John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I inquire of the Chair, how much time remains on our side for morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I am sure I won't need all that time, but I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I may use of that time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on December 10, the most prestigious sports fraternity in the country welcomed its newest member, Baylor University's Robert Griffin III, as the 77th winner of the Heisman Memorial Trophy. Griffin is Baylor's first recipient of the Heisman Trophy and the first player from the school to be named a finalist for the award since quarterback Don Trull finished fourth in 1963. The son of two retired U.S. Army sergeants, Griffin led the 15th ranked Baylor Bears to a 9 to 3 record and their second straight bowl appearance. The Big 12 Offensive Player of the Year has energized the football program and helped to end Baylor's 16-year absence from bowl games. Hailing from Copperas Cove, TX, Griffin put up spectacular numbers, completing 72 percent of his passes for 3,998 yards with 36 touchdown passes. He also led the Nation in passing efficiency with a rating of 192.3, which broke the single-season Football Bowl Series record. On top of his impressive passing statistics, Griffin averaged 4.0 yards per carry for 644 yards and nine touchdowns on the ground. Although Griffin is only a junior, he holds 46 of Baylor's career offensive records including passing yards, passing touchdowns, and rushing touchdowns by a quarterback. While leading Baylor to one of its greatest seasons in history, he helped accomplish other important firsts for the program. After winning a combined 4 games in November during their first 15 seasons in the Big 12, Griffin guided the Bears to a perfect 4 to 0 record in the same month, with 3 of the wins against rivals Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech. The late-season victory over Oklahoma marked the first time in school history that Baylor was able to defeat the mighty Sooners. Robert Griffin's skills are not limited to the football field. In addition to being an All-American in the 400-meter hurdles, Griffin is also a model student. He completed his undergraduate work in 3 years with a 3.67 GPA, earning a bachelor's degree in political science, and is currently working on a master's degree in communications. Griffin also plans to earn a law degree. I applaud his commitment to excellence in both academics and athletics. Today, I join with my colleagues, and Robert's friends and family, including his parents, Robert Jr. and Jacqueline Griffin, in celebrating this fine achievement. Robert Griffin joins a special class of Texas athletes who are also Heisman Trophy winners: TCU's Davey O'Brien, SMU's Doak Walker, Texas A&M's John David Crow, the University of Houston's Andre Ware, and the University of Texas's Earl Campbell and Ricky Williams.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am disappointed, but more than disappointed, I look forward to that explanation. I hope there will be an opportunity to have a colloquy and a discussion here on the floor so the American people can see why a piece of legislation that enjoys such broad bipartisan support can't even get a vote. When people watch what is happening in Washington these days, I think they are tempted to avert their gaze because they ask the question of me--and I am sure, when the Presiding Officer is back in North Carolina, of her as well--why can't people get anything done? Well, it is because, unfortunately, of things like this. These are technical objections that are not based on the substance or the merit of the legislation. I respect the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who says there is an objection on the Democratic side, and he personally is not making that objection but is on behalf of some unnamed other party. I hope that person will be named. I hope they will come to the floor. I hope they will explain to the American people and to our Democratic allies in Taiwan why it is they object to a vote on this amendment. I believe that if we are able to get a vote on the Defense authorization bill, this has a high likelihood of passage, and I think it would send a strong message to our friends and allies around the world that, yes, you can count on your friend and ally, the United States of America. Conversely, if we are thwarted in our attempt to try to get this amendment voted on and passed, then this will send a countervailing message--that you cannot depend on America--and it will embolden bullies around the world.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to talk about something that is all too rare, and that is bipartisan support for an important piece of legislation that not only fulfills America's commitments to our ally, Taiwan, under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, but it helps stabilize a critical region of the world--that would be in Asia--and particularly the growing tensions between Taiwan and China. It also creates jobs in America by facilitating foreign military sales of things made here in America, by Americans, that we are going to sell to people in other countries--our friends in other countries--for cash and doesn't cost taxpayers a penny. My amendment No. 1200 is pending before the Senate, and I was pleased in introducing this amendment to be joined by several of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis: Senator Menendez from New Jersey, Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, Senator Wyden from Oregon, and Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut. This amendment is straightforward and simple. It would require the President to carry out the sale of 66 F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan. These are American-made fighters our Democratic ally in Taiwan has been trying to purchase since 2007. As I said earlier, this is a win-win amendment. It reflects the right national security policy, and it is good for the American economy and jobs. We know Taiwan's Air Force continues to deteriorate. First, let me just remind my colleagues what Taiwan is looking at in terms of the disparity in combat aircraft between Communist China and Democratic Taiwan. Communist China has roughly 2,300 operational combat aircraft. Our ally and friend democratic Taiwan has 490 operational combat aircraft-- obviously a growing imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. But that only tells part of the story because, as my colleagues also know, this chart indicates the incredible shrinkage of Taiwan's air force, that many of Taiwan's combat aircraft are F-5 aircraft which America has previously sold to Taiwan but which are now becoming older and more obsolete as time goes by, as well as French Mirage 2000 aircraft. As this chart indicates, around roughly 2020, maybe even before, these aircraft are going to become completely obsolete, and we will see the huge cliff and, in fact, exacerbate the disparity between Communist China and