn it into fast growth, which in turn will increase private sector job creation. It will create more taxpayers who will pay more money into the Treasury, which will help us close that deficit. In the process, we need to expand economic opportunity for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. Mr. President, the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense has already done damage to the credibility of the United States in its attempt to deny Iran a nuclear weapon, thus emboldening one of the most dangerous regimes in the Middle East. To limit that damage, President Obama should choose someone else to lead the Pentagon. After all, the Nebraska Senator is the same person who has consistently opposed sanctions against Iran. He is the same person who wanted Washington to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization. He is the same person who voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group at a time when it was orchestrating the murder of U.S. troops in Iraq. He is the same person who refused to sign a letter asking the European Union to label Hezbollah--an Iranian proxy--as a terror group, even though it is so designated by the U.S. State Department. He is the same person who urged President Bush to offer Iran ``direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks.'' He is the same person who called for establishing a U.S. diplomatic mission in Tehran. He is the same person who dismissed ``a military strike against Iran'' as ``not a viable, feasible, responsible option.'' And he is the same person who suggested that the United States might be able to live with a nuclear Iran. During his years in this Chamber, Senator Hagel's opposition to Iran sanctions placed him in a very small minority. For example, only one other Senator joined him in voting against sanctions in 2001, and only one other Senate Banking Committee member joined him in rejecting a different sanctions package in 2008. Simply put, Senator Hagel has no credibility on perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the Obama administration's second term and on American national security interests in the Middle East and around the world. Consider how his nomination was interpreted by Iranian journalists and government officials. Press TV, a Tehran-based propaganda network, noted with satisfaction that Senator Hagel is known for ``his criticism of Washington's anti-Iran policies'' and ``has consistently opposed any plan to launch [a] military strike against Iran.'' The point is, not that we should be threatening military strikes against Iran, but to take this off the table entirely completely undercuts any diplomatic efforts we might take to deny Iran a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry responded to the Hagel announcement by declaring: We hope that practical changes will be created in the U.S. foreign policy and . . . that the U.S. officials will favor peace instead of warmongering. The Iranians are claiming we are the ones warmongering, while they are building a nuclear weapon. Just for good measure, the Al Jazeera Web site published an article headlined: ``Obama defeats the Israel Lobby.'' Is this really the impression we want to give our adversaries and our allies in the Middle East? Is this how we encourage our friends, to say we will be there to support our allies? Is this the message we want to convey to our adversaries such as Iran, that has threatened the annihilation of Israel, to wipe it off the map? Unfortunately, that is the message that is conveyed by the nomination of Senator Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Not only has Senator Hagel been a persistent critic of Iran sanctions, he has also displayed a stubborn hostility toward America's closest Middle Eastern ally. In October 2000, shortly after Yasser Arafat launched the second Intifada, 96 Senators signed a letter to President Clinton affirming their solidarity with Israel. Senator Hagel was not among them. Six months later, after a relentless onslaught of Palestinian terrorism, 87 Senators signed a different letter asking President Bush to ``initiate a reassessment of our relations with the Palestinians.'' Once again, Senator Hagel refused to sign. He also refused to join 89 other Senators in signing a November 2001 letter that urged President Bush to maintain strong support for Israel and to continue snubbing Arafat until the Palestinian leader ended his terror campaign. On April 12, 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 6 people and injured more than 100 others in Jerusalem. That same day, Senator Hagel went to the Senate floor and suggested a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli self-defense. Three months later, he published an article in the Washington Post bemoaning ``the endless cycle of violence'' and declaring that ``Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.'' In a 2003 interview with a local newspaper in Lincoln, NE, Senator Hagel ratcheted up his rhetoric even further, saying the Israelis ``keep Palestinians caged up like animals.'' In 2009, Senator Hagel coauthored a policy paper that advised President Obama to pursue a dialog with Hamas--again, a State Department-designated terrorist organization; Iran's primary proxy in the area. More specifically, the paper recommended that Washington ``offer [Hamas] inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement's views and test its behavior.'' Most of us believe, including the U.S. State Department, that Hamas' views and behavior are already clear enough: It is committed to the annihilation of Israel; it fires rockets and Iranian-made missiles at civilian areas; and it indoctrinates Palestinian children in a culture of hatred and violence. Of course, Senator Hagel's most famous comments--or I should say infamous comments--on Israel were delivered during a 2006 interview with former Clinton administration official Aaron David Miller. In that interview, Senator Hagel said ``the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.'' These remarks are deeply offensive, but they are also quite revealing, for they confirm that he simply does not understand the true basis of the U.S.