John Cornyn

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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes out of my remaining time.

Mr. CORNYN. I see the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma in the Chamber, and I will defer to him momentarily. But I want to just say we need to understand what would happen if this production line of F-16s was shut down. The people who work on that production line would have to be let go or reassigned, actually exacerbating the high unemployment that we know is intolerably high. Once the production line of a sophisticated aircraft like the F-16 is shut down, we cannot decide, well, next year or the year after we are going to start up again-- unless we are going to add tremendously to the cost. It makes it far less likely it will ever get made because of the costs and because of the sheer magnitude of the effort of trying to get this production line back together and all the people who were employed there back to work. So that is why, to respond to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, the manager of the bill, it is so important in terms of the timeliness. I agree there is a time for everything, but the time for this is now. I will just say, finally, as I indicated earlier, this is a bipartisan measure, as demonstrated by the 47 Senators who signed letters to the President urging the sale; 13 Democrats, along with the remainder being Republicans. In the House, this letter I mentioned earlier which has been made part of the Record, there are 181 Members of the House--a bipartisan list--I actually think that if the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Finance Committee, would accept this amendment, it would enhance the votes for the very bill he wants to see passed out of the Senate, perhaps later today. In conclusion, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated for Senator Thune be reserved within the time allocated to the minority and that quorum calls be charged equally between the majority and minority bill time first.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I said, yesterday I spoke about the legislation Senator Menendez and I had offered. That is a stand-alone bill; this is now an amendment to this pending trade bill. I do believe it is appropriate for us to consider this matter in the context of this trade bill because, of course, we all recognize and common sense would tell us that selling to foreign customers the things that we grow here in America or that we manufacture in America sustains jobs right here at home. Indeed, we have circulated among various offices what the impact on jobs would be all across the country when it comes to the sale and manufacture of these F-16s. A lot of jobs would be created in America at a time when unemployment is intractably and unacceptably high. But that is not the main reason I believe this amendment is so important. Let me back up to say that yesterday the President did announce that he approved military exports to Taiwan, but I wish to address first the insufficiency of the response. Yesterday, Congress was officially notified by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency that the administration had approved a retrofit for 145 F-16A/B aircraft--aircraft Taiwan already owns. So this is not unprecedented. We have already sold Taiwan A/B versions of the F-16. But, as the administration acknowledges by saying these need to be updated and retrofitted, these are older aircraft and need to be modernized in order to be effective. There is no question that these upgrades on the existing 145 F-16 aircraft are necessary, but it is not sufficient to deal with the airpower needs of our Taiwanese allies. You can see by this chart the disparity between what the People's Republic of China has--about 2,300 operational combat aircraft versus 490 operational combat aircraft-- owned by the Government of Taiwan. But what I think the President's decision fails to acknowledge is the fact that many of the aircraft being flown now in Taiwan by the Taiwan Air Force are French Mirage aircraft which are some 20 years old or American F-5 aircraft which were first delivered in 1975 through 1985 but which are now virtually obsolete. It is for that reason the sale of these additional 66 F-16C/D version aircraft is so important--to replace those obsolete French Mirages and F-5s. Taiwan's request had been, as I indicated earlier, not for the retrofit or for new aircraft, but they wanted both. The administration should have approved both, and that is exactly what 47 Members of this Senate stated--the bipartisan letters I have admitted into the Record-- encourage the administration to do to make the right decision and to do both. But since the administration chose only to go the retrofit route for existing aircraft, I think it is important for us to send a message and to exercise our authority under the Constitution to compel that sale. There is a bigger point I would like to make as well. America's credibility in East Asia and beyond is at risk by the administration's decision yesterday. The President spoke at the United Nations earlier this week and addressed many priorities of U.S. foreign policy. I am not going to respond to each one of them because it was a 40-minute speech, but my point is, the success of U.S. foreign policy in every region of the world depends on the credibility of the U.S. Government-- whether we stand by our friends and whether we keep our commitments or whether we will abandon our support for other democracies like Taiwan. The answer to that question is of enormous interest not only to the people of Taiwan, to whom we have pledged in this 1979 law, the Taiwan Relations Act that I mentioned earlier, but also to the people of Israel, to the people of Eastern Europe, to the people of Japan and South Korea, and to the fledgling democracies now in Iraq and the people of Afghanistan, to people who are suffering from oppressive regimes all across the world who want the same basic freedoms we do and who share our values in self-government. What kind of message does it send from America to these friends of freedom? What kind of message does the Senate send by denying our ally Taiwan the purchase of military exports that they need and that they requested? And what message can the U.S. Senate send to reassure our allies in Taiwan as well as people watching everywhere around the world with our credibility on the line? I want to reiterate that this is a bipartisan matter. This is not a partisan issue at all. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported the Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower in 1954, and the Taiwan Relations Act was supported with bipartisan support and signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, and it remains the law of the land. That states specifically that the United States will provide to Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities in furtherance of maintaining peace and stability in the Western Pacific region. We know the U.S. military has been stressed by repeated deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and commitments around the world. So why in the world wouldn't we want to improve the capacity of the Taiwanese Government to defend itself and reduce any potential burden on the United States in the process? I want to remind my colleagues what sufficient defense capabilities means. This is part of a memorandum from President Ronald Reagan in 1982, and I think it is worth reading. It is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC [People's Republic of China]. Both in quantitative and qualitative terms, Taiwan's defense capability relative to that of the PRC will be maintained. That was the understanding of Congress, that was President Reagan's understanding, and that was our explanation to the Chinese Government to reassure them about the purpose for these military sales--to provide a defensive capability, not an offensive capability but a defensive capability. Why is Taiwan asking for these aircraft? Well, as I indicated earlier, Taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete, while China's military capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. But air defense is not just a game of numbers; it is about the quality of the aircraft as well. So what about the quality of Taiwan's existing forces? Well, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency in an unclassified report last year, many of Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life and many require extensive maintenance support. So China's capabilities are clearly newer, and they are growing and focus clearly on intimidating Taiwan and, yes, even the United States. China's official press agency reported in March that the People's Republic of China will increase its military budget this year by more than 12 percent. That is on top of an increase last year of 7.5 percent. But the Pentagon estimates that China is not being transparent with regard to its military spending. In fact, China's official and public budget of $90 billion is far less than the $150 billion that they actually spent. So whom does China intend to intimidate by this growing military power? Here is what the Pentagon had to say in its 2011 report to Congress called ``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China.'' The Defense Department observed that China continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on Taiwan contingencies. The Pentagon also noted that China's Air Force will remain primarily focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in the East Asia.'' Some say we shouldn't look at our policy with Taiwan in a vacuum, and I agree with that. We should look at it in the larger context, both of the region and our strategic relationship with China. We know many of China's neighbors in that region are concerned about the military buildup and the increasingly bellicose rhetoric from the government. Last year, China claimed the South China Sea as a core interest, which unsettled Vietnam and the Philippines and Indonesia and other nations in the region. China has renewed its longrunning border dispute with India, and, frankly, it continues to be an enabler, as we know, of the nuclear threat in North Korea. We know Pakistan's Defense Minister publicly discussed the possibility of China building a naval base in Pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically important port at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman. So it is important to look at the impact of China's growing military strength and its bellicose rhetoric on the whole region because, frankly, the disparity I pointed out earlier between the capability of the People's Republic of China when it comes to air power and that of Taiwan is a destabilizing influence in the region. Why in the world would we want to create a destabilizing condition in that region as opposed to a stable one that is in our best interests and that is in the best interests of our allies? We can tell that the Communist Chinese Government is trying to intimidate the United States from living up to its responsibilities. Last week, China's top official newspaper used a lot of unnecessary language on the subject of the arms sales to Taiwan. They called those of us on Capitol Hill who are supporting this ``madmen,'' and said we were ``playing with fire'' and said there would be a ``disastrous price'' if we continued to support our allies in Taiwan. They would like nothing better than for us to turn our backs on our allies in Taiwan, just like other bullies around the world would love for America to retreat and to pull back in our support for self-governing peoples everywhere. I do not think we want to send the message--I know I do not want to send the message--that the United States will give in to this kind of intimidation. We should pass this legislation to send a clear message to China and other nations around the world who are beating their chests and growing in military strength and posing destabilizing risks that the real madmen are those who think America will abandon our friends and allies and our principles and our long-range and longstanding strategic interests in the stability of East Asia. As I indicated earlier, there are a lot of people watching what we do. It would greatly reassure our allies and partners around the world if we acted in a responsible way consistent with our legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, which apparently the administration has declined to do. Many of my colleagues remember what President Clinton did in 1996. He deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during the Taiwan Strait crisis then. That crisis developed when China tried to intimidate Taiwan, once again, on the eve of its first free Presidential election by conducting this series of so-called military exercises that included the firing of missiles just a few miles north of Taiwan. President Clinton responded by ordering the largest U.S. military force since the Vietnam war to deploy to the region, including carrier battle groups led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Independence. America's show of resolve and strength did not escalate that crisis, it diffused it--exactly what would happen here if we made this sale to Taiwan. It would send, as that did then, a welcome signal to the region. According to an article in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, following that crisis the region's confidence in the United States soared. Japan, Singapore, the Philippines, and other nations in the region all bolstered their security ties with the United States. Isn't that what we want? If America is going to be an undependable ally, there is no real benefit to people aligning their interests with ours and joining with us in these sorts of strategic security ties. The Taiwan Strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy successes of the Clinton administration, but the authors of that same article conclude that ``forsaking Taiwan now will likely have the opposite effect.'' I want to return to a subject I brought up earlier. In addition to our other interests, which are many, and having us seen as being a dependable ally to our friends and keeping our commitments, this bill deserves the support of the Senate for other reasons as well. In addition to our longstanding bipartisan consensus on Taiwan, the growing gap in military capabilities between Taiwan and China, China's aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and the United States' credibility with our allies and free people everywhere, this is a jobs bill. This is a policy that creates jobs. If we sell this American-made product to our friends and allies who are willing to pay for it--and it will not cost one dime in taxpayer dollars--it creates jobs at home. This chart shows, in yellow, all of the States where jobs would be created and sustained as a result of these sales. This map shows every State in which direct and indirect employment from this export sale of F-16s to Taiwan is projected to be at least 60 person-years of employment, which is the equivalent of 10 American workers employed full time for 6 years. As you can see from this map, 32 States will have that level of job creation or more, making this F-16 sale to Taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. In fact, according to a report by the Perryman Group, the requested sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8.7 billion in output.'' That is something the American economy could use now? Furthermore, it would directly support more than 23,000 jobs. That is surely something we need now. As I said, these jobs don't cost the American taxpayer a dime. Apart from the paperwork and processing necessary to approve the deal, these are private sector jobs, and it is exactly the private sector that we need to take off again. The one thing the Federal Government, the U.S. Government, needs to do perhaps more than anything else is simply get out of the way and let these Americans continue to stay on the job--and collect, in addition, an estimated $768 million in Federal tax revenue. That is something else we could use, more tax revenue coming in from more employed workers so we can close the gap in our $1.5 trillion annual deficit and begin to work our way toward reducing the debt, which is more than $14 trillion. I thank, on a bipartisan basis, the Senators who have supported this legislation. I note that of the 47 signatories on the letters that have been made part of the record supporting this sale, 13 are from our Democratic friends across the aisle. This is truly a bipartisan effort. For all the reasons I have mentioned, I hope we will vote yes and pass this important amendment to this bill. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, briefly, once this production line is shut down for the production of the F-16, it cannot be reconstituted. The 2,000 people currently working on the F-16 production line will be reassigned or fired and so this is important. This isn't something we can take up willy-nilly later on because we finally have gotten around to it. It is timely, and it needs to be done now to keep our commitment to our ally and show the Chinese what they need to see from America; that is, strength, not weakness.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is why this amendment is relevant to this trade bill we are getting ready to pass, because it is important that products manufactured in the United States, and produce grown here, that we sell it to markets abroad because it creates jobs here at home, in addition to fulfilling our legal obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act. I must say I disagree with my colleague from Massachusetts. The upgrade on the 145 aircraft does nothing to substitute for the retiring of the French Mirage aircraft and the F-5s, given the disparity of air power between China and Taiwan. Because we are all concerned about jobs, let me remind my colleagues that 32 different States will receive benefits by way of jobs as a result of these sales. This isn't the primary reason why this is important. This is about American prestige, keeping our promises, and not letting the bullies of the world, including China, intimidate the United States; and it is about keeping solemn commitments to our allies. I ask my colleagues to vote yes, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 634 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. I would like to offer a bipartisan proposition to my colleagues here in the nature of this amendment. The reason I say this idea enjoys bipartisan support is 47 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, have joined in a letter to the administration asking that the administration grant a sale of F-16C/D models to our ally Taiwan. This amendment would compel that sale because unfortunately the administration declined to make that sale yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that the Taiwan Relations Act signed by Jimmy Carter and passed by a bipartisan Congress requires the United States to provide Taiwan with defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities. They have lost that capability, as demonstrated by this chart taken from Defense Department records. Currently, the People's Republic of China has about 2,300 operational combat aircraft to Taiwan's 490. Taiwan, by comparison, has 490 operational aircraft, of which about 100 need to be retired, French Mirage aircraft, F-5 aircraft. About 100 of them need to be retired because they are literally obsolete. What this amendment would do would be to compel the sale of 66 F-16C/ D models to our friends in Taiwan. Why is this important? Well, the Department of Defense reports that China's military power is in an increasingly precarious situation for the region and that China seeks the capability both to deter Taiwan independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute between them on China's terms. This amendment would compel that sale. My colleague from Massachusetts argued earlier that the retrofit of 145 of the F-16A/B models, which Taiwan has, which the United States sold, is an adequate substitute. It is not. All that will do is help upgrade 145 of these aircraft that I identified earlier. It will not meet the need created by the retirement of the obsolete French Mirages and the F-5. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor and spoke about my intention to offer this amendment, which is now pending before the Senate, which would require the U.S. Government to sell 66 F-16C/D aircraft to the Government of Taiwan pursuant to our responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, passed with bipartisan support of the Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter. Under this law, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Government to provide our ally Taiwan with sufficient defensive weapons in order to defend itself against any possible aggression by Communist China or from any other source. I spoke at some length about this yesterday, and I won't reprise all of those arguments. At the outset, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 3 letters--1 signed by 45 Senators supporting this sale of F-16s to Taiwan and 2 separate letters from Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for a total of 47 Senators who are on record as supporting this sale.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank my colleague from Indiana. I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from Massachusetts. This isn't an assessment I have made that Taiwan needs these aircraft; this is one made by the Department of Defense in their 2011 report on China's growing military power. They detailed the increasingly precarious situation in the Taiwan Strait, stating that China seeks the capability to deter Taiwan independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on Beijing's terms. So it is clear from the press reports from China's state-run newspaper, the very bellicose comments, that this is really an attempt by mainland China, the People's Republic of China, to intimidate not only Taiwan but also the United States, and we should not give in to that intimidation. This chart which I pointed to earlier demonstrates the growing imbalance in the Taiwan Strait. This is why these additional aircraft are needed. The red one is 2,300 operational combat aircraft for the People's Republic of China versus 490 operational combat aircraft for the Taiwanese. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct to the extent that the upgrades are welcome on the 145 F-16s we previously sold to Taiwan. But it is not adequate because 100 of these aircraft currently operational by Taiwan are obsolete and are going to be retired. Taiwan has intended that the new F-16C/D series replace the fleet of F-5s--those were previously sold U.S. aircraft from the 1975 to 1985 range which are now old and obsolete--and then the French-made Mirage 2000-5 fighters. So 100 of these planes demonstrated here, of the 490, are going to be retired, and the 66 aircraft that are the subject of this amendment will replace some of those retired vehicles. So I don't think that thinking about the future of our relationship with Taiwan or problems we may see on the horizon is enough. We need to do something now. I would also point out that you can't just take the production line at Lockheed Martin and basically eliminate it because there are no further demands or contracts for F-16 sales. Basically, all the personnel--the 23,000 people directly involved in those jobs--will be reassigned or be fired, let go, because there are no contracts in place as late as the fourth quarter of this year for new F-16s. So I think looking at this down the road doesn't take into account the current loss of jobs or the disruption of disbanding this production line, which cannot easily be reconstituted if there are no contracts, including the sale of these 66 F-16s. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. This is a very interesting document because it breaks down on a nationwide basis where jobs would come from or be affected by a refusal to sell these F-16s. In California, for example, 11,399 job- years. If you are wondering, like I was, what a job-year is, that is one person employed for 1 year. So that is pretty significant. In Connecticut, 5,876 job-years; in Ohio--I know the current occupant of the chair, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, will be interested to know that Ohio would see 10,577 job-years as a result of this sale. So as manufacturing is important in the State of Ohio, it is important in the State of Texas. Why would we not want to see these jobs created by this sale? Mr. President, I have another document which is a letter signed by 181 Members of the House of Representatives to the President of the United States endorsing this sale. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly again on my amendment as to the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan and respond to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who said this was neither the right bill nor the right time. I understand every manager of a bill wants a clean bill; in other words, they do not want amendments. They would like to bring it here and have the Senate pass it without any changes whatsoever. But that is not the way our system works. Indeed, it is actually urgent we get this matter settled in a positive way because, as I mentioned earlier, there are 23,000 jobs in America that depend on this sale--many of them in the production line in Texas--but there are jobs all over the United States that depend on this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document titled ``Projected Nationwide Employment Impact of Production of 66 F-16C/Ds for Taiwan.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are talking about trade, how we create markets for what Americans grow or build and sell abroad, which creates jobs here at home. But I wish to talk about a rather specialized area of trade, and that has to do with foreign military sales, and particularly I wish to talk about a topic Senator Menendez and I introduced a bill on last week called the Taiwan Air Power Modernization Act of 2011. This bill requires the U.S. Government to respond to the request of the Government of Taiwan for the sale of at least 66 F-16 C/D fighter aircraft to Taiwan. That sounds like a mouthful and a big subject, and it is, but let me try to put some meat on the bone and explain why I think this is so important. Support of the people of Taiwan has been a bipartisan priority for decades. Democrats and Republicans supported the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan, signed by President Eisenhower in 1954. Democrats and Republicans came together and passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which was signed by President Carter in 1979, and which remains the law of the land today. The Taiwan Relations Act states that the United States will provide to Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities in furtherance of maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific region. What does sufficient self-defense capabilities mean? President Reagan, in a memorandum he dictated dated August 17, 1982, laid it out. This is about the time the third communique between Communist China and the United States was formally adopted, because the Chinese wanted to know exactly what this meant. Were arms provided to Taiwan a threat of aggressive weaponry or purely for defensive purposes? According to James Lilley, who was America's top representative in China at the time and who later served as Ambassador to China under George Herbert Walker Bush, that is what this was designed to do, to crystalize what the nature of the weapons sales to the Taiwan Government would be used for. This memorandum from President Reagan in August 17, 1982 laid it out: . . . it is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the People's Republic of China. Both in quantitative and qualitative terms, Taiwan's defense capability relative to that of the PRC will be maintained. This is strictly for giving Taiwan the ability to defend itself against potential Communist actions by Communist China. It was directly proportional and reciprocal to the threat posed by the People's Republic of China. But Ronald Reagan was not alone in this interpretation. In fact, both Democrats and Republicans over the years have supported numerous arms sales to the Government of Taiwan, including the current request for 66 F-16 C/D advanced fighter aircraft. So far this year, 47 Republicans and Democrats have signed a letter-- these are Senators--to the administration in support of this sale. In August, 181 Members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, wrote to the administration endorsing this same sale. Why is Taiwan asking for these aircraft and why do so many Democrats and Republicans join together in a bipartisan way on this issue when the parties seem to be so polarized by so many other issues? The answer is simple and straightforward: Taiwan's air defense capabilities are nearly obsolete, while China's military capabilities are growing at an alarming rate. This chart demonstrates the problem. On the right in the red you will see that China has 2,300 operational military combat aircraft, while Taiwan has 490 operational combat aircraft. But air defense is not just a numbers game. Quality of those aircraft matters a lot--just as much as quantity. So what about the quality of Taiwan's existing forces? According to our own intelligence services, the Defense Intelligence Agency, in an unclassified report last year, said that ``many of Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service life, and many require extensive maintenance support.'' China's capabilities, on the other hand, are clearly newer and clearly growing and clearly focused on intimidating Taiwan and the United States. China's official press agency reported in March that the People's Republic of China will increase its military budget this year by 12 percent, after an increase last year of 7.5 percent. But the Pentagon estimates that China's official military budget of about $90 billion they disclose, is actually far less than the $150 billion they actually spend. In other words, they only disclose part of their expenditures on national security and not the full amount, which is some $150 billion. The question is, who does China intimidate with this growing military power? Here is what the Pentagon had to say in its 2011 report to Congress, called ``Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China.'' The Defense Department observed that China continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on Taiwan contingencies. The Pentagon also noted that China's air force will remain primarily focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East Asia.'' Let me repeat that. The Pentagon noted that China's air force will remain primarily focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East