our democratic ally Taiwan. This F-16 sale would be an export-driven job machine for our country at a time when unemployment is at 9 percent and when the No. 1 issue on America's agenda is job creation. People without jobs can't pay their mortgages, and they lose their homes due to foreclosure. Why in the world, when this sale would support jobs in 32 different States and the District of Columbia, would anyone object to this amendment? Indeed, as I indicated, I believe there is strong bipartisan support for it. This sale would support more than 60 job-years of employment and generate some $8.7 billion in economic output. It would also generate $768 million in taxes for the Federal Government. As I indicated, Taiwan's air force is facing a looming fighter shortfall. The fact is, this falls squarely in Congress's wheelhouse. The Taiwan Relations Act that I referred to earlier was, in 1979, signed by President Jimmy Carter with bipartisan support. It requires the U.S. Government to provide Taiwan, our friend and ally, with the defense articles necessary for them to defend themselves against Communist Chinese aggression, and it instructs the President and the Congress to determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles based on their judgment of the needs of Taiwan. Forty-seven Democrats and Republicans in the Senate--almost half-- have signed a letter to the President of the United States supporting this sale. In the House of Representatives, 181 Democrats and Republicans have signed a letter to the President supporting this sale. As my colleagues will recall, in September the Senate voted on an amendment like this in the trade adjustment authority assistance bill, which ended up in a 48-to-48 tie. Although the bill had strong bipartisan support, some of my colleagues said they preferred not to offer that amendment on that particular legislative vehicle but said that if I came back on an appropriate legislative vehicle, they would support it. And if there is a more appropriate legislative vehicle than the Defense authorization bill, I hope someone will point that out to me. This is the appropriate vehicle. This is the appropriate time. This is the right thing to do for job creation in America. It is the right thing to do in terms of our national security and stability in Asia. That is why I believe this is an appropriate time for us to take up this amendment. I was advised by the Parliamentarian that my original amendment as drafted would not be germane postcloture. However, in consultation with the Parliamentarian, we have come up with a technical modification which essentially would strike what are called the findings that would support the need for the legislation. In essence, it strikes the A section and the B section and leaves only the C section remaining. This, of course, at this point in the proceedings would require unanimous consent. In consultation with Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am advised that our friends across the aisle will not grant unanimous consent for us to modify what is really a technical modification for this amendment so we can get a vote on it. I realize that at this point we are in morning business and it is not appropriate, perhaps, for me to ask unanimous consent, but I will ask unanimous consent at a later and appropriate time because I would like to get an explanation from the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee as to why in the world there would be an objection to an amendment that enjoys such broad bipartisan support on a clearly appropriate legislative vehicle. Madam President, I see the distinguished chairman on the floor. So I would at this time, if it is appropriate, ask unanimous consent to modify my pending amendment, to strike the findings under section A and under section B, and to leave section C, which states in full: Sale of aircraft. The President shall carry out the sale of no fewer than 66 F-16 C and D multirole fighter aircraft to Taiwan. We have been advised by the Parliamentarian that this section is indeed germane and would be eligible for a vote with that modification. So I ask unanimous consent to so modify my amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. If I may be permitted to thank the distinguished chairman for that offer. It is unclear to me how it will actually be executed-- and all of this could have been avoided, from my perspective, if a simple unanimous consent request had been allowed to modify an amendment that I had that was not germane to make it germane so we could have a simple up-or-down vote, something that was in the nature of a technical correction, which I would think as a matter of custom and courtesy would be allowed. But apparently that is not the way things are operating. All of these convulsions are being engaged in simply to avoid an objection to a unanimous consent request to modify an amendment to make it germane. It could all be avoided and we could have taken care of this in 10 or 15 minutes. I don't understand if the distinguished chairman is actually making that unanimous consent request at this time or is merely explaining what his intentions are. I will try to work with him, but I am not yet sure this is going to work as he hopes it will. My objection will remain that any amendment that was not germane when filed but could be made germane by modification, as mine could, would not be permitted to be in this managers' package or passed by unanimous consent.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I appreciate the direct response from the chairman. I will have no objection to any amendment that is being offered that is not being offered as modified in order to make it germane. I hope my point is clear as mud. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you for clarification. I just wanted to make sure. Madam President, I discussed with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the distinguished ranking member my concerns that earlier I attempted to gain unanimous consent to modify my amendment regarding the sale of F-16s to Taiwan in order to make it germane. I was happy to do that in order to get a vote, but the chairman tells me there is an objection to that. I wished to make clear that any amendment that is offered--whether now in this list or subsequently in the managers' package or otherwise--and is being treated differently than mine is, then I am going to object to unanimous consent. Through the Chair, I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee are there any amendments on this list that were modified in order to make them germane?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, is there a unanimous consent request pending?