-Israeli alliance. The American people and their elected representatives support Israel for obvious reasons: Both of our countries are pluralistic democracies with a shared commitment to liberty, equality, and basic human rights; both of our countries are threatened by radical Islam; and both of our countries have responded to that threat while remaining free and open societies. In other words, we have an alliance based on shared values and a common determination to defend liberal democracy against terrorists and dictators alike. I realize Senator Hagel is now repudiating many of his past actions and statements, but we have seen this before, unfortunately: individuals approaching the confirmation process undergoing a seeming transformation. But this sudden and convenient transformation beggars belief. Senator Hagel has not undergone an abrupt ideological makeover; he just wants to win approval from Members of this Chamber in what we might call a ``confirmation conversion.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak about taxes, debt, and spending. It is time for President Obama to show real leadership on the biggest threat America faces to our future prosperity. As my good friend the Republican leader has said: If we don't get a handle on spending and debt, not much else matters. It has now been 1,371 days--almost 4 years--since Democrats, who control the Senate, have brought a budget to the floor and had a vote and passed the budget. Over that time, our national debt has grown by more than $5.2 trillion. Our credit rating has been downgraded because of fears we may not be able to pay back our debt when it is ultimately due, and we have experienced the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Since the end of the official recession in 2009, Americans' median household income has fallen by roughly $2,500, while the cost of employer-provided family health insurance has increased by more than $2,300--roughly a comparable amount. Not only has income fallen by $2,500 but costs have gone up--thanks to ObamaCare--by $2,300 for the average family. Until recently, passing a budget was considered not optional. It was considered a basic responsibility under the law. In fact, the Budget Act requires that Congress pass a budget each year, but this law has been defied for almost 4 years in the Senate. I realize the Democratic leader--the majority leader--has said he did not want to bring a budget to the floor because he did not want to put his Members through a series of politically tough votes. We cannot get to this problem by dealing with tax increases. This seems to be the preferred method of dealing with our deficits and debt by raising taxes, which, of course, happened as a result of the fiscal cliff negotiations where taxes have gone up on Americans by roughly $60 billion a year, which will amount to almost $600 billion over the next 10 years. Nevertheless, the President's budgets continue to ask for more revenue, but the message from this side of the aisle has been: The President has gotten his pound of flesh on taxes. Now it is time to deal with spending. Unfortunately, we no longer have the luxury of delaying our toughest fiscal decisions. Our gross national debt is now larger than our entire economy, and we are now facing more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for things such as Medicare and Social Security. Those are promises we will not be able to keep unless we act now to put them on a fiscally sustainable path. I am glad our House colleagues have passed the no budget, no pay bill. I think most Americans appreciate the fact that if Congress doesn't do its basic work such as passing a budget--something every family and every small business in America has to do--then it should not be paid. That has already prompted Senate Democrats to say they are going to take up a budget this year. Senator Murray, chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, says she intends to mark up a budget. Senator Reid and Senator Schumer have said they intend to see that a budget is passed by the Chamber. But they have also said they are going to attempt to extract more taxes from hard-working, middle-class taxpayers in order to double down on Washington's spending binge. Our biggest fiscal problem is excessive spending, not insufficient taxation. We can't raise taxes high enough to close the trillion- dollar-plus annual deficits or to make up this $16.5 trillion hole we have dug. If we don't reduce spending and save Social Security and Medicare, then we will eventually find ourselves in a debt crisis. When that happens is when our creditors--the people who lend us money, including the Chinese and other governments--demand more interest on our loans and, eventually, interest rates go up to historic norms, the debt spirals out of control, and we reach a crisis of monumental proportions: It strangles the economy; it destroys jobs; it destroys our standard of living. Don't take my word for it. President Obama himself has acknowledged that no amount of tax increases could sustain Medicare in its current form. He has also said public officials who are concerned about preserving government assistance for the elderly and the vulnerable have an obligation--those are his words--have an obligation to reform our entitlement programs and ensure their long-term viability. In other words, the debt is not only the single greatest