John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was, frankly, shocked by the comments of the President of the United States yesterday at his press conference, telling Congress it needed to get to work. I guess the President forgot his party controls the Senate, and Republicans, being in the minority, have no ability to place matters on the agenda or to force a vote on issues over the objection of Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Democrats who control the Senate. I guess the thing that rankled me so much is, rather than hold a press conference and tell Senator Reid to get to work on the budget, the President should have picked up his telephone or invited Senator Reid to come to his office and said: Harry, we need to pass a budget. We need to take care of this debt crisis. We need to take care of this cliff we are getting ready to fall off on August 2, that Secretary Geithner has warned us would have, perhaps, calamitous impacts on markets and on the economy and on interest rates charged on our national debt, among other things. I guess the most galling thing, listening to the President make this kind of outrageous speech, engaging in blatant electioneering, campaigning sort of rhetoric, class warfare, is that this comes from a person who, since January 2011, has had 31 fundraisers, including one tonight in Philadelphia. I wonder if he is going to cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to meet with Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner to try to work on this threat that he was so emphatic about yesterday. I predict he will not cancel his fundraiser in Philadelphia tonight to get to work on something that only he can do, which is to negotiate a grand bargain with Republicans and Democrats that will solve this problem. We know he had time on Monday to videotape an appeal to his donors who wanted to solicit donations from people so they might win a dinner with President Obama and the Vice President. He had time to do that. Yet it was not until Monday of this week that the President himself first took ownership of this issue, after Majority Leader Cantor and Assistant Leader Kyl said we cannot negotiate with the Vice President because they keep insisting on raising taxes, and we are not going to go there. The President had his first meeting with Republican Leader McConnell and the majority leader to talk about this issue that he was flailing Congress about not doing its job just yesterday. Frankly, he should be embarrassed. But, unfortunately, the threshold for embarrassment here in Washington seems to be much higher than in the rest of the country. The President said Republicans were blocking the deal on the debt limit because they had taken tax increases off the table. That is right. We believe it is a terrible mistake, with unemployment at 9.1 percent--much higher in many regions of the country--to raise taxes on the very people whom you are depending on to create jobs. What is his message to people who cannot find a job because people are not hiring? What is his message to people who are out of work and they cannot pay their home mortgage and they lose their home? It is higher taxes. Let's just raise taxes and everything will be fine. We do not have a taxing shortfall. The American people pay plenty of taxes already. What we have is a spending binge by the Federal Government. Tax revenue is roughly 18 percent of our gross domestic product, but spending is 25 percent, hence the $1.5 trillion deficit this year and the $14.3 trillion debt so far, which threatens our Nation's future. Frankly, it rankles many of us to have the President engage in such blatant demagoguery and blame-shifting, when he himself is unwilling to take responsibility for his duties, which are to lead by example. We are ready to work with the President to try to solve the Nation's problems. The House has passed a proposal. It is not perfect. I don't necessarily agree with all of it. But there are plenty of other proposals out there that will fix the Nation's fiscal problems, one of which is the President's own fiscal commission itself. He appointed it, a bipartisan fiscal commission that reported back in December, entitled ``Moment Of Truth,'' otherwise known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission, a bipartisan commission the President appointed himself. But he has ignored it. There is another one, the Domenici-Rivlin Commission, a bipartisan commission that made recommendations. The President has ignored it. The President yesterday said: ``Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead.'' That is what the President himself had the gall to say yesterday to the American people when he himself has displayed an astounding lack of leadership. As I said, we are ready to work with the President. I know Senator McConnell invited him to come over to Congress and explain how this increase in taxes was somehow going to create more jobs in America; how we were going to solve the problems with Medicare--which is going to run out of money in a little over a decade. I hope the President takes him up on that invitation. It is not a partisan issue. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said our national debt sends a message of weakness internationally. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said that ``the single greatest threat to our National security is our debt.'' If America goes broke, how are we going to pay for our national defense and security that not only Americans depend on but so many countries around the world depend on America being strong to protect them from tyrants and dictators and terrorists? But if our economy goes bust, if interest rates go up to historic norms, our economy could spiral out of control. But there is not going to be a bailout for the United States of America. Our economy is simply too big. The International Monetary Fund, the Europeans, and others are not going to bail us out while we continue to spend recklessly about 43 cents out of every dollar in money borrowed from these young men and women here sitting in front of me. Every baby born in America today comes into this world $46,000 in debt. It is irresponsible. It is wrong. The American people sent a message in November of 2010 that they were sick and tired of Washington operating business as usual, and they were not going to take it anymore. And the American people should not take it anymore. I believe we have an opportunity here. In Texas, we don't recognize problems; we recognize challenges and opportunities. We are a positive bunch of folks. This is a grand opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to do the Nation's business, to be serious, not to be reckless, not to give speeches like the President gave yesterday as part of his reelection campaign. Absolutely disgraceful. He should be ashamed. I respect the office of the President of the United States, but I think the President has diminished that office and himself by giving the kind of campaign speech he gave yesterday. We do have a solution. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and others of us have sponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This would be a responsible way to deal with this problem, and I hope we will get a vote on that shortly. But in the meantime, there is no reason we cannot solve this problem. All we need is the President to step up and give us a proposal. So far, he has laid back and criticized everybody else and said: Where is your proposal? How come you haven't done your work? Well, he has not done his work by proposing a responsible solution. We will have a debate. We will have amendments. We will make constructive suggestions. We will do it in the light of day and not behind closed doors, which is where these negotiations are occurring now. Why does this need to be done in secret? Why, as Senator Sessions said, are we, the elected representatives of the American people, left with a fait accompli shortly before the deadline that says: You either pass this or the country's economy goes down the tubes. That is not what the American people expect of us. That is not what they deserve. Sure, there are going to be differences of opinion, but that is what this Senate is for--to work those out. We all understand we are not going to get what we want 100 percent of the time, but we do deserve to have a fair and open process, transparent and visible to the American people. I get to offer suggestions, they either win or they lose, and then ultimately the majority vote determines the outcome. We respect that as the process by which these differences are resolved. But we cannot do our job when the President doesn't do his job and make a responsible proposal, when Senator Reid will not bring a budget to the floor. It has been 2 years since the Senate has had a budget. No one in the United States of America or anywhere around the world can operate with that sort of recklessness and irresponsibility. Everybody has to have a budget. My family has a budget. Every business has a budget. Only by having a budget can you determine what your priorities are. What are the things you have to have or do? What are the things you can put off until tomorrow? What are the things that maybe would be nice to have but you cannot afford? Every family, every business has to go through that process but not the Senate and not, apparently, the President of the United States. The proposal he made, which doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled it in 10 years, called for huge new tax increases. Yet, when it came up for a vote--and only because Republicans forced a vote on that--it lost. It didn't get any support. I think it was 97 to 0. Not even our friends across the aisle could support the President's outrageous proposal back then. So why doesn't he come back with a new one? Why doesn't he stay at the table? Instead of going to Philadelphia tonight and raising money, why doesn't he call Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid into his office and sit down and do his job, just do his job? I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I agree with the Senator from Kentucky who says this is not a partisan issue. As a matter of fact, back in 1997 a lot of our Democratic colleagues joined Republicans to vote in favor of a balanced budget amendment. If there is an issue that threatens not only the economy but also our national security today more than the national debt, I don't know what it is. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said the single largest threat to our national security is the debt. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the debt sends a message of weakness internationally. I was just over at the Heritage Foundation giving a speech. They are studying the role of China in the world, the rise of China, but particularly what I was concerned about, and the subject of my remarks, was the fact that the Treasury Department estimates that $1.1 trillion of U.S. debt is held by the Communist Chinese Government. That is one- third of all our outstanding debt. We know that at least on one occasion, a retired Chinese general said that if we didn't do what China wanted, they would then threaten to disrupt our economy by selling off the debt they own. So my colleagues may care to comment. Larry Lindsey, the renowned economist, wrote an article recently where we cited three things that worry him the most about high unemployment and the lassitude of the private sector. He said it is slow economic growth, of course, because many in the private sector are discouraged--the entrepreneurs who create jobs, the job creators who would otherwise expand--and slow economic growth concerns him. I think in the first quarter it was 1.8 of our gross domestic product. It is not enough to generate jobs to get people back to work and one reason for our high unemployment. He said the other two issues that worry him the most are, one, the interest payments on our national debt. He points out that because of the Federal Reserve policy, the interest rates on our national debt are at below historic norms. He points out, for example, if inflation were to kick in or the Federal Reserve, for some reason, should decide to tighten its policy and raise interest rates, what it would do to balloon the interest payments alone on our national debt in a way that would threaten our ability to fund national defense or other issues as well. Two, he also points out the exploding costs of the health care bill, with more and more employees incentivized to dump people onto the State-based exchanges subsidized by taxpayers as opposed to their employers. I wonder if any of my colleagues--I see the Senator from Kentucky-- may have some comments about the interest on the debt and what he views as a threat to our economy and our security.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I join my colleagues from Kentucky and the junior Senator from Utah in recognizing the leadership of the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, on this even more compelling issue today than it was even back in 1997, the balanced budget amendment. I couldn't help but be struck by the figures the senior Senator from Utah mentioned earlier when he said that in 1997, the House of Representatives passed the balanced budget amendment. It came to the Senate and failed by one vote. The deficit in 1997 was roughly $107 billion. Today, it is $1.5 trillion. The national debt in 1997, if I recall what the Senator said--and he can correct me if I am wrong-- today it is roughly $14.3 trillion, approaching $15 trillion. Back in 1997, it was $5 trillion. Did I get those figures roughly correct?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the Senator from Kentucky. This is the silent but potentially deadly threat to our whole economy. If interest rates were to go up, if China purchases more of our debt, they are not going to buy it at current rates; we are going to have to offer a better rate of return.

Mr. CORNYN. So I join my colleagues in supporting the balanced budget amendment. I look forward to the vote on this amendment--sometime during the week of July 18 I think we are shooting for. We invite our colleagues on the other side to join us. The reason we are here today is because it is important to let the people across the country know what we are doing, the solution we are proposing, and to ask them to encourage other Senators and Congressmen to support it because this is the single most important thing we could do to get our economy back on track and to save generations in the future.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am reading in press reports that some of my colleagues across the aisle are advocating another stimulus package, sometimes called government investment, otherwise called spending taxpayers' money that we do not have and borrowing it from our children and most immediately from the Chinese, who own $1 trillion of our national debt. It is astonishing to me that after the last stimulus package early in 2009 failed to meet the President's own stated target of keeping unemployment to 8 percent or lower, some of our colleagues are trying to double down on a bad deal by advocating more stimulus, when 43 cents out of every dollar that is being spent in America today is borrowed money. I mention that the President in his speech on Afghanistan last night said the Federal Government needs to invest more. Well, I do not think anybody should be fooled by what he really means when he says the Federal Government must invest. The only money the Federal Government has is the money that comes from your wallet, from taxpayers. When there is not enough money coming in to keep up with the reckless spending habits of Washington, DC, then they simply borrow the money or print money we do not have, and that is what ``investment'' means when the President talks about needing to invest more Federal Government money. On the same day the President spoke, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that shows the Federal Government spending spree is not sustainable, and the Nation's fiscal position is getting worse. I do not think that is breaking news. I think most Americans could tell you that was the case, at least intuitively already. Over the last 2 years, the Nation's debt has dramatically worsened. Gross Federal debt is expected to equal 100 percent of our entire economy in just 3 months--well past the 90-percent threshold where many economists believe the debt will seriously undermine economic growth. Some studies show that this increased debt, which crowds out private investment and borrowing, may result in the loss of at least 1 million jobs a year. But getting back to my initial point about this stimulus notion in the negotiations with Vice President Biden over raising the debt ceiling, it seems that many have forgotten the trillion-dollar stimulus package passed back in 2009, that the ``green shoots'' predicted never materialized, that the ``recovery summer'' never happened, and, as I say, it failed to keep unemployment below the targeted rate of 8 percent. Indeed, now it hovers nationwide at a rate of 9.1 percent. It is much worse in many regions of the country. Only in Washington, DC, would someone advocate a repetition of a program that we know has failed to meet its stated goals and was, I believe, a total flop. First of all, it was borrowed money, so it wasn't even spending money that we had, it was exacerbating an already dangerously high debt. The first stimulus failed for one reason--because of our massive deficits in jobs and our budget. We know the American people believe, as the Gallup organization tells us, a large majority of Americans believe that spending too much money on unneeded and wasteful government programs is to blame for Federal budget deficits. And if you ask any business owner--anyone, really, outside of the beltway--the reason why jobs are just not coming back, it is in large part because of the uncertainty of what is coming out of Washington, not only legislatively but as a regulatory matter, whether it is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor--all the alphabet soup of Federal agencies that exist here in Washington, DC. Instead of passing another unpaid-for stimulus plan or issuing more job-killing regulations, our focus should remain on ways to reduce and reform government spending and thereby help get the economy moving again. In fact, I think we need to force the Congress and the Federal Government to live within its means by passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and this should be the focus of our efforts here over the next couple of months as we tackle not only this unsustainable debt and these huge annual deficits but as we look for ways to put a straitjacket on the Federal Government to make sure it doesn't keep spending money it does not have. No families, no business--as a matter of fact, 49 States have balanced budget requirements. Only the Federal Government and only Congress can continue to spend money we don't have. A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would permanently change Washington's behavior. So far, 47 Senators in the Senate on this side of the aisle have endorsed and cosponsored a balanced budget amendment. We would invite our colleagues across the aisle to join us in this effort. In summary, we need to unburden the economy from regulatory uncertainty or in some cases the certainty that the bureaucracy will overreach and make it harder, not easier, to create jobs. We need to pass free-trade agreements that should be pending before the Senate to help create more jobs here at home by producing things here that we can then sell abroad. Then we need to develop our domestic energy production with the great gifts we have been given in this country. I know the Presiding Officer, coming from an energy-producing State-- Alaska--agrees with me that we need to produce more domestic energy, which will also have the added benefit of creating jobs right here in America rather than continuing the bad habit and the dangerous habit of importing about 60 percent of our energy from abroad, from some dangerous parts of the world. I wish to close with a couple of other thoughts. Listening to my colleague from Vermont calling for shared sacrifice in meeting some of the deficit reduction plans, I would just suggest to the distinguished Senator that 9.1-percent unemployment reflects a lot of sacrifice among a lot of people who can't find jobs in this bad economy. That is shared sacrifice, but that is a sacrifice which I know they and we would prefer they did not have to share. When you don't have a job, it is pretty hard to make your mortgage payments, and when you can't make your mortgage payments or you can't move because your mortgage is more expensive than the value of your home--your home is underwater--you are simply stuck. A lot of people are finding themselves defaulting on their mortgages and losing their homes, which is usually the largest single investment any of us will make. I want to close on this thought. I want to ask my colleagues across the aisle who have been so critical of the proposals that have been made by the House of Representatives and others, where is your plan? Where is your budget? It has been 2 years since the Congress has passed a budget, since it has been in control of our Democratic friends. Where is your plan to save Medicare, which the Medicare trustees have said will go insolvent--that means there is more money going out than coming in--by the year 2024? How do we keep the promise to our most vulnerable seniors that Medicare will be there for them if we don't do something to shore up this insolvent program? Unfortunately, I believe the President is listening too closely to his political advisers rather than listening to those who are telling him: Mr. President, we