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Texas has some of the most highly industrialized and populated areas in the Nation, and air quality in these and other areas of the State is improving. We are actually taking very positive steps toward reduction of pollutants. For example, ozone has been reduced by 27 percent across our State since 2000, and nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone formation, has been reduced by 58 percent over roughly the same period of time. But I rise in support of this resolution because it represents regulatory overreach and an abuse of power. This rule, when it takes effect January 1, will significantly harm grid reliability, destroy jobs, and raise electricity prices for consumers living on a fixed income and for businesses we are depending upon to create jobs in our country. The reason this rule is an abuse of power as regards to the State of Texas is that we were not included in the rule when the Environmental Protection Agency first proposed it. Suddenly, miraculously, we were included in the final rule. Having less than a year ago concluded that Texas emissions have no significant downwind effects, the EPA has reversed course and included us in this rule without the opportunity to challenge the claim. Without fair notice, the EPA has mandated that Texas slash its SO2 emissions by half and greatly reduce NOX emissions in less than 5 months--an unprecedented and impossible timetable with which to comply. The standard timeframe for permitting and constructing and installing new emissions controls is several years. But as a result of this abuse of power by the Environmental Protection Agency, and without due process and fair notice and the opportunity to be heard, this rule is being imposed on my State. Already, one power producer has announced that 500 jobs will be lost. The integrity of our State grid is at risk. Our grid operator has said as a result of the unprecedented heat wave and the historic drought Texas has been experiencing, if we had had these rules in place last summer we would have experienced rolling outages during August, when people were relying on their air conditioners to deal with triple-digit temperatures. This would have meant rolling blackouts, businesses forced to cut back, hardships--even to the threat of safety--for many of our senior citizens. I visited some of those seniors in Houston, TX, recently, and, of course, many of them are on a fixed income. They can't afford to pay more for their electricity bills. They are struggling to pay their bills right now, and they sure don't want to have to experience the potential hardship or public safety hazard of having a brownout or a blackout or outage should they need their heat during the winter or their air-conditioning during the summer. The EPA has said: Well, we got it approximately right, but we are going to make some revisions. But revisions are not enough. The EPA recently corrected errors from modeling assumptions and corresponding emissions budgets for several of the States under the rule, but other mistakes remain. Haste makes waste, Mr. President. We know that is true. Why can't the EPA do it the right way? Give us some time, notice, and opportunity to be heard so we can get this done right. The EPA overestimates base generation capacity for our grid by 20,000 megawatts. This includes 100 percent of the installed wind generation in Texas--as though wind power is always available. Our electric grid derates wind generation to 8.7 percent due to its unpredictability and reliability as a generation source. Put, simply, the wind does not blow 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This estimate also includes powerplants that are currently retired and mothballed. So the EPA got it wrong. But when we say: Please, give us a chance to show you the facts and to show you the science that would help make our air more clean but not kill jobs and create hardship for our senior citizens and those on fixed incomes, their answer is, tough luck, tough luck. Our only recourse, Mr. President, is to support a resolution such as this one because we cannot get fundamental fairness from this agency of the Federal Government when it comes to my State. So I support the resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, though I support the goal of sensible reform to the Federal criminal justice system, I opposed the Webb amendment, No. 750, for several reasons. First, I am concerned that the National Criminal Justice Commission created by this amendment would not be required to adopt unanimous recommendations. As a result, it is likely that this commission would fracture into partisan camps instead of working toward the types of bipartisan consensus recommendations that would truly help solve the problems facing our justice system. The experience of the 9/11 Commission is instructive. Despite the widely divergent policy views of the ten 9/11 Commission members, they came together to produce a 567- page report containing 37 recommendations--without a single voice of dissent. As a result, Congress passed nearly all of that commission's recommendations within 2 years. I am not confident that a nonunanimous National Criminal Justice Commission will have the same success. Additionally, I believe the broad jurisdiction of the National Criminal Justice Commission could lead it to examine highly controversial policy areas better left to the elected branches of government. This would create an opportunity for certain interest groups to pressure the commission to make divisive recommendations on issues such as narcotics legalization and the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences. While these interest groups may believe that their arguments have merit, they should make these arguments to their elected representatives, rather than unelected commission members. The Congress and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are the proper venue in which to examine controversial criminal justice policy issues. Furthermore, I have strong federalism concerns with the commission's jurisdiction to make recommendations concerning State and local criminal justice systems. Though Congress has the legitimate authority to appropriate funds to examine the federal criminal justice system, it does not have the authority to order the same examination at the State and local level. In my home State of Texas, the State government undertook sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system that will save taxpayers billions of dollars. While I am proud of this achievement, I do not believe that the Federal Government should push other States to do the same thing. If another State looks at the success of the Texas reforms, but decides not to enact them, then that is the choice reserved to them by the United States Constitution. Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to interfere with this decision. Given the major concerns I have noted, it is almost certain that the money appropriated by this amendment would amount to little actual change in the criminal justice system. In fact, the proposed National Criminal Justice Commission, in its current form, would likely only lead to more partisan bickering. Given the financial state of the Nation, I believe that it would be unwise to spend $5 million on a commission whose recommendations will likely be so divisive and controversial that they will never even be acted upon by Congress. I believe that we should have a serious discussion about the federal criminal justice system and reducing out-of-control incarceration rates. Unfortunately, this amendment would not advance that goal. For this reason, I voted against the Webb amendment No. 750.