threat to our national security, as former Chief of Staff Mike Mullen has said, it is also a threat to our ability to provide a safety net to the most vulnerable in our country. I know Democrats and Republicans alike in this body understand the problem. The President himself understands the problem. In December of 2010, his bipartisan fiscal commission known as Simpson-Bowles reported the nature of the problem and a proposed beginning of a solution. Three of the most conservative Republican Members of the Senate agreed with that commission report. However, rather than embrace it, the President walked away from it, and he has not come back to the table. We also have another bipartisan commission headed by Alice Rivlin, who was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton, and Senator Pete Domenici, longtime chair of the Senate Budget Committee--people who understand these matters better than just about anybody. So there are solid, bipartisan proposals on the table. Yet here we are, trillions of dollars later since the Obama administration began, with no solution in sight. The President had the American people with their back against the wall with the expiring tax provisions on December 31 which led to the so-called fiscal cliff. If we hadn't acted, taxes would have gone up more than $3 trillion on all Americans. There would have been an enormously negative impact on the economy and jobs. So we had to come up with some sort of stopgap solution. But the President got his pound of flesh. He got his revenue: $600 billion over 10 years. Now is the time to return to what the President himself has called a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, the President has never even proposed a balanced approach, much less a balanced budget. I can only hope that with his final election campaign behind him and with the new term ahead of him, the President can begin to grapple with and join us as we deal with our long-term fiscal challenges. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

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, in 2008, a prominent Democratic politician said that adding $4 trillion to the national debt was ``irresponsible and unpatriotic.'' In 2009, this same politician said, ``I refuse to leave our children with a debt they cannot repay. We cannot simply spend as we please.'' Again, in 2010, this same individual said, ``It keeps me awake at night looking at all that red ink.'' Then in 2011, he echoed the statements of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, when he said, ``The greatest long- term threat to America's national security is America's debt.'' And then finally, in 2012, this same politician said he was running for reelection ``to pay down our debt in a way that is balanced and responsible.'' Well, you might have guessed who this was. These are statements made by President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the President's actions have not come close to matching his own rhetoric. Since he took office, the gross national debt has increased by nearly $6 trillion. Indeed, the President has served at a time when we have accumulated far more debt than any other President in American history. After spending his first term maxing out America's credit card, the President is demanding yet another increase in the debt limit. The President argues he is merely asking lawmakers to pay the bills that have already been racked up. And he continues to blame others-- certainly not himself--for trillion-dollar annual deficits and skyrocketing debt. But he fails to acknowledge that his stimulus bill borrowed more than $1 trillion, increasing the debt by that amount; and, secondly, that Obamacare will spend more than $2 trillion in its first decade. Those on this side of the aisle, Republicans, have shown our willingness to pass a budget that stabilizes our public finances. Indeed, I applaud the reaction of the White House and of Democrats in the Senate saying that for the first time since 2009 they are willing to take up and pass a budget in the Senate--the first time since 2009. It is long overdue but welcome news. Likewise, we are willing to make compromises--not on principle, but we are willing to find common ground, and we are willing to take tough votes. Indeed, that is part of the budget process because we know-- whether it is a family budget; whether it is a small business; whether it is a county, city, State or the Federal Government--priorities have to be established in a budget because we know they always involve tough decisions: What is the most important? What do you have to have? What are the things you want but you need to delay because you don't have the money to pay for it now? What are the things you would like to have but you simply cannot afford? Those are decisions that are made by every family in America on a daily basis, and the Federal Government, particularly the Senate, has not been willing to make those sorts of hard choices since 2009. In this cloud I guess there is a silver lining. Finally, we are going to see some movement in the Senate which is long overdue. The only way, though, to get the real spending cuts we need to bring our budget into balance and real deficit reduction over the next 4 years is if the President takes the lead. This is not something Congress can do without the President. We need the President's leadership and, indeed, that is something that many of us on a bipartisan basis have been looking for since the Simpson-Bowles Commission report came down in December 2010. I am still astonished that rather than embrace that bipartisan commission report--not all of which I agree with, by the way, but at least it was a start. The President could have done something important that had bipartisan support, and it actually