Asia.'' Some say the United States should not look at our policy with Taiwan in a vacuum, that we should consider the context of our larger strategic relationship with China. I could not agree more, because the strategic situation with China these days is very troubling. Many of China's neighbors are concerned about its military buildup and territorial ambitions. Last year, China claimed the South China Sea as a ``core interest,'' which unsettled Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other nations in the region. China also renewed a long- running dispute with India over the borders of the Arunachal Pradesh region. China continues to be an enabler of the nuclear ambitions of the regime in North Korea. This summer, Google publicly reported that a Chinese entity has been targeting the personal e-mail accounts of U.S. and South Korean government employees, and Pakistan's defense minister publicly discussed the possibility of China building a naval base at Gwadar, Pakistan, which is already home to a new strategically important port at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman. China, we know, has also escalated its rhetoric aimed at the United States, and particularly the U.S. Senate. A number of my colleagues visited Beijing last April where they reportedly received a lecture from Chinese officials on fiscal policy. Just last week, more to the point of this topic, China's top official newspaper used a lot of unnecessary and bellicose rhetoric on the subject of the proposed U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. This official newspaper of the Communist Party in China said that those of us on Capitol Hill who support Taiwan are ``madmen.'' They said we were ``playing with fire.'' They said we could pay a ``disastrous price'' if we continued to support our ally Taiwan, as we are obligated to do by the Taiwan Relations Act. I suggest the United States should not give in to this intimidation and these threats, and that we should instead pass this legislation to send a clear message to China that respects only strength, not weakness; that the real madmen are those who think America will abandon our friends and allies and our principles and our longstanding strategic interest in the stability of East Asia. Supporting this legislation would also greatly reassure our allies and friends around the world. Many remember what happened when President Clinton deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996. That crisis developed when China tried to intimidate Taiwan on the eve of its first free Presidential elections by conducting a series of military exercises that included the firing of missiles a few miles north of Taiwan. President Clinton responded by ordering the largest U.S. military force since the Vietnam war to deploy to the region, including carrier battle groups led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Independence. America's show of strength and resolve under President Clinton's leadership did not escalate the crisis, it defused it, and it sent a welcome signal to our friends and allies in the region. According to an article in the current issue of Washington Quarterly, following the crisis, ``the region's confidence in the United States soared.'' `` . . . Japan, Singapore, the Philippines and other nations all bolstered their security ties with the United States.'' The Taiwan Strait crisis was one of the real foreign policy success stories of the Clinton administration. But the authors of this same article conclude that ``forsaking Taiwan [now] would likely have the opposite effect.'' This bill deserves bipartisan support of the majority of Members of the Senate based on our longstanding bipartisan consensus on policy toward Taiwan, the growing gap in military capabilities between the People's Republic of China and the Government of Taiwan, China's aggressive behavior toward its neighbors and toward the United States, and America's credibility with our allies and with free peoples everywhere. I conclude by pointing out perhaps something that is obvious, but maybe it is not so obvious to everyone. Since we are talking about trade, what we grow and we sell to people abroad creating jobs at home, it is worth mentioning that selling F-16 aircraft to Taiwan creates jobs and exports for the U.S. economy and does not cost 1 penny of taxpayer money. This map demonstrates all the States in which direct and indirect employment from which the export sales of F-16s to Taiwan is projected to be at least 60 person years of employment, which is the equivalent of 10 American workers employed full time for 6 years. As you can see from this map, 32 States will have that level of job creation or more as a result of the sale of these F-16s, making the sale of the F-16s to Taiwan a coast-to-coast job engine. In fact, according to the Perryman Group, the requested sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8.7 billion in output; and directly support more than 23,000 jobs.'' As I pointed out earlier, these jobs do not cost the American people one cent. These are private sector jobs paid for with money coming in from overseas because this is an export-driven industry. The only thing the U.S. Government needs to do is get out of the way and let these Americans continue to stay on the job and collect an estimated $768 million in Federal tax revenues. Yes, not only will we be selling these aircraft, creating jobs, we will be generating revenue for the Federal Treasury in the process, generated by this private sector, export- driven economic activity. I wish to thank the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for introducing this legislation with me, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have agreed to cosponsor it. I hope more Senators will join us, and I hope we will pass this bill soon. I hope we can help American workers continue building these aircraft to strengthen our friends, the people of Taiwan. Mr. President, let me just close on this comment: This is standalone legislation I discussed here today, but I will be offering, in due course, an amendment to the pending bill that would mandate this sale. So I would ask my colleagues to please join us in a bipartisan way of showing our support for our friends and allies in Taiwan and generating jobs right here at home. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak for about 4\1/2\ minutes on the natural disasters that have been confronting our Nation and in particular Texas, where the State has had about 3\1/2\ million acres of land burned, with many people now finding themselves literally homeless as a result of fires that many of my colleagues have seen on TV or watched on the Internet but which, frankly, do not capture the scale of the devastation. Just to give you an idea of the scope of this natural disaster, so far, in 2011, more than 18,000 wildfires have been reported in the State. As I mentioned, it has burned an area roughly the size of Connecticut. Nearly 2,900 structures have been lost and, unfortunately, there has also been a loss of life in these fires, as well as 5,000 Texans have now been evacuated from their homes. Unfortunately, these fires have been a feature of life in parts of Texas for most of the year because we are in the middle of a historic drought where, because of La Nina, the weather pattern, we have had an abnormally dry year, and, indeed, it has caused more than $5 billion of agricultural losses alone as a result of that drought. I have not only seen some of the devastation myself before I left Austin, but I have also talked to a number of people on the ground who are well informed. Representative Tim Kleinschmidt, who represents the Texas district east of Austin in sort of the Bastrop area, told me that as many as 1,000 people have been evacuated from their homes in that area and have been living in shelters since Sunday. Water and electricity are also down in many areas, and the wind has unfortunately swept the fire into other areas and now is only about 30 percent contained. I have also talked to some of our other local leaders, our county judges, such as Grimes County judge Betty Shiflett, who told me that while they have no unmet needs right now, they are very concerned about the threat to life and property and are working as hard as they can to contain the fires. I have also talked to our outstanding chief of the Texas Department of Emergency Management and the Director of the Texas Forest Service who tell me that as many as 2,000 Americans from places other than Texas have come to the State to help fight these fires and help protect property and life. We have had a good Federal response to one extent, and that is the U.S. Forest Service has provided planes, bulldozers, and other equipment. Unfortunately, we have seen the White House so far not extend the disaster declaration beyond the original 52 counties approved for FEMA assistance on May 3. I should say that assistance ran out on May 3, more than 4 months ago. Suffice it to say, the disaster declaration should be extended to cover the rest of the State, at least 200 more Texas counties that need Federal assistance. I am informed from reading the newspaper that President Obama reached out to Governor Perry yesterday to extend his condolences. But, frankly, more than condolences, what we need are the resources to help fight these fires to deal with the disaster and to help get people back into their homes as soon as possible. I would just say in conclusion, Madam President, that the majority leader has raised the question of whether disaster relief should be paid for or whether it should be borrowed money. I come down on the side of believing that we can't keep borrowing money we don't have. That is what the American people keep telling us. That is what the last election was all about. That is what the financial markets are telling us, and I believe the American people believe we have plenty of money in the Federal Government for Congress to do its job by setting priorities and funding those priorities. I believe emergency assistance to the people who have been hit hardest by these natural disasters is one of those priorities. We should fund it instead of funding wasteful spending and duplicative programs and engaging in failed Keynesian stimulus schemes. I yield the floor. Section 5

Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains for me to speak before getting to the last order?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the cut, cap, and balance legislation. I plan to vote yes on Saturday morning to proceed to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I would also like to explain why I think that is important. Most of us understand what this bill does. It cuts spending next year by more than $100 billion. These are real savings and not smoke-and- mirrors. It caps total Federal spending as a percentage of the economy, and it puts us on a path to keep spending at 19.9 percent of our gross domestic product. Right now, our Federal spending is at 25 percent of the gross domestic product. Our revenues are at roughly 15 percent, so there we have a 10-percent deficit totaling $1.5 trillion this year alone. Of course, those cumulative annual deficits make up our debt, which is now approximately $14.4 trillion. This piece of legislation also links an increase in the debt ceiling to passage of a joint resolution to balance the budget, and this is an important amendment to the Constitution that is being proposed. I believe we have amended the Constitution 27 times so far. This is a process the Framers of our Constitution embodied in the original document to allow Congress and the American people to amend the Constitution as circumstances change. Clearly, it is obvious to anyone who will look and pay attention that Congress has shown itself unable to constrain its spending and live within our means and to spend only the money we have as opposed to money we borrow from future generations. As important, this constitutional amendment--this balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--is not an extraordinary thing. It may be for the Federal Government, but 49 different States operate under a balanced budget requirement. I support the cut, cap, and balance legislation because it meets the three primary criteria I am using to evaluate proposals related to the debt ceiling. The first of those three criteria is, No. 1, we must not default. That is not an option. Also, we must not lose the Federal Government's AAA credit rating. No. 2, we must not increase the tax burden on job creators during a fragile economic recovery. This is not just my position; this was the President's position last December when the expiring tax provisions were extended for 2 more years. No. 3, we cannot resort to smoke and mirrors in the hopes of somehow fooling either the credit rating agencies or the American people that we are serious about the spending problem Washington clearly has. Cut, cap, and balance earned bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and I applaud the courage of those who crossed the aisle to support this legislation in the House. I hope we see a similar demonstration of bipartisan support for this proposal in the Senate. I know some of our colleagues on the other side are dismissive of this piece of legislation. I believe the previous speaker--I wasn't here for most of his comments, but I did see his chart--is fairly dismissive of this proposal. For those colleagues who are critical of this proposal, my question for them is this: Where is your plan? Where is your plan? To criticize what responsible Members of Congress are trying to propose as a solution to a problem when they have no plan of their own is irresponsible, in my opinion. The House of Representatives passed a budget earlier this year but, unfortunately, it has been more than 800 days since the Senate has adopted a budget--800 days. That is approaching 3 years. When asked, the majority leader, Senator Reid, said it would be foolish for the Senate to pass a budget. I think he was saying that not because he believes it is foolish to have a budget, but perhaps he thought by attacking the House plan, while having nothing to propose on his behalf, gained some marginal political advantage. President Obama has ignored his own debt commission for months and the debt problem. We know last December his fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles commission, rendered a very important report documenting in sobering detail the debt problem the Federal Government has--unfunded entitlements, as well as our tax system, which makes very little sense and makes us noncompetitive globally. It is our corporate tax system which encourages--because it makes economic sense--businesses here in the United States to create jobs overseas where it is more efficient, it is cheaper to do so, and where it affects their bottom line in a positive way. Why wouldn't we want to encourage job creators to create jobs here at home by reducing the disincentives and providing an incentive for job creation here in the United States? Until recently, the President has shown very little interest in that recommendation of his own deficit commission. We know when the President proposed his own budget in February--this is a budget never taken up by a Democratically controlled Senate either in the Budget Committee on which I serve or here on the floor--the President's own budget proposed in February would actually make our debt problem worse, not better. That is why, when we had a vote on the President's proposed budget a few weeks ago--not because our Democratic friends proposed it and brought it up for a vote but because our side of the aisle asked for a vote on it--it failed 97 to 0. None of our Democratic colleagues saw fit to vote for the President's budget proposal because they know it makes the problem worse, not better. The President finally got engaged a few weeks ago. But the problem we still have is we don't know what the detail of the President's proposed solution to the plan is. He will not say publicly in detail what his plan is. Unfortunately--and this is sort of the nature of the beast-- all the negotiations so far that apparently are still continuing are behind closed doors. If there were a grand bargain to be, I am confident what would happen is it would be rolled out on the floor of the Senate or in the House at the last minute, without adequate time to review it or to debate it or for the American people to read it and see how it affects them and to give us feedback. We are representatives of a constituency, and the 25 million people I represent in Texas would like to have a chance to read it and then tell me what they think about it. We know so far the American people are in the dark about the negotiations, and that is not a good way to do business. That does not help gain public confidence in what Congress is trying to do in dealing with a very serious problem. Last week, I believe it was the Press Secretary at the White House who actually said that ``leadership is not proposing a plan for the sake of having it voted up or down.'' I think that is a bizarre statement. A person offers a plan because they believe it offers a solution to a problem, not because of some fear of having it voted up or down. That is, in fact, how our system works. The majority rules. But, unfortunately, the President's leadership style is captured perfectly in that statement, and I think it sums up what is wrong with what is happening here in Washington. I wish to remind my colleagues of the challenge before us, and it is not the debt ceiling; it is the debt. I think those who think it is not real are just whistling past our fiscal graveyard. Here is what one of the credit agencies, Standard & Poor's, said just this morning, according to Reuters. They said: If an agreement is reached to raise the debt ceiling but nothing meaningful is done in terms of deficit reduction, the U.S. would likely have its rating cut to the AA category. Such a downgrade would have an immediate effect on other securities, as Standard & Poor's said: We would downgrade the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . . . the AAA rated Federal Home Loan Banks, and the AAA rated Federal Farm Credit System Banks, to correspond with the U.S. sovereign rating. We would also lower the ratings on AAA rated U.S. insurance groups, as per our criteria that correlates insurers' and sovereigns' ratings. What would be the impact if these credit rating agencies--which seem to have an oversized influence on our lives but they are what they are--what would be the impact of them downgrading the quality rating of our national debt? We know it would yield higher interest rates for American families, for small businesses, and for the U.S. Government. In fact, we know interest rates are at a historic low now because of Federal Reserve policy, primarily. Those low interest rates we may think are a good thing and they have provided some glimmer of hope for our struggling economy. But if they were as a result of a downgrading of our debt by these credit rating agencies or by a default which, to me, is unthinkable--just a 1-percent increase on the cost of credit we would have to pay to people who buy our debt--just a 1-percent increase over current rates would mean $1.3 trillion over 10 years. So the results of cuts in the billions of dollars are chicken feed compared to what the credit rating agencies could wipe out almost immediately by downgrading our debt. This is what we are risking by not dealing with this problem. This is what we are risking by political gamesmanship rather than trying to work together in a bipartisan basis to solve this threat to our country and to our future. As the economist Larry Lindsey wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month: If interest rates rose to their historical average over the next 2 decades of 5.7 percent, our cost of borrowing would be $4.9 trillion higher over the next 10 years. So we are left with the obvious question: How can we stop this economic calamity? We can pass this cut, cap, and balance plan or the President or our friends across the aisle could propose something they consider just as serious and just as credible, but we have to do it quickly. So this deadline of August 2 is one we should not flirt with, we should not play with, we should not ignore. We have to deal with it, and we can't just deal with it by raising the debt ceiling because as we have seen from the credit rating agencies, that doesn't solve the fundamental problem. We need to solve the fundamental problem of unsustainable debt or our economic future will not be one of hope and optimism, as the Senator from Iowa was saying earlier; it will be bleak indeed, and