have a problem we need to solve. The first place he ought to look for a proposed solution is his own bipartisan fiscal commission that reported back in December in a report, 66 pages long. It is scary but important reading. The title of that is ``The Moment of Truth.'' We have reached a crossroads in this country where we simply cannot kick the can down the road, where we cannot keep spending money we don't have, where we cannot keep relying upon Communist China to buy our debt and to bail us out. We simply cannot continue to pass these responsibilities on to our children and grandchildren. We have important promises to keep to our seniors, to make sure that safety net of Medicare and Social Security is going to be there for them, but we can't do it unless we have willing partners join us across the aisle. Right now, the only one in this country who is in a position to make this happen is the President of the United States, but so far the President has been AWOL on this issue. After his bipartisan fiscal commission issued the report I referred to a moment ago in December of 2010, in his State of the Union speech, the President barely mentioned, if at all, this mounting debt crisis and the problems with the pending insolvency of Medicare and Social Security. The budget that the President proposed was never acted on by the majority leader or the Budget Committee on which I sit. And being in the minority, we can't force this issue; it can only happen if the chairman of the Budget Committee marks up a budget and if the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid across the aisle, will put it on the floor of the Senate where we can debate it and offer amendments. But they chose not to do so, relying instead on their political consultants who said: You know, if you offer a constructive proposal, there may be some across the aisle who will criticize it, and, you know what, you may just have to take some hard votes. Well, anybody who has come to the Senate who isn't willing to vote their convictions, whatever those convictions are, and be held accountable by their constituents back home doesn't deserve to be in the Congress. We are here to take hard votes and to make hard decisions because it is not about us and our political career, and it is not about the next election; it is about addressing these problems we have been sent here to try to fix the best we can under the circumstances. It is beyond unbelievable when I hear some of our colleagues across the aisle--the senior Senator from New York, among others--talking about another stimulus spending as part of this debt reduction deal. Beyond that, we have the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee making clear that an insistence on tax increases was a central element of any deal on raising the debt limit. The Vice President himself was quoted as saying, in the Politico publication: The piece that is most important to us Democrats--revenue. The word ``revenue'' is Washington-speak for tax increases. The President and Republicans and Democrats got together after the last election and agreed to extend expiring tax provisions because all of us agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that the worst thing we could do for a fragile, recovering economy was to raise taxes on small businesses, which are the engine of job creation, and on individuals who would be able to then invest that money into starting a business or growing an existing business. There is a reason the private sector is afraid of Washington, DC. They see these mounting debts and deficits, and they realize one of the things we might be tempted to do is raise their taxes. Do you know what. The business model for their small business may not be able to withstand that tax increase or the regulatory overreach of some Federal Washington bureaucrat. So they are scared, and they are sitting on the sidelines. The two things we need to do the most are to bring down that spending curve by reducing Federal Government spending and begin to attack that debt and make sure we don't have to keep raising the credit limit on the Nation's credit card but, rather, we can bring it down, and within sustainable limits. Second, we need to take our boot off the neck of the private sector, the free enterprise system in America, so it can create jobs, grow businesses, and pay taxes. We can begin to close the gap between what the Federal Government is spending and what it brings in in terms of revenue. In 2007, when our Democratic friends took control of the House and Senate, President Bush was still President of the United States, and our annual deficit was roughly 1.2 percent of our GDP, our entire economy. Today, it is roughly 10 percent. The reason it was 1.2 percent is not because we weren't spending a significant amount of money; we were. It was because the economy was booming and revenue to the Federal Treasury was at an all-time high. That should tell us that we need to do two things: cut spending, not just raise taxes so Washington can spend some more and throw a wet blanket on the economy and the job creators, we need to cut spending and fix these entitlement programs so we can keep our promise to our seniors who are relying on these programs. We also need to get the economy moving again by growing jobs in the private sector and by adopting a national energy policy that says we prefer domestic, or American, energy sources rather than those from abroad. Mr. President, we need to do it soon. I am saddened to see that as a result of the insistence on the part of the Vice President and our friends across the aisle that tax increases must be a part of any package of debt reduction; that the majority leader in the House of Representatives and the assistant minority leader in the Senate, Senator Kyl, have reached an impasse and said they don't see any point in continuing the negotiations at this point. I hope the Vice President, or indeed the President of the United States himself, who is the only Democrat who can get this deal done, will reconsider their approach and work with Republicans to live within our means, reduce spending, and try to get our economy moving again so we can alleviate our children from the debt burden they are inheriting from us. Every child born in America today will come into this world with $46,000, roughly, in debt. That is because of what we have not been doing, which is living within our means. It is time to do that, and we need to work together to solve the problem. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Let me conclude by saying these three Assistant Secretaries should remain Senate-confirmed, Presidential appointees. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to ensure they remain Senate confirmable and subject to robust and much needed congressional oversight. Exhibit 1 DOD Feedback on Schumer-Alexander Bill (S. 679) (From DoD Comptroller Office) The Department of Defense believes that it would be appropriate to reduce the number of government positions subject to Senate confirmation. We therefore agree in principle with Senate Bill 679, which makes such reductions. We disagree, however, with the provision of S. 679 which eliminates Senate confirmation for the Assistant Secretaries (Financial Management and Comptroller) in the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. By downgrading these financial management positions, we believe that S. 679 will erode civilian control of the military with regard to resources. Each of the military departments manages huge amounts of federal dollars, ranging from $166 billion to $216 billion in FY 2012. These sums far exceed the funding for any non-defense federal agency. In the military services, these dollars are managed by the most senior military officers, and the Service Secretaries need to have a Senate-confirmed political appointee to provide appropriate civilian control. This legislation would be a significant step back from the landmark Goldwater-Nichols legislation, which sought to increase civilian control of the military. We also believe that downgrading these three Assistant Secretary positions is inappropriate in view of the focus being placed on improving financial management and achieving auditable financial statements. Congress has established a deadline for achieving auditable financials in each military department and has indicated a strong desire to have the departments comply. The three departmental Assistant Secretaries have the lead responsibility for this challenging task. Downgrading the positions may well slow down efforts to achieve auditable financial statements, an outcome that seems to contradict Congressional priorities. Overall, the Assistant Secretaries have substantial policy making authority over key aspects of defense financial management. For all these reasons, we believe that the three Assistant Secretaries should remain as Senate-confirmed political appointees.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Schumer and Alexander and Collins and others for working through this bipartisan legislation. It is nice to actually have a piece of legislation we can work on together, in this case to help streamline the appointment process for some of these lower level positions. I congratulate them for their work. I do, however, have an amendment that I think makes an important correction. I have discussed this with both Senator Alexander and others. I think they understand and they tend to agree that this amendment is important. Under this bill, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, three important Presidential appointments within the Department of Defense that are currently Senate-confirmed positions would no longer be subject to Senate confirmation. These positions within our military departments are aimed at a very important goal; that is, to attain better stewardship of taxpayer dollars by our military. I am talking about specifically the Assistant Secretaries of Financial Management for the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. It is no secret that during these tough budgetary times, when 43 cents out of every dollar that the Federal Government spends is borrowed money, and we are looking at an impending debt ceiling vote sometime probably in July where we are going to be asked to vote to increase the debt ceiling because we have maxed out the Nation's credit card, there is no doubt in my mind we are going to be looking at all sources for budgetary cuts and elimination of waste and overspending. I do not suggest for a minute the Department of Defense should be exempt from that kind of scrutiny. In fact, I think it should be scrutinized. But it is important, if we are going to make sure that every dollar of taxpayer money being spent by the Department of Defense for our security is being spent efficiently and well, that the best way we can do that is assure that professionals who are skilled in financial management at the various departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force are in place and subject to appropriate oversight by the Senate. These officials oversee financial management processes that involve more than $300 billion in taxpayer money. These are, in fact, the budgets of the military services themselves. None of the military services are currently able to render a clean audit opinion, something that Congress has said must change and will change by the year 2017. But we have been working on the sad reality that, frankly, the Department of Defense has been spending so much money that it doesn't even know where all the money is. We need to change that. We need to increase transparency and accountability. The only way we are going to be able to do that and to put them in a position to produce that clean financial audit is by making sure that the correct type of professionals, well-qualified professionals, are in place. Under the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization bill, the Department of Defense is going to be required to produce those auditable financial statements no later than September 30, 2017. I think most people are going to be shocked to find out that the Department of Defense cannot do that today, but in fact that is the sad reality. Yet it is my understanding the Department of Defense is not currently on track to meet this requirement of the law despite the fact that we are 6 years away from that deadline. Removing the officials in charge of accomplishing this objective from Senate oversight would make it even less likely to happen. In accordance with the Chief Financial Officer and Federal Financial Reform Act of 1990, the so-called CFO Act, these three Assistant Secretaries have been designated as the chief financial officers for their respective branches of the military service. As such, this law invests them with certain financial management functions. These Secretaries formulate, submit, and defend the budgets of these military branches to Congress. They also oversee the proper and effective use of appropriated funds to accomplish missions and provide timely, accurate, and reliable financial information to enable leaders to incorporate cost considerations into their decisionmaking and provide reporting to Congress on the use of appropriated resources. This is a high standard and, unfortunately, one that is not being met today, but one that Congress must, in the exercise of our stewardship over tax dollars and making sure that every dollar is spent efficiently in a nonwasteful way--this is a high standard we must insist is met. I believe removing these key positions from the Senate confirmation process will inadvertently undermine the effort to reform financial management at the Department of Defense. I am not alone. We received informal comments from the Department of Defense Comptroller saying that while they agree in principle with S. 679, this underlying legislation with which I also agree in principle goes too far by eroding the status and ability of these financial managers to manage these dollars. I ask unanimous consent that the comments received from the DOD Comptroller be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 504. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my Navy Fellow, LT Maxwell Keith, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last month, the Medicare trustees warned that Medicare will go bankrupt in 13 years, which is 5 years earlier than they had previously calculated. You heard me right. One of the most important programs that the government actually runs--the Medicare Program--designed to provide health care to seniors, is going to run out of money in 13 years, 5 years earlier than projected just last year. The Medicare trustees noted that Medicare's unfunded liabilities-- that is the number it is responsible for--are more than $24 trillion, but that is also growing. Stated another way, this is a $24 trillion gap between Medicare's future benefit costs and the future taxes of premiums that are expected to be collected to pay for it. Today, I am, along with nearly all my Republican colleagues, sending a letter to the President of the United States, insisting he comply with the law. What law would that be? Well, the law that was passed in 2003 that, under these circumstances, requires the President to propose a plan to deal with this funding crisis for Medicare. President Obama has said he is willing to make some tough decisions. Yet he refuses to provide concrete, constructive, and meaningful proposals to deal with this impending insolvency of one of our most important government programs. The Medicare trustees have issued a Medicare funding warning in their annual report every year since 2006. They are required to do so under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. In response to this warning, as I said, the President is required by Federal law to submit to Congress proposed legislation that would address this funding crisis. President Bush, in 2008, in response to the 2007 Medicare trustees' warning, did exactly what the law requires. He submitted legislation to address this funding crisis. Both the House and the Senate, in compliance with the law, introduced legislation, but, unfortunately, it never went anywhere-- kicking the can down the road once again. The Medicare trustees have, in fact, issued a funding warning every year since 2006, as I mentioned, including all 3 years President Obama has been in office. However, for 3 years now, President Obama and his administration have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of the law. Congress has never received a proposal from President Obama's administration to address this funding crisis. This failure I wish I could tell you was the result of an oversight but apparently not. On Tuesday, in an e-mail to The Hill newspaper, on behalf of the administration, they said they believed this law was ``advisory and not binding.'' The law itself states--passed by both Houses of Congress, signed into law--that the President ``shall'' submit legislation to Congress, not that he ``might,'' or ``if it is convenient,'' or ``if he finds time,'' or ``if it advances his political posture leading up to the next election.'' It says he ``shall'' submit legislation. Thank goodness we live in a country where no one is above the law. We are a nation of laws, where the law applies to the President of the United States and it applies to the most humble members of our society. Medicare is going bankrupt. Unfortunately, the voices of reform-- people are stepping forward to try to solve this problem and make meaningful suggestions so we can actually do what we are supposed to do in Congress, which is debate ideas and come up with solutions, where we can have a vote and we can send legislation to the President and he can sign it or not. That is the way the process is designed to work, but so far the voices missing from the reform debate are those of our friends on the other side of the aisle. There is no House Democratic plan to save Medicare. There is no Senate Democratic plan to save Medicare. There is no plan for President Obama to save Medicare. Unfortunately, their plan appears to be not to step up and do what the law requires, to offer a proposal to save Medicare but, rather, to try to take a cynical political advantage leading up to the next election by attacking the very people who are making constructive proposals. No one suggests that any single proposal is perfect. The Ryan plan is not perfect. The Domenici-Rivlin plan offers a different approach. The President's own fiscal commission's report is entitled ``Moment of Truth.'' They reported back in December 2010. It was a bipartisan commission appointed by the President himself. It makes constructive suggestions on how to solve our spending crisis and to address the unsustainability of our entitlement program. But it appears that rather than embrace any of these constructive ideas, rather than do his duty, as the law requires, the President seems content to scare seniors into opposing responsible reforms, while watching the program go bankrupt over the next few years. By refusing to propose needed reforms to this important program, President Obama is not only abdicating his responsibility to lead as a President of the United States, he is violating Federal law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter I referred to earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly today about Medicare, about the law, and specifically a law that Congress passed in 2003 which provided for something called the Medicare trigger. This provided that when the Medicare trustees would indicate that a Medicare funding warning should issue according to that law, then the President of the United States under that law must, within 15 days, submit to Congress proposed legislation to respond to that warning. What does all this mean? We know the Medicare trustees made the situation clear that Medicare will run out of money by the year 2024. Medicare's unfunded liabilities are more than $24 trillion and growing. In other words, there is a $24 trillion gap between the promises the U.S. Government has made to seniors and the funding to pay for it. Of course, as the Chief Actuary stated, this is actually an optimistic scenario, that we can fund Medicare through 2024. The President of the United States has failed to comply with this law duly passed by Congress and signed into law. I do not really know why the President has failed to meet this legal responsibility of the law. I hope it is an oversight, and I hope it is one he will correct shortly. Having no plan while the President has criticized the House for the plan they passed is bad enough, but failing to submit a plan when the President of the United States is required to do so by law is a violation of the law, something the President has taken an oath to uphold. There is no doubt about it, section 802 entitled ``Presidential Submission of Legislation'' uses the word ``shall.'' It is not ``may,'' it is not ``can,'' and it is not ``it would be a good idea.'' It says the President shall submit to Congress, within a 15-day period beginning on the day the budget submission to Congress is made, proposed legislation responding to this Medicare funding warning. March 1 marked the day 15 since the President submitted his budget, and the Medicare trustees, as we all know, have been ringing the alarm bell for years. But, unfortunately, this is not the only provision of the law the President has neglected. We could talk about the Greek debt crisis. On Tuesday, the President talked about the Greek debt crisis in a joint press conference with Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany. This is what the President said about the Greek debt crisis: We have pledged to cooperate fully in working through these issues on a bilateral basis but also through international and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund. Obviously, Greece