would have enhanced his chances of getting reelected because people would have seen it as statesmanship and leadership. We have had an unfortunate set of experiences here as recently as the end of last year, New Year's Eve, because we approached a manufactured crisis, a deadline known as the fiscal cliff. But I don't think anybody in America, certainly not anybody in this body, wants another 2 a.m. Senate vote--not because it is inconvenient, but because it is not a good thing in the people's House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to be voting in the dark of night when people are not able to watch. Nobody wants another cliff hanger that weakens public trust in our government or in our willingness to meet our responsibilities. Most of all, no one wants another credit downgrade. This is important. The President talks about the importance of lifting the debt ceiling because he said we do not want to suffer another downgrade in our credit standing. But, indeed, one of the reasons we have already suffered a negative response to our credit rating is because we have not dealt with the real problems that confront our country, the $16.4 trillion in debt, and we have not come together in a bipartisan way to save and preserve Social Security and Medicare and to keep the promises that we have made to our seniors. That has caused the credit downgrade. Most of all, what Americans want, I believe, is a serious, good- faith, open, transparent discussion over America's long-term budget strategy. They want both parties to work together. Ironically, the best time to actually do that is when we have divided government, like we have. They want both parties to demonstrate that we are capable of having an adult conversation about balancing our budget. Unfortunately, the President has given very little indication that he is prepared to negotiate on these important issues. Indeed, his inaugural speech, eloquent as it was, barely mentioned the preeminent challenge facing America today; that is, our $16.4 trillion debt and millions, tens of millions of Americans either unemployed or underemployed. The President barely touched on those issues. Instead, at a recent press conference the President suggested that certain unnamed Republicans really do not care about poor children, the elderly, or medical research. Rather than taking the high road of Presidential leadership, unfortunately, the President chose the low road. This is the same President who frequently bemoans the poisonous atmosphere and toxic partisanship of Washington, DC. When President Obama is ready to quit slandering his opponents and quit knocking down straw men, when he is ready to make serious arguments and serious compromises, we might finally be able to work together to make some real progress on long-term fiscal consolidation. Americans are yearning for that kind of leadership. They are yearning to see real solutions to the challenges that face our country. They are looking forward to seeing concrete proposals from the White House that cut spending and reduce our national debt. The President said he wanted a balanced approach. He wanted revenue to go along with the cuts and the reform of Social Security and Medicare. The President got his pound of flesh in the fiscal cliff negotiations. Unfortunately, because of the expiration of a number of temporary tax provisions, taxes were going to go up in the $3 trillion- plus range, if Congress did nothing. We were able, fortunately, to mitigate some of that and to eliminate tax increases on the vast majority of Americans and to make many temporary provisions permanent. But it is going to require genuine leadership from the President, which I hope he will provide soon, because Americans cannot afford to wait much longer. 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. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the University of Texas women's volleyball team for their national-championship victory over the University of Oregon. The Lady Longhorns swept the Ducks 3-0 to secure their first NCAA title since 1988. It was a fitting capstone for a remarkable season, in which the Longhorns finished 29-4 and rallied from a 2-1 deficit against Michigan in the national semifinals. Their championship game against Oregon drew the second-largest crowd in tournament history. I salute 12 veteran Head Coach Jerritt Elliot for coaching the Longhorn volleyball squad to its third national title. I also salute Associate Head Coach Salima Rockwell, Assistant Coach Erik Sullivan, and Special Assistant Nathan Mendoza, all of whom mentored these young women and helped them reach their full potential. And, of course, I salute the players themselves, such as junior outside hitter Bailey Webster, who was named Tournament MVP; All Tournament team members Haley Eckerman, Hannah Allison, and Sha'Dare McNeal; and all the rest of the Longhorns: Ashley Bannister, Khat Bell, Kat Brooks, Nicole Dalton, Megan Futch, Sara Hattis, Madelyn Hutson, Molly McCage, Amy Neal, and Sarah Palmer. It is my honor to join with the entire University of Texas family, as well as Longhorn fans across our great State, to celebrate their achievement. In its long and proud athletic history, the University of Texas has now won 50 national titles overall. The Longhorn volleyball team has learned what it takes to become national champions, and the experience that each of these athletes has gained will prove invaluable in their future endeavors.