it will be our fault. I see my colleague from Kansas, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to express my appreciation for the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sessions, and to express many of the same concerns I know he has articulated. One of the most basic responsibilities of any business or family or, frankly, of Congress itself is to pass a budget. But, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out--and it has been pointed out time and time again--Congress has failed for more than 800 days--800 days--to perform one of its most basic and fundamental responsibilities, and that is to take up and pass a budget. Even though we haven't passed a budget and taken up a budget, that doesn't mean the spending has stopped. Indeed, the spending goes on in a reckless sort of way. We have spent $7.3 trillion since the last budget was passed, and we have increased the national debt by $3.2 trillion. Now the Senate is considering a spending bill, an appropriations bill, before we have even passed a budget. It strikes me that is exactly backward. We should be passing and debating a budget first before we then take up appropriations bills. This is not the way Congress should operate. Now, taxpayers who might be watching this on C-SPAN or elsewhere or in the gallery may be asking themselves, well, how can Congress spend money without having a budget in place, because we know a budget is a very important form of self-discipline. It requires us to identify what our priorities are. What are the things we have to spend money on? What are things we would like but we can put off until tomorrow or next year? What are the things we would like to have but we really can't afford? The fact is, Congress has been operating in an undisciplined and extravagant sort of way not with our money but with the taxpayers' money and, even worse, with the money these young men and women who are sitting in front of me are going to have to pay because our legacy to them will be a burden of debt which will limit their opportunity and their prosperity. As Senator Sessions, our ranking member, has pointed out, this is not only a bad idea, this is not only bad policy, this is not only a breach with our precedent and policies, there is, in fact, a Budget Act rule that prohibits what is going on; that is, spending money without a budget in place. It violates the Senate rules. Everybody knows spending money without a budget in place is not fiscally responsible. Of course, I would say to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, we all support our military and our veterans, and there is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than to defend our citizens and to make sure the needs of our troops and veterans are met. But Congress should not, in the interest of doing something that is important, circumvent its own rules. Taxpayers deserve transparency. With transparency comes accountability. And without a budget, taxpayers get neither. We know what has been going on in the absence of Congress doing its job. Indeed, the President's own proposed budget would have vastly expanded the debt and the deficits, and that is why it lost when we brought it to the floor and said we want to vote on it. It lost 97 to 0. No member of the opposing party, the President's own party, voted for the President's proposed budget because it was irresponsible. It did nothing to solve the problem of reckless spending, deficits, and unsustainable debt. So what are we left with? Well, we are told that on August 2 the Secretary of the Treasury says we will run out of money. Rather than having a budget debated and voted on in front of the American people where every American citizen could watch it and see what is going on and call our offices and express their concerns either supporting that budget or saying, no, Members of Congress ought to change it by offering an amendment, what we are given now by the President is secret negotiations behind closed doors. I assume it will be rolled out at some point, and we will be told: Take it or leave it. August 2, we are out of money. And Mr. Senator, Madam Senator, Madam Congressperson, you can't do your most fundamental job; that is, have a debate in the light of day in front of the American people. Now, does this ring a bell? It seems to me this is starting to be a habit--a bad habit. It started with the health care bill. It was rammed through Congress. It was a product of secret negotiations. All sorts of special deals were cut behind closed doors. Only now are we really beginning to see what the consequences of those special deals were and the costs that were vastly underestimated in the health care bill. I hate to say this, but President Obama has failed to lead on the debt ceiling. First, we know he called for a clean up-or-down vote without any cuts or any entitlement reform. That is the first thing he called for. Thank goodness he has moved away from that position, but there are problems yet. But when he was a Senator in 2006, he said, ``Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally.'' At the time, he also said, ``It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.'' That was back in 2006 when then-Senator Obama made those statements. So today we are presented with a much different officeholder--the President of the United States--who is now demagoging those who hold the same truths he espoused himself in 2006, back when our debt and our deficits were much smaller than they are today. This isn't a matter of the President not understanding the problem we find ourselves in because he appointed a bipartisan commission, the Simpson-Bowles commission, that reported back in December in a report called ``A Moment of Truth'' which laid out in sobering detail the unsustainability of our national debt, the reckless spending that had gone on, and the borrowing from the Chinese and other governments. But rather than the President taking up the report of his own fiscal commission, he simply ignored it. He ignored it in the State of the Union Message. He certainly ignored it in his proposed budget, which was dead on arrival over here, without a single Democrat voting for it. In essence, the President has outsourced his leadership responsibilities to others. We know the President's current proposal, if one can call it that--and, frankly, the devil is in the details, and while the House has passed a budget, while the Simpson-Bowles commission has made a recommendation, as well as the Domenici-Rivlin bipartisan recommendation, we have yet to see the President's plan. Yes, he has held press conferences, he has bashed those rhetorically who have held the very same position he held in 2006, but he has failed to lead and offer a plan to deal with this impending crisis. In fact, the President's current rhetoric--I don't think we can dignify it by calling it a plan--is significantly to the left of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles recommendations. He is certainly to the left of Simpson-Bowles when it comes to spending--calling for much more spending, no cuts but continued spending. He is to the left of Simpson- Bowles when it comes to taxes, when ``more'' is the only word he seems to know when it comes to taxes--more taxes. In fact, when the President says we are going to cut $1 trillion, let's say, or $2 trillion, but we are going to raise taxes $$2 trillion, what does that net? That means no net change in the size of the Federal Government, and that means no real downpayment on our national debt or deficit. It is a sleight of hand. It is phony. It is designed to give the appearance of doing something serious while doing nothing serious at all. We know the President has failed to lead in other ways. He has delegated or outsourced his responsibility to the Vice President. It took only a few weeks ago for the President to finally step up and engage personally, and we find that more often than not he proposed phony solutions such as changing the depreciation schedule for corporate jet owners, dealing with the tax treatment of oil and gas companies, and changing an accounting rule called ``last in, first out.'' But the facts are that those changes, even if adopted, would be a drop in the bucket. They would do nothing significant or serious to deal with our huge deficits and our unsustainable debt. Unfortunately, the President's own personal engagement is frequently nothing more than personal attacks. His recent press conferences have been full of name-calling and straw man attacks that are, frankly, beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United States. Instead of being a Commander in Chief, it is more like he has decided: I am going to be campaigner in chief. I am not going to deal with the problem. I am going to just look at winning the next election. Then we read yesterday that even in private the President is throwing temper tantrums like he did yesterday and stomping out of the meeting at the White House--again, failing to show leadership. But the most cynical thing the President has done, the most cynical abdication of leadership he has displayed so far is his new threat to hold seniors, our veterans, and our troops hostage unless Congress will agree to job-killing tax increases immediately. This is shameful behavior. We all know that even if the August 2 deadline passes without a deal, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. Treasury will still have enough revenue--about $172 billion--to pay for Social Security benefits, to pay for Medicaid and Medicare, to pay Active-Duty military, and other national priorities. Let me repeat: The only reason seniors and our troops will see their checks stop coming is if the Obama administration decides to make other spending a priority, if the Obama administration chooses to hold our troops and seniors hostage just so they can raise taxes. This is another amazing display of cynicism, or I guess the most charitable way I can say it: short term memory. The President himself said last December the reason we should not raise taxes in a fragile economic recovery is because it would be bad for job creation. It would further discourage job creation at a time when we need jobs badly. Well, let me say just a word about tax increases and why this side of the aisle believes so strongly that tax increases are not the answer to our debt crisis. As one President famously