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Economic Growth and Jobs Protection Act of 2011. This legislation would repeal the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income that was included in the Health Care Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152, signed into law by the President last year. I am pleased that Senators Crapo, Rubio, Hutchison, and Burr are cosponsors of this legislation. We know that taxpayers will likely face the largest tax increase in history when the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts expire at the end of 2013. If Congress does nothing, the highest tax rate for individuals will rise from 35 percent to just under 40 percent; taxpayers in the lowest bracket will see a 50 percent tax increase, from 10 percent to 15 percent; the marriage penalty will increase; the child credit will be cut in half; and taxes on capital gains and dividends will increase. In other words, every taxpayer will pay higher taxes to Washington. But while taxpayers may be aware of these expiring provisions, many are likely not fully aware of another unpleasant surprise that will arrive on the first day of 2013. The Health Care Reconciliation Act that was jammed through the Senate along partisan lines includes a 3.8 percent surtax on the dividends, rents, and interest earned by certain taxpayers. Enacting this permanent tax hike was a mistake then and is a mistake now. The Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation--a nonprofit economic policy research and educational organization recently told the Senate Finance Committee that the 3.8 percent surtax would reduce capital formation, which would lower productivity and wages and that a 3.8 percent surtax would lower GDP by about 0.9 percent and would actually result in lower revenue coming into the government's coffers. Simply put, increasing taxes on investment income is a job killer and increases uncertainty at a time that the national unemployment is more than 9 percent. In fact, the top tax rate on capital gains will eventually be 23.8 percent as the rate bounces back to 20 percent from 15 percent in 2013. And dividends taxes would more than double to more than 43 percent. We should not pile more taxes on the backs of working families and job creators. This will not help create jobs and will not make the tax code more pro-growth. We know the key to job creation is to grow the economy and allow small businesses to flourish, invest and create jobs. In fact, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, we will need several years of very strong growth to reach 5 percent unemployment. For example, to reach 5 percent unemployment by 2015 the economy will need to grow 4.2 percent a year. This is just one reason that during the health care debate I offered a motion that would have directed the Senate Finance Committee to report the bill back without the 3.8 percent tax on the investment income. Although my attempt to strip out this job-killing tax fell short, I want to take this opportunity to note that six of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supported my motion. Not only will the Economic Growth and Jobs Protection Act of 2011 protect jobs and the investment security of taxpayers, it will also make sure that Congress restores one of the President's campaign promises. On September 12, 2008, then-candidate Obama promised the American people that, ``Everyone in America--everyone--will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s.'' But when combined with the President's budget proposal, this additional tax on investment will raise taxes on many Americans higher than they were under the rates President Clinton had in the 1990s. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation that will repeal this job-killing tax on small business investment and will protect economic growth, jobs and the retirement savings of taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Economic Growth and Jobs Protection Act of 2011. This legislation would repeal the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income that was included in the Health Care Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152, signed into law by the President last year. I am pleased that Senators Crapo, Rubio, Hutchison, and Burr are cosponsors of this legislation. We know that taxpayers will likely face the largest tax increase in history when the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts expire at the end of 2013. If Congress does nothing, the highest tax rate for individuals will rise from 35 percent to just under 40 percent; taxpayers in the lowest bracket will see a 50 percent tax increase, from 10 percent to 15 percent; the marriage penalty will increase; the child credit will be cut in half; and taxes on capital gains and dividends will increase. In other words, every taxpayer will pay higher taxes to Washington. But while taxpayers may be aware of these expiring provisions, many are likely not fully aware of another unpleasant surprise that will arrive on the first day of 2013. The Health Care Reconciliation Act that was jammed through the Senate along partisan lines includes a 3.8 percent surtax on the dividends, rents, and interest earned by certain taxpayers. Enacting this permanent tax hike was a mistake then and is a mistake now. The Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation--a nonprofit economic policy research and educational organization recently told the Senate Finance Committee that the 3.8 percent surtax would reduce capital formation, which would lower productivity and wages and that a 3.8 percent surtax would lower GDP by about 0.9 percent and would actually result in lower revenue coming into the government's coffers. Simply put, increasing taxes on investment income is a job killer and increases uncertainty at a time that the national unemployment is more than 9 percent. In fact, the top tax rate on capital gains will eventually be 23.8 percent as the rate bounces back to 20 percent from 15 percent in 2013. And dividends taxes would more than double to more than 43 percent. We should not pile more taxes on the backs of working families and job creators. This will not help create jobs and will not make the tax code more pro-growth. We know the key to job creation is to grow the economy and allow small businesses to flourish, invest and create jobs. In fact, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, we will need several years of very strong growth to reach 5 percent unemployment. For example, to reach 5 percent unemployment by 2015 the economy will need to grow 4.2 percent a year. This is just one reason that during the health care debate I offered a motion that would have directed the Senate