has suffered a debt crisis. They have the International Monetary Fund, funded by various nations, to bail them out. Unfortunately, when the United States has a debt crisis, if we do nothing about it, there will be no one left to bail us out. The problem with the statement of the President about the International Monetary Fund is that the Congress has also spoken on that issue. Senator Vitter and I sponsored an amendment last summer that was incorporated into the so-called Dodd-Frank Act or the financial services regulatory reform bill. This amendment was approved unanimously by the Senate and became law by the President's hand. This provision, included in section 1501 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the Treasury Secretary to determine whether IMF loans to countries that are already deeply in debt will likely be repaid and certify that determination to Congress. Furthermore, if an IMF loan will not be repaid, the Treasury Secretary is required to direct the executive director to vote in opposition to the proposed loan. These provisions became Federal law for a reason--because we sought to protect U.S. taxpayers from being used by the IMF to bail out foreign nations that have been making irresponsible spending decisions. As I said earlier, I hope the failure of the President to comply with this mandatory requirement under the Medicare law we passed in 2003 is simply an oversight. But we know that so far the President and the majority party in the Senate have not submitted--the President has actually submitted a budget that doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years, but he has made no response to the Medicare trustees' statement that Medicare will be insolvent in 13 years. Instead, he has attacked the only people who have been responsible enough to come up with a proposal. Admittedly, the proposal may not be perfect, but it is a responsibility of all of us to do what we can to try to solve problems, not just attack people and use it for political advantage when other people try to step up and meet their obligations. The issue is respect for the law, and the issue is whether the checks and balances in our Constitution are still in place. The question is whether the President somehow considers himself above the law or whether the law applies to him just as it does to each one of us. I hope this is an oversight. I hope the President will remedy that oversight and he will submit proposed legislation to deal with this impending insolvency of Medicare forthwith. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on February 23, 2011, the RAND Corporation released a report funded by and prepared for the U.S. Air Force entitled, ``Shaking the Heavens and Splitting the Earth.'' This report provides a comprehensive review of the capabilities of the Chinese Air Force, and it is alarming. In less than a decade, China has transformed its air force from an antiquated service based on 1950s-era Soviet technology into a modern, highly capable 21st century air force. RAND predicts that, by approximately 2015, the weapon systems and platforms China is acquiring ``would make a Chinese air defense campaign, if conducted according to the principles described in Chinese military publications, highly challenging for U.S. air forces.'' Without question, China's military expansion poses a clear and present danger to our longstanding ally, Taiwan--a threat that also has very serious implications for the United States. In its report, RAND predicts that, should the United States have to intervene in a conflict between Taiwan and China, the United States ``should expect attacks on its forces and facilities in the western Pacific, including those in Japan. . . . Chinese military writings, moreover, emphasize the advantages of preemptive and surprise attacks, so it is possible that Chinese attacks on U.S. forces in the western Pacific would precede a use of force against Taiwan.'' RAND further states that, in the event of a military conflict off of Taiwan, ``even if the United States intervened on a large scale,'' the ``capabilities of Taiwan's armed forces would also be critical to the outcome. . . . Defending Taiwan against air attack is feasible if Taiwan makes systematic, sustained, and carefully chosen investments.'' These military investments by Taiwan are critical, due to the continuing deterioration of its air force. A January 21, 2010, Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, report on the current condition of Taiwan's Air Force quantified its eroding air capability in stark terms: ``Although Taiwan has nearly 400 combat aircraft in service, far fewer of these are operationally capable. Taiwan's F-5 fighters have reached the end of their operational service life, and while the indigenously produced F-CK-1 A/B Indigenous Defense Fighter, IDF, is a large component of Taiwan's active fighter force, it lacks the capability for sustained sorties. Taiwan's Mirage 2000-5 aircraft are technologically advanced, but they require frequent, expensive maintenance that adversely affects their operational readiness rate.'' Last August, the Department of Defense, DOD, released its 2010 Annual Report to Congress on the Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China. It states: ``Cross-Strait economic and political ties continued to make important progress in 2009. Despite these positive trends, China's military buildup opposite the island [Taiwan] continues unabated. The PLA is developing the capability to deter Taiwan independence or influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on Beijing's terms while simultaneously attempting to deter, delay, or deny any possible U.S. support for the island in case of conflict. The balance of cross-Strait military forces continues to shift in China's favor.'' This report recounts that China has a total of approximately 2,300 operational combat aircraft, including 330 fighters and 160 bombers stationed within range of Taiwan. These disturbing reports are just the latest warnings that highlight both China's military expansion and Taiwan's increasing need for new defensive weapons. Some have openly questioned whether selling arms to Taiwan is worth the political cost to the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Surely, we would all prefer to have Taiwanese pilots flying Taiwanese fighter jets as the island's first line of defense, instead of American military pilots. Taiwan understands this, and it wants to remain the primary guarantor of its own freedom and democracy. A strong and robust defensive capability built on an air force capable of holding its own with China will promote a Beijing-Taipei detente that can build on the work President Ma has done to ease tensions and promote better economic ties with China. It remains to be seen how far the Obama administration's support extends to Taiwan and whether this administration will try to strategically counter the military rise of China. China should never be allowed to dictate U.S. policy, either directly or indirectly. That includes our decision to sell defensive weapons to an important democratic ally. Yet there is evidence that this administration is already bowing to Chinese pressure. According to a February 7, 2010, report by Defense News, China's extensive holdings of U.S. Government securities are already directly influencing U.S. national security policy. This article reports that, according to an unnamed Pentagon official, Obama administration officials softened a draft of a key national security document in order to avoid ``harsh words'' that ``might upset Chinese officials at a time when the United States and China are economically intertwined.'' The article indicates that Pentagon officials ``deleted several passages and softened others about China's military buildup.'' This critical document, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, is intended to provide an assessment of long-term threats and challenges for the Nation and to guide military programs, plans, and budgets in the coming decades. Although the QDR was watered down by administration officials, other reports effectively highlight the disparity between China's diplomatic rhetoric and its true intentions, as demonstrated by its rapid and robust military modernization effort. According to the DOD's 2010 report on China, ``The pace and scope of China's military modernization have increased over the past decade,'' increasing ``China's options for using military force to gain diplomatic advantage or resolve disputes in its favor.'' The DOD's report highlights to China's military modernization has been focused on ``improving its capacity for force projection and anti-access/area-denial.'' These modernization efforts are heavily focused on offensive capabilities, including the development of an antiship ballistic missile with a range in excess of 1,500 km that is ``intended to provide the PLA the capability to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean,'' as well as an active aircraft carrier research and development program. Moreover, PLA Air Force, PLAAF, Commander General Xu Giliang has emphasized the transformation of the PLAAF ``from a homeland defense focus to one that `integrates air and space,' and that possesses both `offensive and defensive' capabilities.'' It is because of China's military rise and the troubling shift in the cross-Strait balance in China's favor that Taiwan recognizes its need to modernize its air force. As a result, Taiwan has made repeated requests to purchase new F-16 C/D aircraft from the United States since 2006. Taiwan desperately needs these F-16s--a ``carefully chosen investment''--which are comparable to China's own domestically- developed J-10 fighter aircraft. Yet despite a compelling argument, Taiwanese President Ma's requests to the United States to purchase these aircraft continue to be snubbed. In an interview with the Washington Post, President Ma said, ``Our objective in improving cross-strait relations is to seek peace and prosperity. However, the Republic of China (Taiwan) is a sovereign state; we must have our national defense. While we negotiate with the mainland, we hope to carry out such talks with sufficient self defense capabilities and not negotiate out of fear. This is an extremely important principle. Therefore, we must purchase the necessary defensive weapons from overseas that cannot be manufactured here in Taiwan to replace outdated ones. This is essential for our national survival and development.'' Moreover, the United States has a statutory obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 to provide Taiwan the defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities, in furtherance of maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific region. Our obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act recognize that the key to maintaining peace and stability in Asia in the face of China's