said: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up--take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole. Well, the President who said that was President Barack Obama back in 2009. The President makes our case for us. Another President said low taxes help ``millions of entrepreneurs . . . hire new workers.'' Oh, yes, that was again President Barack Obama when he signed the extension of tax relief last December. Then there was another President, somebody our Nation holds in high regard, who happens to have been a Member of the other political party, who said: The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. . . . That was President John F. Kennedy in 1962. President Kennedy also said: In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. . . . He said--and he was exactly right: Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. He had it exactly right. We need to not only cut spending, but we need to grow revenue. The best way to grow revenue is to get more taxpayers, to get more people back to work. The reason Federal revenue is so low is not because tax rates are too low or people are not taxed enough, it is because too many people are out of work. When people do not have a job, they do not pay taxes, they do not pay their home mortgages, and they lose their homes. We are for more people getting back to work. We have tried the failed stimulus, the goal of which was to keep unemployment below 8 percent. We know that failed. Yet we racked up another $800 billion in debt. So why don't we try the old-fashioned way: take our boot off the necks of the job creators in America to make it easier, not harder, to create jobs, to provide incentives for entrepreneurs to start new businesses, to help existing small businesses expand their business. But they cannot do it, and they will not do it with uncertainty about their taxes, with the regulatory overreaching and other policies coming out of Washington, DC. Republicans are holding the line against the President's demand for higher taxes for a very simple reason. President Kennedy was right about taxes back in 1962, and President Barack Obama was right about taxes as recently as last December. Unfortunately, he has changed his mind, or he has forgotten the position he took just last December. Republicans do not want tax increases, and we do not want to see the Federal Government default on its obligations. So we have an obligation to come up with an affirmative plan, a positive plan to solve the problem. I believe we have done so. The first is a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution that is cosponsored by every Republican on this side of the aisle. The last time we voted on a balanced budget amendment in the Senate was 1997--before I got here--where 11 Democrats voted to support that constitutional amendment. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in doing not an extraordinary thing, not a heroic thing--it is a very ordinary but a very commonsense thing--and that is to make sure the Federal Government learns to live within its means and not spend money it does not have. We hope they will join us. Part of that plan is also the cut, cap, and balance legislation I have cosponsored and that I hope the House of Representatives will take up and send over here soon. This legislation is a plan that avoids defaulting on our obligations. It prevents more taxes, particularly during a fragile economic recovery. It cuts reckless spending, and it gets our fiscal house in order. What is painfully apparent is we are running out of time, and I am not just talking about the August 2 deadline. Yesterday, Moody's Investors Services said it was reviewing the Nation's top-notch, AAA credit rating for a potential downgrade. If credit agencies downgrade our debt, it will cost more for us to borrow from the Chinese and our other creditors. As we know, because of Federal Reserve policies, the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates below historic norms. If those were to grow to historic norms because our debt has been downgraded by the credit agencies--or for any other reason--the interest on our national debt alone will crowd out other priorities for our Nation. It will make it less likely we can afford to do what we need to do to defend our national security or to provide the very safety net that our Democratic colleagues claim to care so much about. We will not have the money to do it because we will not have acted responsibly in dealing with the deficit and the debt today. I urge my colleagues to heed these warnings and to join us in cutting spending and to get our debt under control. In the end, everyone will come out a winner if we accomplish that goal. This is not a Republican plan. This is not a Democratic plan. This is what is right and good and necessary for the United States of America, and so that generations in the future can enjoy the same opportunity and prosperity we ourselves have enjoyed. Heaven help us--Heaven help us--if we fail to take advantage of this opportunity and to deal responsibly with this impending crisis. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President I would observe the current Presiding Officer has had the misfortune of being in the chair whenever I am coming down to speak, so I appreciate his patience. Today, congressional leaders are meeting with the President of the United States to discuss what can be done to reduce the Nation's out- of-control deficit, to deal with our unsustainable debt, to get America back to work and help grow our economy. I congratulate the President for convening this meeting, which will probably be one of the last chances we will have to deal with this deadline of August 2 to deal with the debt limit--a situation wherein we have maxed out our Nation's credit card. Forty-three cents out of every dollar the Federal Government spends today is borrowed money, making the deficit worse and not better and making the debt worse and not better. This is the chance to kick the habit of out-of-control spending here in Washington. I appreciate the fact the President has moved from his initial position wherein he advocated for Congress to simply raise the debt limit without putting Washington and Congress on a spending diet. I appreciate the fact he has moved in his position. I read today in the daily newspapers that he is putting a lot of things, including Social Security reform, on the table, together with other entitlements. I hope this represents a change of position, a change of attitude, and the President and our negotiators will seize this opportunity to do the kind of grand bargain that will put America back on to a more solid fiscal path. Every child born in the United States today--while being one of the luckiest people in the world being born in the United States of America, but at the same time being burdened--every child born today will be burdened with $46,000 for their share of the national debt. That is simply wrong and we all know it. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of discussion about the White House and some of our Democratic colleagues wanting to raise taxes as part of this grand bargain. Indeed, I think that is the notion behind this sense-of-the-Senate resolution the majority leader has introduced, which is targeted at millionaires and billionaires. The sense-of-the- Senate resolution the majority leader wants us to vote on says it is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to deficit reduction. Unfortunately, this is not real legislation. This won't change anything. This is a sense of the Senate. This is a resolution, which I think is a missed opportunity to actually deal with the issue rather than pretend as though we are treating it seriously. When the White House proposes that working families and small businesses, among others, suffer a $400 billion tax increase over the next 10 years, it strikes me that in one sense this is like a diet where a person says, I am going to give up dessert. I am not going to eat dessert. But then that person binges on the buffet. In other words, it is not real. It is not going to work. To put this in perspective, the Federal Government is currently borrowing $4 billion every day this year. So actually raising taxes in this amount--while this only amounts to 10 days of what Washington spends--raising taxes by $400 billion over 10 years, as we can see, won't make a serious dent in the deficit and the debt, and they are very serious job-killing proposals as well. It strikes me as common sense to say if we want more jobs, we make it easier to create jobs. If we want less jobs, we make it harder to create jobs by raising taxes, by excessive regulation, and other obstacles to job creation. The irony is that I am not confident our friends on the other side who propose tax increases as part of this grand bargain actually want to use that increased revenue to pay down the deficit and the debt. To the contrary, I fear what they want to do is continue spending at the current levels. So it is kind of a shell game, saying we are going to cut $2 trillion but we are going to raise taxes by $2 trillion. What does that mean? Unless that $2 trillion in additional revenue is used to pay down the debt, it means it is a wash and government and Washington continue business as usual. I don't think the American people want us to continue doing business as usual. I think they want us to listen to them and to mend our ways. Let me give a context for how nonserious some of the proposals are, including out of the President of the United States. All of a sudden he focused last week on this depreciation schedule for corporate jets. Depreciation is a normal part of the Tax Code which says if one uses something in a business, one can basically write it down over time. It won't surprise us to find that if a person did that, if a person did what the President said--eliminate depreciation of corporate jets--it would generate about $3 billion in revenue to the Federal Treasury over 10 years--$3 billion over 10 years. But to get a sense of what a minuscule contribution that would make to solving the problem, consider what our annual deficit is. This is in 1 year. This is what $1.5 trillion looks like. It has 12 zeroes; a 1, a 5, and 11 zeroes after the 5. That is our annual deficit. The President says to solve this annual deficit, we need to raise $3 billion in additional