Finance Committee to report the bill back without the 3.8 percent tax on the investment income. Although my attempt to strip out this job-killing tax fell short, I want to take this opportunity to note that six of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supported my motion. Not only will the Economic Growth and Jobs Protection Act of 2011 protect jobs and the investment security of taxpayers, it will also make sure that Congress restores one of the President's campaign promises. On September 12, 2008, then-candidate Obama promised the American people that, ``Everyone in America--everyone--will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s.'' But when combined with the President's budget proposal, this additional tax on investment will raise taxes on many Americans higher than they were under the rates President Clinton had in the 1990s. I ask that my colleagues support this legislation that will repeal this job-killing tax on small business investment and will protect economic growth, jobs and the retirement savings of taxpayers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her offer. I will take her up on that. Our staffs are exchanging modest provisions that maintain the general thrust of the amendment and make clear that the Senate will not approve of any funding used for the sort of misguided program such as Fast and Furious. I ask for the Senator's help and take her up on her offer to try to get conclusive and comprehensive answers from the Department of Justice. Senator Grassley, Representative Issa, and I feel as well that the Attorney General and the Department could be more forthcoming. It boils down to a matter of accountability. One of the things that drives people crazy about Washington and Congress these days is that they feel as if things are happening that should not be happening and nobody is held accountable. That is what needs to happen in this program. So I will take her up on her offer. I appreciate that. We will work with the Senator and her staff to see if we can come up with acceptable language. As a matter of the record and from the standpoint of accountability and clearness, I would like to have a rollcall vote on my amendment at the appropriate time. We will work with the Senator and come up with acceptable language. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Yesterday, I introduced my amendment to the pending Commerce-Justice appropriations bill, and I would like to briefly explain this amendment for my colleagues. This amendment is designed to basically cut off any future funds that might be made available under this appropriations bill to fund the Department of Justice's program now notoriously known as Fast and Furious. This would prohibit the taxpayer funding of operations where Federal law enforcement personnel knowingly cause the transfer of firearms to drug cartel agents and intentionally fail to monitor those weapons. On December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down on the southern border while attempting to apprehend members of a predatory criminal gang that operated in Arizona's Peck Canyon. A congressional investigation and several news reports have confirmed that some of the guns used in that attack actually came from gun dealers in the United States, and the guns were actually put in the hands of the agents of the cartels and allowed to cross the border with the full knowledge of officials associated with the U.S. Government, most notably the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona, although it is unknown at this point how far up in the chain of command knowledge of this program went. But that is another story for another time. The American people and their representatives in Congress have begun asking, after the death of Brian Terry, what happened under this Fast and Furious Program and who will be held accountable. Answers to those questions have been very slow in coming, and some have been contradictory. But the more questions that were raised, the more questions came up. One question is, of course, who authorized Fast and Furious and why? According to congressional investigations led on this side of the Capitol by Senator Grassley and on the other side of the Capitol by Congressman Darrell Issa, this Fast and Furious Program began in 2009 in the Phoenix field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, under the direct supervision of the U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona, and instructed Phoenix-area firearms dealers to go through with sales of nearly 2,000 weapons to persons suspected of working as straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels. The logical question is, Why in the world would such a misguided program be initiated and who would be held accountable? Another question is, Who objected to Fast and Furious, and why were those objections not taken seriously? Congressional investigations have found that many firearms dealers actually contacted the ATF and expressed their concerns about who was buying these guns and in whose hands they might end up. Multiple ATF agents have testified that they openly protested their orders to actually let these guns walk across the border into the hands of the cartels when they were told to break off surveillance of those illegally purchased weapons, because they suspected what eventually did happen: that no good would come of Fast and Furious. Brian Terry lost his life as a result of this misguided program. Weapons from the Fast and Furious Program have shown up at about 11 different crime scenes in the United States. So the questions I have relate to why weren't the voices of the people in the field who first raised objections or concerns about this program heard? Another question my constituents in Texas have been asking is: Have similar gun-walking practices occurred in our State? According to published reports, Houston-based firearms dealer Carter's Country revealed that its store clerks had been ordered to go through with a sale of weapons to suspicious persons who may have been working as ``straw purchasers'' from Mexican drug cartels. Some of the weapons purchased from Carter's Country have been recovered at the scene of violent crimes in Mexico. Senator Grassley's investigations have also revealed a possible Texas connection to the February murder of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jaime Zapata in Mexico. One of the weapons used to murder Officer Zapata was purchased in Texas in October 2010 and subsequently trafficked to Mexico through Loredo, TX. While the suspected weapons traffickers have been arrested, there are reports that ATF was aware of these activities and allowed them to continue for far too long. Another question is being asked by our friends across the border, the Government of Mexico, those who are fighting these cartels and many of whom over the years have lost their lives. Our friends in Mexico are asking: Why is the administration allowing guns to come into Mexico as part of U.S. Government policy? Why is the U.S. Government