dramatic military expansion is ensuring a militarily strong and confident Taiwan. To that end, in early 2010, President Obama notified Congress of a $6.4 billion military sale to Taiwan. This was a welcome step, but it remains the only visible step the Obama administration has taken to provide Taiwan the defensive arms it needs, in accordance with our statutory obligations. While the administration dithers on Taiwan's request for F-16s, evidence continues to mount that what Taiwan desperately needs to restore the cross-Strait balance and regain the ability to defend its own airspace is new fighter aircraft to bolster an air force that is borderline obsolete. It is my understanding that the administration may favor selling Taiwan upgrade kits for its existing fleet of F-16 A/Bs, instead of selling Taiwan brand new fighters. Such a tradeoff will not enhance the security of Taiwan. What Taiwan's air force needs is new F-16s and the ability to deploy them in sufficient numbers to strengthen its defensive posture. Simply upgrading airframes that are more than 20 years old is not a solution--it is nothing more than a public relations Band-Aid. Efforts to upgrade Taiwan's air fleet have to be coupled with the sale of new aircraft that can serve for two decades or more into the future. Another important consideration is the shrinking time window for this purchase. The continuing production of new F-16s is dependent on foreign sales. It is my understanding that, if no new overseas orders are secured this year, the thousands of U.S. suppliers who help build the F-16 will begin shuttering that capability. Once this happens, it will be very difficult and expensive to restart the supply chain. Washington has a longstanding habit of putting off difficult decisions, but the decision on whether to sell new F-16s to Taiwan is literally now or never. As the DIA report made clear, the majority of Taiwan's 400 fighter aircraft need to be retired or upgraded. Within the next 5 years, Taiwan will have to mothball or scrap more than 100 combat aircraft-- one-quarter of its current force. Without the ability to augment its air force with new F-16 aircraft, as well as updates to its existing fleet, Taiwan will lose all ability to project a defensive umbrella over the island. The repercussions of a rising and potentially aggressive China, able to dominate the airspace over Taiwan, demands the attention of our military planners, government officials, and Members of Congress because it opens the door for China to use force against Taiwan. To that end, I was proud to recently join with 43 of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama urging him to act swiftly to provide Taiwan with the F-16s that are critical to preserving Taiwan's self-defense capabilities. It is time to recommit ourselves to strengthening the ties that bind the U.S. and Taiwan together--from arms sales to free-trade agreements. Doing so will promote peace and stability in the region, while also protecting U.S. and Taiwanese security interests. I urge President Obama and his administration to move quickly and work with Taiwan to notify the sale of these fighter jets to Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish recognize the achievements of Tine Valencic, a 13-year-old seventh grade student at Colleyville Middle School in Colleyville, TX. Tine recently competed in and won the 2011 National Geographic Bee, held here in Washington, DC. Each year thousands of schools and millions of students in the United States participate in the National Geographic Bee using materials prepared by the National Geographic Society. The contest is designed to encourage teachers to include geography in their classrooms, spark student interest in the subject, and increase public awareness about geography. Schools with students in grades four through eight are eligible for this entertaining and challenging test of geographic knowledge. Out of a field of 54 contestants, one from each of the 50 States and Territories, Tine won the competition and was the only contestant to correctly answer every question in the final round. In recognition of his success, National Geographic will award Tine a college scholarship worth $25,000, a lifetime membership in the National Geographic Society, and a trip to the Galapagos Islands with his parents. The winning question was: ``Which South American country is home to the volcano, Tungurahua?'' The answer, ``Ecuador,'' was given correctly by Tine after the runner-up contestant failed to match Tine for a fourth question in a row. Tine is the second Texan to be named national champion in the competition's 23-year history. Young Texans, like Tine Valencic, prove that persistence and a thirst for knowledge are the keys to unlocking opportunities for success. I congratulate Tine on this important accomplishment and look forward to seeing his continued achievements.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I was on the floor to hear the distinguished Senator from Wyoming's comments about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is Washington, DC, gobbledegook, which translates into a rationing board which is going to limit seniors' access to care, as he so ably described. I appreciate him talking about that. It is a topic I will raise in a moment as part of my remarks. But I wish to express my appreciation to him for his remarks. My larger concern is about our budget, the Federal budget. As one of our colleagues across the aisle told the media this week, he said he looks forward to voting on the Republican budget. That may seem a little odd because this is the Senate and, actually, the Senate does not have a budget. The Budget Committee on which I serve has not met to consider a proposal by the chairman of the Budget Committee and we have not had a chance to offer amendments to vote on it and then for it to come to the Senate floor so we would have a Senate budget to vote on. Of course, what he was talking about is, he is looking forward to voting on the House budget. But I would say the Senate has not considered a budget for 750-plus days. No family, no business, no one in America, certainly no State can operate in this sort of fiscally irresponsible manner, only the Federal Government. Now where are we? We are spending 43 cents out of every $1 in borrowed money--borrowed from our kids and grandkids. The fact is, a newborn baby, born into this world today, inherits $46,000 in debt because we have not had the courage to meet this challenge as we must. My colleague also said that is going to be one of the defining issues of 2012, which, by the way, is an election year. I guess what he means is, this is going to be an election issue. I think he is right but not for the reasons he suggested. First, I wish to refresh everyone's memory. It was just in December of last year that the President's own bipartisan fiscal debt commission gave us a report, and truly a blueprint, for what I think would be a responsible start to dealing with this debt crisis we find ourselves confronted with. That report--again a bipartisan report--proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. The report said: Federal health care spending represents our single largest fiscal challenge over the long run. As the baby boomers--people such as me and the Presiding Officer-- retire and get older, health care costs will grow faster than the economy. Federal health care spending threatens to balloon. As if on cue, the Medicare trustees issued a report just this last month with even a starker warning. Medicare's trust fund will be insolvent in 2024--about 13 years from now--and the gap between the promises Medicare has made to seniors and its funding--or ability to fund or pay for those services--is about $24 trillion. That is the so- called unfunded liability of Medicare. Those estimates are, according to the Chief Actuary, an optimistic scenario, although it is hard to be optimistic about a $24 trillion unfunded liability. But we also know there have been other ominous warnings both here at home and around the world. The International Monetary Fund, in a working paper last month, noted our potential debt crisis. The S&P rating agency downgraded its outlook for American debt--in other words, our ability to repay those bills--from stable to negative. PIMCO, the world's largest bondholder, no longer is purchasing American bonds, choosing to purchase other types of investment. That ought to be a warning to us. If we needed any reminder, even the Chinese Communist Party has given an earful to visiting Senators about our debt, of which they happen to own about $1 trillion. But they are worried about the value of their own investment and, hence, as Admiral Mullen said, we ought to realize that because of that situation, debt is the single largest national security issue facing America today. Despite these ominous warnings and even reports from the President's own fiscal commission and a bipartisan one at that, the majority-- Senator Reid--our friends across the aisle, simply are not taking the fiscal situation seriously. In fact, the majority leader was quoted recently saying: It would be foolish, foolish for the leadership of the other party that controls the agenda on the floor and in committees, it would be foolish for them to propose a budget. The White House has shown twice this year so far that it is not truly serious about fiscal discipline. In February, the President proposed a budget that completely ignored his own deficit commission. It had $8.7 trillion in new spending, $1.6 trillion in new taxes, and an additional $13 trillion in debt. At the time the President released his proposed budget, there were a number of my colleagues who were very impressed by it. Some called it responsible, others credible, others said it was a balanced approach, a good blueprint, a step forward, a careful evaluation, a solid starting point, and many other compliments as well. President Obama was so pleased with his budget proposal that he called it ``our Sputnik moment.'' But, of course, we know his Sputnik failed to launch. None of my colleagues who heaped praise on the President's proposal were willing to pass a budget resolution or even take up one and have it be considered and voted on. So President Obama tried again in another big speech in April, when he was finally brought, unwillingly, to the debate on our budget and on our debt crisis. In that speech at Georgetown in April, he called for higher taxes as well as automatic tax increases that would kick in if certain conditions were met. He called for deeper cuts in defense spending. He invented a new 12-year budget window to disguise the large deficits that would otherwise appear if it were the traditional 10-year budget window. Then the President, I think beneath the dignity of his office, verbally abused the very people who had the courage to propose an alternative. Then, of course, we have heard the attacks he started, which