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Texans have a profound sense of history, and it is only appropriate that Senator Hutchison should mention the fact that we both come from long lines of Texans, starting with Thomas Jefferson Rusk, who first held her Senate seat, and Sam Houston, who held the Senate seat I hold. I will never forget Senator Hutchison coming to the floor of the Senate every March 2, Texas Independence Day, and regaling the Chamber with Travis' letter from the Alamo, reminding everyone about another important event in Texas history, a tradition which she carried on after Senator John Tower did for so many years when he served here. This is a historic moment for many reasons. First, because we are paying tribute to an extraordinary woman who has made history by being the first Texas female United States Senator and someone who has spent the last two decades fighting for commonsense values in our Nation's Capitol. While it is hard to summarize Senator Hutchinson's great work in just a few short minutes, I am going to try. I am going to try to highlight some of her signature achievements and explain why she enjoys such outstanding support from her constituents back in our great State. To start with, I cannot think of any Senator serving in this Chamber who works harder than Kay Bailey Hutchison. Sometimes I affectionately refer to her as the Energizer Bunny of the Texas delegation. She is tireless and she is relentless in her pursuit of what she believes is in the best interests of the constituents in our State. As she mentioned, she has been a tireless advocate for Texas military families. We take great pride in the fact that 1 out of every 10 individuals who wears the uniform of the U.S. military calls Texas home. Of course, some of the most powerful tributes to Kay's legacy are what I have heard from our men and women in uniform. It is no exaggeration to say every military base in Texas has felt the impact of her work on various Senate committees. I know how deeply proud Kay is of the work she has done to help the troops stationed in Texas from Fort Bliss in the west to the Red River Army Depot in the east--which I dare say she pretty much singlehandedly saved from being BRACed the last time that occurred--from Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls to the Naval Air Force Base in Corpus Christi in the south. Not only has Kay worked to provide our troops with the resources they need, she has done a whole lot to help returning veterans and, of course, their families. We always talk about supporting our troops when they are deployed overseas, but we spend less time--indeed not enough time--discussing ways to help them assimilate back into civilian life. As the son of a U.S. Air Force veteran who spent 31 years in the Air Force, I am acutely aware, as Kay is, it is not just those who wear the uniform who serve but their families as well. Many returning vets and their families encounter a whole range of social and economic hardships that can be hard to overcome. Most notably, the unemployment rate among our returning vets from Afghanistan and Iraq is significantly higher than for the general population, something I know Kay has worked on extensively. She has also worked to get our veterans the medical assistance, the job training, and the financial support they need. Indeed, I don't know of any Senator who has done more to help America's heroes adjust to life after the military. That is just one of the reasons why she will be sorely missed. Here is another reason Kay will be missed. She has fought time and time again to promote tax relief for hard-working Texas families. In the mid-1990s, as she alluded, she helped to create the so-called homemaker IRA to make sure stay-at-home moms and dads were able to save for their retirement on an equal basis with their counterparts who worked outside the home. I know it is one of her proudest achievements, and I am proud to join with the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Barbara Mikulski, in attempting to rename this IRA the Kay Bailey Hutchison spousal IRA in her honor. I hope we can join together and honor Senator Hutchison by getting that done before we close out our business this year. Kay, of course, has always championed the State sales tax deduction, which may not seem like a big deal to others in this Chamber, but it is a big deal back home in Texas as a matter of fundamental fairness because we don't have a State income tax. I daresay we never will have a State income tax as long as I draw a breath. However, we do pay State sales taxes, and it is only fair that Texas enjoys the same sort of deductibility for the State sales tax that other States have enjoyed for the State income taxes. Kay has also worked to reduce the marriage penalty tax. She has been a strong defender of taxpayer interests, and her efforts have made the Tax Code less hostile to saving and to families. She alluded to her great work with NASA. She is one of the Senate's leading supporters of NASA and human space flight. NASA has contributed historical technological breakthroughs that have benefited all Americans. Kay appreciates the vital importance of basic scientific research, long-term American prosperity, and she appreciates the role NASA has played in fostering innovation. She has long said and advocated for support for NASA because she believes that when we support NASA, we are supporting technologies and the jobs of the future. That is why Kay has done so much to help the Johnson Space Center and our universities to promote Texas as a research State. Her beloved University of Texas is grateful for her support over the years, which is one reason they will soon launch the Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Latin American law. Kay has also crafted legislation that has benefited some of the most vulnerable Americans. Her work on behalf of missing and exploited children includes the national AMBER Alert Network, which she introduced back in 2003. As she said earlier, this law has helped to rescue more than 570 abducted children who would not have benefited but for her work. That is a remarkable achievement, and it is more than just a number when we count the human lives which have been so dramatically affected by her work. A final note. As I said, Senator Hutchison has made history serving as a first woman to serve the great State of Texas in the Senate. Kay has always been a pioneer of sorts. As a father of two daughters, that means a lot to me. I am used to being surrounded at home by strong, intelligent women, but having served with Kay, I have also been a partner with a strong, intelligent Texas woman. Kay has been a role model for so many young women, not just in Texas but throughout the United States. I am honored to be her colleague and I am proud to be her friend. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison leaves behind a tremendous legacy of which she, Ray, and her children can be proud. She has a legacy that will long be celebrated by Texans from El Paso to Caddo Lake and from Amarillo to Brownsville. Everyone in this Chamber will miss her, and I know I speak for all my colleagues when I wish her the very best in the next exciting chapter of her life. I join with my colleagues in saying to the Senator, vaya con dios. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about our colleague, Senator Jon Kyl. I have always appreciated his comments, his thoughtfulness, his patriotism, and his intellectual leadership in the Senate. He will be sorely missed after 18 years in the Senate. I am sorry the Senate will be losing Senator Kyl's extraordinary talents, but as he retires from politics at the end of this month, I know he will remain a powerful force in the world of ideas. Time magazine named Jon one of the 10 best Senators in 2006. At the time, he said: ``You can accomplish a lot if you're not necessarily out in front on everything.'' That echoes Ronald Reagan's comment--one of his favorite slogans: ``There is no limit to what a man can do . . . if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.'' Over the last 18 years, Jon Kyl has accomplished a lot in this Chamber, and he has never seemed to care one bit about who got the credit. When he announced his retirement, the Wall Street Journal said Jon ``has been as consequential as any Republican in Congress over the last decade and a half.'' That is quite a compliment and thoroughly deserved. As you could tell from his comments, Jon has spent a career promoting the Reagan legacy. After he leaves, many of us will be promoting the Kyl legacy. He is a person of strong principle, a man deep in knowledge of public policy, and a person--uncharacteristic in politics--of remarkable humility. Here is how one writer described his unique skill set. Senator Kyl, he wrote, ``is one of those rare breeds who seem to make no strong enemies even while holding firm to a consistent philosophy.'' As you have heard, he has been a leader on things ranging as wide as missile defense to criminal justice to tax policy. One of the things I have admired about Senator Kyl is he always seems to be among the most knowledgeable people in any room at any given time on any given topic that is under discussion. When he speaks, people listen. But he often willingly pushes others into the spotlight rather than himself. It is because he thinks tactically: How can I advance this policy or this idea, not: How can I advance myself in the public spotlight. That certainly has been my experience with Senator Kyl. But I would add something else. He has also been a courageous intellectual leader. He has consistently led on complex issues that other Senators have ignored or neglected or just have a difficulty understanding, complex topics such as nuclear modernization, missile defense, and transnational law, each of which he mentioned in his remarks just a moment ago. It is not easy to become the Senate's top authority on nuclear weapons, but Jon Kyl is, and it is not the best way to get your face on cable news. Not a lot of air time is given to people who want to talk about such arcane but important topics. I have also watched Senator Kyl over the past couple of years cultivate more junior Senators and help them become experts in their own right on all of his favorite issues. As a matter of fact, I attended a meeting on that just today where he was trying to bring along a number of us on the nuclear issue. Senator Kyl is always thinking about the future, always thinking about the next generation of American leaders and the challenges they will face. Jon quoted Margaret Thatcher, reminding us there are no permanent victories in politics. He understands that the debate over limited government and a robust national defense will never be over, it will never be completely won and, hopefully, never completely lost. That is why he has worked so hard to educate and encourage other younger Senators who will be fighting these battles long after he leaves the Chamber. As I mentioned earlier, Jon Kyl is tremendously principled. He is a proud conservative, but he is also a fairminded and enormously effective legislator. Last February the New York Times declared that he ``may be [one of] the rare member[s] of his party who combines the trust of conservatives, policy smarts, and forcefulness that are needed to secure deals that can pass.'' It has been my great honor and privilege to work with Jon Kyl on such issues as immigration reform and criminal law, among others. He is a true patriot, a true intellectual in the greatest sense of that term, and a truly effective Senator for his State and for the Nation. After more than a quarter century of public service, including 18 years here in the Senate, Jon Kyl deserves a happy and healthy and successful retirement, but he will be sorely missed by everybody in this Chamber. Mr. President, I yield the floor.