arming drug cartels? According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, one of the victims of Fast and Furious was a brother of Patricia Gonzalez, who at the time was a top State prosecutor in Chihuahua. The Los Angeles Times also reports that Mexico's Attorney General, Marisela Morales, who has been a good partner to the United States, first learned about Fast and Furious from news reports. As of last month, she said U.S. officials have not briefed her on the operation, nor had there been any apologies for this misguided program. Questions are being asked on both sides of the border, and they deserve answers. Back in August, I wrote to Attorney General Holder and asked him to promptly disclose the details of any past or present Texas-based gun-walking programs similar to operation Fast and Furious. Much to my disappointment, I have not received any official response from the Department of Justice, nor Attorney General Holder. While disappointing, this administration's stonewalling is not surprising, considering the difficulty Senator Grassley and Representative Issa have had in their investigation of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. In May of 2011, Attorney General Holder told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that he had only learned of Operation Fast and Furious ``in the past few weeks.'' The evidence now shows that Attorney General Holder had received multiple briefing memos regarding the operation that date back to as early as July 2010--much earlier than the few weeks ago he claimed in May of 2011. It is time for Attorney General Holder to tell Congress precisely what he knew, when he knew it, and to be honest with Congress and the American people about how this happened and who will be held accountable for it. So far, I think the Attorney General's earnest hope is that this will all go away. But it will not go away. My amendment would help ensure that we no longer have to worry about Operation Fast and Furious or similar ill-advised gun-walking operations. This amendment will mandate that no taxpayer money will be spent on programs where law enforcement personnel knowingly cause the transfer of weapons to suspected drug cartel associates with the intent that those law enforcement officials break off the surveillance of those weapons prior to interdicting them. In other words, this amendment is narrowly tailored to prevent future programs such as Operation Fast and Furious, while allowing law enforcement the freedom to operate gun-trafficking investigations, where they are in continuous surveillance of the weapons. This will also allow law enforcement officials to use weapons transfers to low-level straw purchasers as a tool to investigate the chain of command in a gun-trafficking ring, while simultaneously requiring them to keep their eyes on the weapons at all times so they can step in and prevent unnecessary and tragic violence. Just over 10 months ago, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by criminal gang members with weapons ``walked'' into their hands by ATF and the Department of Justice. It is my hope this body has learned from this tragedy and that we will affirmatively act to ensure that nothing such as this happens again. My amendment does just that, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator from Maine. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask that it be called up and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be back to talk to the substance of my amendment. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I support the approval of free trade agreements for one simple reason: they create jobs across America. And they especially create jobs in my home State of Texas. Last year, Texas companies exported lots of products to South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, including chemical and energy products, heavy machinery and electronics, cotton and grain crops, and many others. Unfortunately, all of these products faced trade barriers in these countries through foreign tariffs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. These free trade agreements will level the playing field in America's favor by eliminating foreign tariffs. Each of these trade agreements also strengthens a key strategic relationship for our country. And so I would like to say a word or two about each one. The Korea Free Trade Agreement is of strategic importance because it reminds the world that America is a Pacific nation, and that America will continue to deepen our relationships with our allies and not abandon East Asia to China or anybody else. The Korea Free Trade Agreement is the most significant on the table in terms of U.S. exports. South Korea is the most prosperous nation to sign a free trade agreement with the United States since Canada and Mexico in the 1994 NAFTA. Currently, Korean tariffs on U.S. products can be as high as 13 percent. The White House estimates that the Korean Free Trade Agreement will generate up to $11 billion in new U.S. exports and 70,000 U.S. jobs. And a lot of that economic activity will be in Texas. Texas exported $6.4 billion in products to South Korea last year--second only to California. Our State's leading category of exports to Korea is computers and electronics, which include integrated circuits, magnetic tape, and navigational equipment. Texans also export a variety of chemicals and machinery to Korea. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement will solidify our relationship with a crucial ally in a volatile region of our own hemisphere. Colombia has been a leader in the fight against drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. Colombia has also resisted the regional ambitions of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The White House estimates that the Colombian Free Trade Agreement will generate $1 billion in new U.S. exports and thousands of U.S. jobs. In Texas, my state exported $4.4 billion in products to Colombia last year more than any other state. Those products include petroleum products, coal, chemicals, electronics, and agricultural products. Texas ranchers will especially welcome this agreement as beef currently faces the single highest tariff in Colombia at 80 percent and this trade agreement will reduce that tariff to zero. Also cotton, wheat, and almost all fruits and vegetables will become duty free immediately. The Panama Free Trade Agreement is important because Panama is conducting one of the largest public works projects in history: expanding the Panama Canal. This project will cost $5.25 billion and provide many opportunities for construction firms and heavy equipment manufacturers in the U.S. Construction equipment and infrastructure machinery used in such projects accounted for $280 million in U.S. exports to Panama in 2010. The agreement will end tariffs on these exports, providing U.S. firms an almost immediate 5 percent price advantage on procurement contracts. Texas exported $1.8 billion in products to Panama last year--more than any other State. Texas