revenue from corporate jet owners. Obviously, it is a drop in the bucket. But it is even worse when we look at the debt. The deficit, of course, is the difference between what the Federal Government brings in and what it spends. Right now it is spending about $1.5 trillion more each year than it brings in, in revenue. That is the deficit. But the accumulation of those deficits represents the debt. This is how much red ink our Federal Government is spending--or where we find ourselves--and that is $14 trillion. This is the number the President wants us to raise--$14 trillion. That is like the max on a credit card. If a person is spending too much money, that person bumps up against the credit card limit. The President, in essence, rather than cutting back on spending and making sure we are paying our bills we already owe, wants to raise it so the Federal Government can spend more money. As I mentioned, this $14 trillion in debt boils down to $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. So when the President gives a press conference--and I can't remember how many times he mentions chartered jets--but he talks about $3 billion in revenue over 10 years, it is a drop in the bucket when dealing with a 1-year deficit, or a deficit each year, currently of $1.5 trillion, or a $14 trillion debt. So the fact is we cannot get there from here, even if we did what the President said. It is not serious. It is not honest. It is not candid in terms of what we need to do to get our country back on a solid fiscal pathway. So let's talk about Federal tax reform. There has been a lot of discussion about that, where we want to take the Tax Code with all of its multiple provisions and get it on the table and take a look at it to make sure it is, in my view, flatter, fairer, and simpler. But right now, the fact of that according to the Committee on Joint Taxation, 51 percent--that is a majority of American households--paid no income tax in 2009. Zero. Zip. Nada. No income tax was paid by 51 percent of the households in America in 2009. Actually, to show how out of whack things have gotten, 30 percent of American households actually made money from the tax system by way of refundable tax credits, the earned income tax credit, among others. So 51 percent of American households paid no income tax in 2009, but 30 percent actually made money under the current system. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the top 10 percent of wage earners in America paid 70 percent of total income taxes. The top 5 percent of income earners in America paid nearly 60 percent of income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 38 percent of income taxes. So what is the President talking about and what is the majority leader trying to--what point are they trying to make when they suggest we pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying that millionaires should ``make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort''? What is their point? Is their point that we ought to raise taxes on people who are already paying taxes? Is their point that we should expand the pool of people who do not pay any income tax or should we perhaps expand the pool of people who actually benefit from cash transfers, payments as a result of a refundable tax credit? Well, I think it is pretty obvious we need tax reform. I am skeptical that we have time between now and Secretary Geithner's stated deadline of August 2 to do what we need to do and to repair and fix our broken tax system. But I think this helps put in context the frankly cynical suggestion that somehow we could solve the problem if we just go after the fat cats and the corporate jet owners. If we just make the millionaires and billionaires pay more money, it will all be all right. Well, I think the American people are smarter than that. When confronted with the facts, I think they can readily conclude and will readily conclude that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. We do not need a bunch of smoke and mirrors and phony arguments about class warfare. That is not going to solve the problem. We need to solve the problem. Well, let's look at the President's economic record. I know there have been some press reports about that the President said we are making a comeback. I think he called this summer ``the summer of recovery,'' if I am not mistaken. But, in fact, we know the President's policies are actually making things worse. All you need to do is look at the number of people who are unemployed in America. There were 12 million people unemployed on his inauguration day. Now it is almost 14 million. Almost 2 million more Americans are unemployed. Is that making things better? No. It is making things worse. And we know there are a lot of people who are taking minimum- wage jobs and other jobs not up to their full potential because they want to provide for their families, so we call those people underemployed. That would make that number even higher. When the President was inaugurated in January of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. Today, it is 9.1 percent. That is a 17-percent increase. In other words, unemployment is worse today than it was when the President was sworn in. Gas prices. We all know what has happened to gas prices. They have gone through the roof. People are having to deny themselves other discretionary expenditures because they simply have to have the gasoline to be able to drive to work, drive the kids to school, or take care of their daily business. The fact is, when the President was sworn in, gasoline prices were $1.85. Well, wouldn't it be great if gas prices were $1.85 today? Instead, they average $3.58. That is almost a 100-percent increase in gasoline prices since President Obama put his hand on the Bible and was sworn in as President of the United States. It is a 94-percent increase. Then we were talking about the Federal debt. The Federal debt when the President was sworn in--some people will tell you: Oh, it is all about President Bush and fighting two wars that were not paid for. It is about the Bush tax cuts and other things. Well, I agree there is bipartisan blame when it comes to our national debt, but we ought to link arms and work together to try to solve the problem rather than continue to make it worse. The Federal debt when President Obama was sworn in was $10.6 trillion. Today, it is $14.3 trillion. It is 35 percent worse. The debt has gone up by 35 percent since President Obama was sworn in. I mentioned this factor earlier. As shown on this chart, this is what every American citizen owes in terms of their share of the national debt. When President Obama was sworn in, it was $34,000. Today, it is 46,000. So, congratulations, everyone within the sound of my voice owes $11,000 more to the national debt since President Obama became President of the United States. Then there is health insurance. We have had a lot of debate about health insurance costs. We were told that if we just passed this giant health care bill, health insurance costs would go down, we would fix problems, and we would make sure more people had access to health care. Well, since President Obama became President, health insurance premiums have gone up by 19 percent--19 percent. Did he make it better or did he make it worse? Well, we need to unburden the economy from higher taxes, excessive regulation, and all the sorts of obstacles that get in the way of small businesses--the primary job-creating engine in our economy--doing what they do best; that is, growing the economy, creating jobs. If our friends across the aisle want more tax revenue, well, the best way to get more revenue is to get more Americans back to work so they pay taxes rather than remain unemployed, losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgages. That is how we ought to increase revenue, not by raising rates, not by some of these silly class-warfare arguments that seem to target unpopular sectors of the economy. And, yes, we need to increase exports to create more jobs. We can do that by ratifying the outstanding trade agreements without adding unnecessary spending to them. And, yes, when it comes to energy policy, the high price of gasoline--which has gone up 94 percent since President Obama became President of the United States--we can open more domestic energy reserves, more American natural resources, rather than continue to have to import it from places abroad that are not necessarily our friends or which may be in political turmoil or even war, such as Libya. So if we had a rational national energy policy where the EPA, rather than looking for excuses to deny us access to things such as the natural gas discoveries we have found in Texas and around the country--if we had a way to take advantage of and did, in fact, take advantage of more domestic energy production, it could help us put more Americans back to work and help us reduce our dependency on energy from abroad and help bring down this price to one that does not break the backs of the average working families. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Well, Mr. President, responding to my friend from Alabama, the number, I am advised, is roughly $3 billion in additional revenue to the Treasury, and that would be over 10 years. But, as you can see, it is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the deficit for 1 year, which is $1.5 trillion, and the national debt of $14 trillion. I apologize, I am not used to dealing with numbers that big, which demonstrates that these numbers really have kind of lost their meaning here. I remember Everett Dirksen being quoted as saying: A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money. The fact is we are not talking about millions, we are not talking about billions, we are talking about trillions. I think most people's minds have a very difficult time conceiving of how big a number that is.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a correction. My staff told me I undercounted $14 trillion. I asked ahead of time, but we actually got the number wrong. The number I have on the chart is actually three zeros too few. So just to make sure the record is correct, that is 12 zeros after the ``14.'' That reflects our national debt. I would like to say I made the mistake and it was actually lower, but it actually is much higher, which I think reinforces my point. Thank you, Mr. President.