top exports to Panama are petroleum, coal, chemicals, and computers and other electronics. It is clear why Congress should approve these trade agreements. What is not clear is why it has taken us so long to act. The Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed in November 2006. The Korea and Panama agreements were signed in June 2007. Why has it taken more than 4 years to act on them? The answer is that the leadership of Congress changed in 2007, and that leadership has been listening too much to union bosses and other special interests. Every time we seem to be close to approving these agreements, these liberal special interests have come up with a new set of demands. On May 10, 2007, the Bush White House and Congress agreed on new and more stringent labor and environment provisions. This action was supposed to allow approval for four trade agreements; however, only a pact with Peru was approved at that time. The Obama administration could have submitted the three remaining trade agreements at any time since January 2009. But new conditions kept coming. In November 2010, we learned of new conditions regarding taxation policy in Panama. In February 2011, we learned about new conditions placed on the Korea deal regarding auto emissions standards. In April 2011, we learned about new and strikingly detailed conditions bordering on micromanagement--on the Colombian judiciary and law enforcement agencies. And in May 2011, we learned about new demands for a little-known program called trade adjustment assistance, including the demand to dramatically expand trade adjustment assistance to cover nations the U.S. has not signed agreements with. The time is up for demands from Washington special interests. The time is now to make U.S. jobs and U.S. exports our priority. Let's send a message of friendship to the people of South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. And let's send a message to U.S. exporters that real jobs legislation is on its way.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate on an amendment I have to the pending legislation, which will be familiar to my colleagues because it is similar to a bipartisan bill Senator Menendez of New Jersey and I have introduced, a stand-alone bill. It is called the Taiwan Airpower Modernization Act of 2011. It does something very simple but very important: It requires the United States to respond to a request by the Government of Taiwan to purchase 66 F-16C/D models of fighter aircraft. Why is this important? It is important for all sorts of reasons, one of which Robert Kaplan recently pointed out in an op-ed in the September 23 edition of the Washington Post: By 2020, the United States will not be able to defend Taiwan from a Chinese air attack, a 2009 RAND study found, even with America's F-22s, two carrier strike groups in the region and continued access to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa. The United States will not be able to defend Taiwan. So it is very important that we sell Taiwan, at no taxpayer expense--it is cash money coming from the Taiwanese Government to the United States that happens to sustain thousands of jobs right here in America--that we sell them these F-16s so they can defend themselves. Dan Blumenthal, in an October 3, 2011, article published by the American Enterprise Institute, lists what he calls the top 10 unicorns of China policy. He says in the article: A unicorn is a beautiful make-believe creature, but despite overwhelming evidence of its fantastical nature, many people still believe in them. He lists the top 10 unicorns of U.S.-China policy. The No. 2 unicorn relates to the subject of this amendment, and it is entitled ``Abandoning Taiwan will remove the biggest obstacle to Sino-American relations.'' In other words, rather than antagonize China, Communist China, by selling 66 F-16C/D models to Taiwan, some might suggest we should withhold and not make that sale, as the Obama administration has apparently at least decided to do for now, because we do not want to antagonize China. If we antagonize China, our relationship will deteriorate. But, as Mr. Blumenthal points out, rather than basking in the recent warming of its relationship with Taiwan, China has picked fights with Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, and India. He goes on to say: It doesn't matter what obstacles the United States removes, China's foreign policy has its own internal logic that is hard for the United States to shape. Abandoning Taiwan for the sake of better relations is yet another dangerous fantasy. As my colleagues may recall, I introduced this amendment earlier on the trade adjustment assistance provisions, the TAA, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, from Montana, quoted Ecclesiastes to make the point that it was not the right time. He said, ``For every thing there is a season.'' He also indicated that my amendment might derail the carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement on trade assistance. I did not agree with him at that time because my amendment was related to trade because these F-16s represent an export for the U.S. economy that creates jobs right here at home, in addition to its importance for other reasons. But now the reason for that objection no longer exists. The pending legislation is not a carefully negotiated bipartisan agreement. And I hope my colleagues who shared my concerns--or shared the concerns the chairman of the Finance Committee argued earlier--will find an opportunity to support this amendment on the merits today because I think it is very important. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee also argued at the time against my amendment on the TAA bill. He said it was unprecedented for the Congress to force the White House's hand when it comes to foreign military sales. The fact is, I remind my colleagues, the Taiwan Relations Act that passed and was signed into law in 1979 makes it clear that Congress has a very important role to play. The Taiwan Relations Act says: The President and the Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan. . . . This is the law of the land. Unfortunately, I do not believe the administration's policy when it comes to selling defensive weaponry to Taiwan, that their agreement that we should just upgrade the existing fleet of F-16s is adequate to meet the demands of the Taiwan Relations Act. This chart, taken from Defense Intelligence Agency public materials, shows the incredible shrinking Taiwan air force. Taiwan's projected fighter fleet over time goes from roughly 400, as part of a total of 490 combat aircraft. As you can see, the F-5 is an obsolete American aircraft, basically because of needed repairs, replacement parts, and it is basically not dependable anymore. The French Mirage 2000, it is estimated, will basically drop off the chart shortly after 2015 or so. Then we see the F-16 A/B models, which the administration says we should upgrade, and roughly 150 of those will be basically the remaining Taiwan air force, down from a total of roughly 400 fighters today. Actually, the administration's proposed upgrade will essentially take some of these F-16s offline, a whole squadron of F-16A/Bs, during the retrofitting period, further diminishing the number of aircraft available for Taiwan to defend itself. The Taiwan Relations Act was a responsible decision in response to a decision of the executive branch of the Federal Government that Congress happened to disagree with. Congress can disagree with the administration and force the administration's hand when Congress believes it is appropriate to do so. The Taiwan Relations Act was one example of that. That decision was based on President Carter's diplomatic recognition of the People's Republic of China and the breaking of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Congress had a different view and wanted to make sure the freedom of the Taiwanese people was secure, so we passed bipartisan legislation which was ultimately signed into law by President Carter. But what is great about the Taiwan Relations Act and the relationship of the United States with Taiwan is it has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support. This is not a partisan issue at all. Here is what former Senator Jesse Helms said about it 20 years after the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act: It is a bit of a rarity when an issue comes up that brings Jesse Helms and Ted Kennedy together. I never served with Senator Helms. I did serve with Senator Kennedy. I can assure you, from what I know about Senator Helms and his record, that was an understatement. He said: But this was precisely such an issue. Senator Kennedy, Senator Goldwater, and I--along with Congressman Wolff, Derwinski and others--set out to ensure that after having their treaty of alliance tossed in the trash can, our friends in Taiwan would be left with far more than the vague verbal promises the Carter administration was offering Taiwan. So we went to work and the result was the Taiwan Relations Act. I believe my amendment is a natural extension--actually, a fulfillment--of the Taiwan Relations Act and a reaffirmation of the bipartisan leadership the Senate has brought, which originally brought Senator Kennedy and Senator Helms together way back in 1979. We should not depart from that strong bipartisan tradition of supporting our ally in Taiwan and providing the defensive weaponry they need in order to defend themselves so the United States will not have to fill that gap. During the debates on the trade assistance authority bill, the Senator from Massachusetts and distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that President Ma of Taiwan is happy with the administration's decision merely to upgrade the existing F-16A/B models and not to replace the F-5s and Mirages and other aircraft that are fast becoming obsolete. The Senator from Massachusetts went so far as to say at the time that ``the President of Taiwan has said [the approved package] is entirely adequate. He feels they have the defensive capacity necessary under the [Taiwan Relations Act] in order to be able to defend themselves at the current level with the upgrade we are providing.'' The facts are the government of Taiwan needs both the existing F-16A/ B models upgraded through this upgrade but also the 66 additional F- 16C/D aircraft that are the subject of my amendment. To quote Taiwan's foreign minister, he said: Our government will continue to work closely with the United States to strengthen our national defense and security . . . by urging the United States to continue its arms sales to Taiwan with needed articles and systems for our defensive capabilities . . . including F-16C/D aircrafts and diesel- electric submarines. Again, to remind my colleagues, this is a familiar chart from the last time I offered this amendment, which shows the growing imbalance of the Taiwan Strait, with China having some 2,300 operational combat aircraft and Taiwan with 490 operational combat aircraft, including 400 fighters, as part of their air force. The fact is we know China doesn't tell the truth when it comes to its defensive and national security expenditures. It shows only a fraction of what it spends as it projects power across the world to follow its economic needs and interests. Let me quote the Taiwan defense minister. Earlier I quoted another Taiwanese official. Taiwan's defense minister said: The F-16A/B fleet upgrade package and the F-16C/D fighters purchase have different needs and purposes. It is not contradictory to have both cases done. Last Friday, September 30, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, who happens to be of the other party, met with President Ma in Taiwan. According to the official press release by the Government of Taiwan, President Ma commented that: The upgrades of the F-16A/B series aircraft are aimed at extending the life of fighter jets and avoiding a lack of spare parts due to the age of the F-16A/B series. Meanwhile, [Taiwan] wishes to purchase F-16C/D fighter jets to replace its aging fleet of F-5E fighter jets. That is in red here, the aging F-5E fighter jets. President Ma explained, ``Therefore, the objectives of the two are different.'' Let me leave with one final comment. Several of my colleagues have argued the Obama administration could approve the sale of the F-16C/D series at a later date, but that is actually not the case. The F-16 production line recently received a small order from the Air Force of Iraq to sell Iraq F-16s, but without additional orders the production line will soon be shutting down. The people who are working there will be laid off or reassigned other jobs. We are rapidly approaching a point at which the President of the United States will not be able to approve the sale of new F-16s because they will not be able to be manufactured because the production line will be shut down. I hope my colleagues will keep this in mind as they consider my amendment. Even if the production line was not an issue, why should we make our allies in Taiwan wait? Why would the United States tell our friends to come back later? Well, as I said, the chairman of the Finance Committee quoted Ecclesiastes during our last debate. Allow me to conclude with some wise words from Proverbs: Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due when it is in your power to act. Do not say to your neighbor, come back tomorrow, and I'll give it to you when you already have it with you. To that, I hope my colleagues would give a hearty amen. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2011, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more that $15 billion. Additionally, the CDC estimates that more than one-third of all U.S. adults fail to meet minimum recommendations for aerobic physical activity. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving. With this in mind, I am reintroducing the WHIP Act. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees--creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees. The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.