have continued, the false attacks that Republicans want to ``end Medicare as we know it.'' Well, I will say Republicans do not want to end Medicare as we know it. That is an intentional falsehood. That is a lie. Republicans do not want to end Medicare as we know it. We are simply trying to inject some cold, hard reality, as observed by the President's own debt commission, by the Medicare trustees, and everyone else who has taken a responsible look at the problem. What is that reality? Well, the reality is that Medicare as we know it will end unless we do something to fix it and to save it. My colleagues want to talk about ending Medicare as we know it. They have short memories because it was these very same colleagues who took $\1/ 2\ trillion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare. They injected the rationing commission that my colleague from Wyoming just got through talking about and which I will mention again in a moment. Many seniors found out, as a result of the health care bill that passed only along a party-line vote--only Democratic votes in the Senate--that many seniors have already lost their access to Medicare Advantage. Other retirees are seeing that their former employers have canceled their health care plans and found themselves dropped into the Medicare system. It has never been explained to me how we can possibly cut $\1/ 2\ trillion out of Medicare which, as I said earlier, already has $24 trillion in unfunded liabilities. So we are exacerbating--we are making those liabilities worse, not better--to fund a new entitlement program. I would ask: Who has changed Medicare? Who has made it impossible for us to continue, under the present course, to keep that promise to our seniors? Why is it so important that we work together to try to come up with a solution to fix it? Just when we think the debate could not stoop any lower and people could not act any more irresponsibly, we are confronted with political ads already about Republicans rolling a senior off a cliff in a wheelchair. I know the American people are smart enough to figure that out. They realize this is just an attack ad, and they are smart enough to look at the substance. But what we need is a real debate and a discussion and try to work together to try to solve our problems, not just sort of ``gotcha'' politics, the sort of thing people have come to loathe about Congress and Washington, DC--not people working together to solve problems but people playing ``gotcha'' and focusing only on the next election, not on the next generation. My colleague from Wyoming talked about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and I realize that is a mouthful. But it is bureaucratese, Washington speak, for an unelected, unaccountable group of bureaucrats--15 of them--appointed who will actually have the job of cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, which will have the practical impact of limiting seniors' access to Medicare benefits. What good is providing coverage to our seniors if they can't find a doctor or hospital to treat them? Well, this is good old-fashioned--I should say bad old-fashioned-- price controls, and they don't work. We have seen that already in Medicare. In my State of Texas alone, about a third of the doctors already limit their new Medicare patients, according to the Texas Medical Association. So if you live in the rural parts of the State, it is hard to find a doctor. We know the price controls of this rationing board will make this trend worse and accelerate it, leading to longer wait times and harder-to-access treatment. If the board forces our seniors to wait longer for the life-saving treatments they need, does that change Medicare as we know it? Well, it surely changes Medicare as people have come to expect it and deserve it. Yet the President has done nothing but double down on this rationing board. You heard in the speech he made in April--the one I referred to a moment ago--at Georgetown. He said we are going to extract, in the first 10 years another $\1/2\ trillion in savings from Medicare, and in the second 10 years, another $1 trillion--$1.5 trillion sucked out of Medicare. I have to ask, what do you think that is going to do to people's access to a doctor and a hospital? That is the President's framework. It is not a budget. It is not the numbers we are accustomed to considering and voting on, but that is his proposal. If the President's proposal to cut $1.5 trillion out of Medicare in the next 2 decades doesn't change Medicare as we know it, then I don't know what does. We know the House of Representatives has labored mightily to produce a budget--the so-called Ryan plan. Many colleagues on the other side relish the fact that they have stood back and waited for House Republicans to act responsibly to try to wrestle with these problems and confront them, to tell the truth to the American people about the problem, and then they tried their dead level best to meet those challenges and deal with them like responsible adults. What did they get? A kick in the teeth--attack ads on TV. Well, this will allow us, under the House proposal, to fix Medicare and to save it. Right now, it is on the road to bankruptcy and oblivion and, for the reasons I have observed, and others, it will not work. There are some on our side of the aisle who may have some problems with the details of the proposed House budget. But the responsible answer to that is, let's take up and pass a budget in the Senate and give Senators on the Budget Committee an opportunity to offer amendments that would improve it, if they can, and then bring it to the Senate floor and do what we get paid for--take on these hard problems, confront them, debate them, and then make the best decisions we can on behalf of the people we work for in our States and across the country. I think some elements of the House budget have an awful lot of appeal. In fact, we have seen, based on the experience with Medicare Part D, the prescription drug plan we passed earlier in the last decade, by injecting some market forces and competition and transparency, we can bring down prices and increase the quality of services. In fact, the Medicare prescription drug plan has come in 46 percent below what it was originally expected to cost. That is an example we can learn from and can begin to implement in trying to bring down costs and yet not ration access to care. Indeed, the premium support model is advocated by many Democrats and Republicans and is similar to how the Federal Government provides health insurance for Federal employees, including Members of Congress. If it is good enough for Congress, why isn't it good enough to consider for American seniors? Do Republicans want to ``change Medicare as we know it''? We want to save it, we want to fix it, and we want it to be there as a promise that we can keep, as opposed to one we cannot keep, because it is on a path to bankruptcy and oblivion. Our friends across the aisle say: No, trust us, we are from the government, we will fix it. The way they want to do it is with Draconian cuts to doctors and hospitals that will limit people's access to health care. We believe the transparency and choice and competition that has worked in Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug program can work here as well. If people disagree with me, I respect their right to do that. But why aren't we having a responsible debate on the floor and voting on a budget, as opposed to the irresponsible rhetoric, attack ads, and the campaign already begun for 2012? I am talking about from the White House to the Congress. I think some of my colleagues firmly believe in their heart of hearts--they have been listening to political consultants, and they say the way to win the next election is to scare the living daylights out of our seniors. I think that is irresponsible. People should resist the temptation to do that to win an election and keep their job. Indeed, I find myself in agreement with some of the comments made by President Obama himself last summer. He said: We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized--whatever proposals are put out there--as the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our seniors; or the other party is doing X, Y, Z. I agree with that, but that is not what we are hearing across the aisle and on the airwaves of America. That was the President's message in 2010. It obviously has changed since 2012, since he began his own personal attack on the only responsible budget proposal that has been made in April. Unfortunately, I think it is a prematurely begun election campaign for 2012. It is an abdication of our responsibility to engage in this sort of ``gotcha'' politics, without trying to take on and confront the problem. I don't think it is responsible to try to scare seniors for political points. But also I don't think Republicans should allow ourselves to be merely punching bags and let the other side negatively characterize our motives or the seriousness of the problem our country faces. What we need is to resist the temptation to engage in this sort of gamesmanship and to try to do our dead level best to fulfill our oath and do our job as representatives of the American people. I think they would welcome that. But all we have seen so far is the attacks and the ``gotcha'' politics, which I think will do nothing but earn their contempt, and deservedly so. We can do better and we need to try. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for 2 more minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I could go on and on about the economic impact on job creation in my State and across America. But if, in fact, our colleagues are interested in tax reform, if they really are concerned that the Tax Code is unfair and some people do not pay enough and others pay too much, I ask them to consider the fact that according to the Congressional Research Service, 77.9 percent of our primary energy production in America is fossil fuel sources, and of the Federal tax support targeted to energy in 2009, 12.6 percent went to fossil fuels--12.6 percent of those Federal tax supports went to people who produce oil and gas. Conversely, 10.6 percent, the Congressional Research Service tells us, of primary source energy was produced using renewable sources. Yet the Federal tax support targeted to renewable sources of energy was 77.4 percent. Why are we picking on American oil and gas production, forcing us-- actually hurting job creation at a time when unemployment is unacceptably high--forcing us to rely on imported energy and actually rewarding our foreign competitors who will not have to pay these higher prices, and when, in fact, even as our friends across the aisle acknowledge, at the very best this will not bring down the prices at the pump. They say that is not the point. If that is not the point, then the point appears to be a game of gotcha and a sort of finger-pointing and class warfare we have seen that is endemic inside the beltway. I have to tell you, I think the American people are sick and tired of this sort of game playing when, in fact, they send us here to solve real problems. If we could find a way--instead of this game playing, instead of this phony game of gotcha--to try to work together to solve real problems through increased domestic supply, which would, indeed, bring down prices at the pump, as the President himself has acknowledged when he said we have to look at domestic production, then I think they would reward that with their appreciation, and appreciation in terms of American jobs being sustained and created here because we are not creating jobs abroad to buy the very product we need to run our cars and trucks. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to talk for a moment about the ill-considered proposal we will be voting on at 6:15 tonight and about the administration's chaotic approach when it comes to our national energy policy. I say ``chaotic approach'' because to pay attention to what the President and this administration have said about fossil fuels and energy will give you whiplash if you try to keep up with it because there are so many, apparently, inconsistencies between what is said and what is actually done, and then when something like high gasoline prices becomes very much a concern around kitchen tables in America, then all of a sudden the President again, as he announced the last day or two, is all of a sudden open for more domestic product. It is a problem for a number of reasons. One is, who in their right mind would invest the kind of money that is necessary in order to develop our domestic energy reserves when the administration and the President himself seem to be of two minds about whether we should punish domestic production or whether we should encourage it. I would suggest to you that the message has primarily been one of how to discourage or how to punish domestic production of energy in favor of imported energy from abroad. For example, one of the mixed messages the President gave was in March of 2010 when he proposed expanding offshore drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, near my home in Texas, and the north coast of Alaska. At that time, he said as follows. He said: The answer is not drilling everywhere all the time, but the answer is not also for us to ignore the fact that we are going to need vital energy sources to maintain our economic growth and our security. Well, I agree with that statement, but, as you know, following the Deepwater Horizon incident last April, the administration overreacted in a way that killed jobs and discouraged energy production here at home. We all agree that when something like this terrible incident occurs, we need to find out what happened, fix it, and make sure it never happens again. But every time there is a car accident, we don't ban driving. Every time there is an airplane crash, we don't ban flying. We find out what the problem is, we fix it, and then we move on. That is not what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. First, there was an overbroad moratorium that was issued by the administration, which ultimately ended up being struck down by a Federal judge. But after that, the administration was not through. While their formal moratorium no longer existed, there was, in effect, a permitorium--in other words, foot-dragging when it came to issuing permits for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico--and only 12 deepwater permits have been approved in the last 12 months. There were, in addition, the cancellation of dozens of lease sales in Utah and Montana and exclusion of new areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast. That, to me, is completely inconsistent with the President's statement just in March 2010. And then we know there are numerous examples where the Environmental Protection Agency has thrown up roadblocks and impediments to energy production right here at home. Well, because the President has not had an adequate response, or at least his actions have been inconsistent with his words, he reversed himself again this Saturday, and he said now he supports more domestic oil and gas production like he did more than a year ago. But my conclusion is that this is not an energy strategy. This is a public relations strategy. This is a ``how do I get reelected?'' strategy. It does not solve the problem or the pain Americans are feeling at the pump. And unfortunately this strategy too often ends up being a job- killing strategy as well. But when high gas prices are in the news, when people around kitchen tables all around America are complaining about the loss of their discretionary incomes, the fact they are having to cut corners so they can drive their kids to school or so they can drive to work, finally we have a new speech and a new announcement from the administration but very little when it comes to a coherent energy strategy. Another mixed message is that the administration at times has suggested that we are actually overproducing domestic energy. You may ask, how could that be possible? How could it be possible that we are producing too much oil and gas here at home when we have to import 60 percent of what we use from abroad? Well, the Congressional Research Service that we depend on--it is an arm of the Library of Congress--has documented that America's recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada combined. We have more here at home than Saudi Arabia, China, and Canada. And America's recoverable oil, natural gas, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. And we have learned in the last couple of years that America has more shale gas from previously unrecoverable reserves--thanks to new technology, horizontal drilling and the like--we have enough natural gas to last us for 100 years here in the United States. But compare that--really that gift we have been given of domestic energy at home--with what the administration said in 2010. The Treasury Department issues an interpretation or explanation of the administration's policies when it talks about energy production, and this is what the Treasury Department said in 2009 or 2010. The Treasury Department--this is Secretary Geithner, who is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate--the Treasury Department said: To the extent the [tax] credit-- That is the tax credits we are talking about here-- encourages overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy security. So the Treasury Department, President Obama's Treasury Department, is making the extraordinary claim that I have not heard any Senator here make because it is so implausible that these tax provisions encourage overproduction of oil and gas right here in the United States. If we are overproducing oil and gas in the United States, why is the administration telling the existing leaseholders they have to use or lose the leases that we have? It is an ideological fixation that says: We have to discourage production of oil and gas even though about 80 percent of our energy needs come from fossil fuels because we prefer alternative forms of energy. Well, I do too--solar panels, wind, biodiesel. These alternative sources of energy are important, but we simply don't have enough of them to keep our economy moving and keep prices low for our domestic consumers. Well, another part of this mixed message is our dependency on imported oil. On March 30, 2011, President Obama called for reducing foreign imports by one-third. But then he went to Brazil recently. He told the people of Brazil that he encouraged offshore drilling in Brazil, and he said that America wanted to be Brazil's best customer. In other words, rather than producing what we have been given by the Good Lord right here in America--American production, American jobs--he wants to be Brazil's best customer by importing energy from abroad. Well, part of the vote we will be having at 6:15 or so tonight is another part of the mixed messages we have been getting when it comes to energy. This is the so-called Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. Now we know why the Senators who introduced this bill have done so--because they have been getting so much heat back home because of high gas prices. Their constituents are demanding that they do something. But what they are proposing to do has nothing to do with bringing down the price of gas at the pump. In fact, it will likely increase the price of gas at the pump. In fact, the chairman of the Finance Committee, on which I sit, said: You know, this is not going to change the price at the gasoline pump. That is not the issue. I do not see that as an issue at all. The senior Senator from New York said: This was never intended to talk about lowering prices. The majority leader himself said: It is not a question of gas prices; it is a question of fairness and priorities. Well, if gasoline prices being paid by Americans all across this country are not the priority and if jobs that are created and sustained by producing domestic oil and gas right here in America are not the priority, my colleagues who are proposing this legislation have the wrong priority. Now we are told they have a new idea--that the money that is supposedly saved from these tax provisions will then be used to pay down the deficit. The truth is, the amount of money that would go to pay down the deficit--even if our friends across the aisle had a conversion and decided that was their priority rather than spending 43 cents on every dollar in borrowed money, borrowed from our kids and grandkids and bought by the Chinese--it would only be a drop in the bucket in the $1.5 trillion deficit we are experiencing this year and the $14 trillion national debt we are going to have to reckon with in the next couple months. If deficit reduction is a priority, I submit the very best way we could do that is to pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But that is not the priority of the majority leader or of the majority or of our friends across the aisle. If the rationale for this bill is not to reduce gasoline prices, if the rationale for this bill is not to produce a balanced budget, then what is it? What is it? The majority leader suggested it was fairness--fairness. The Chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calls it punitive taxation, picking out five taxpayers in America and saying: We are going to raise your taxes and leave everybody else's the same. It is discriminatory and it is punitive. But it is also, in the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff, now mayor of Chicago, a case of never letting a crisis go to waste to advance another ideological agenda. The truth is, we know our Tax Code is already biased against U.S. domestic energy producers. If our goal is to tax people who are making money in America, this chart demonstrates that the oil and gas industry is down the list of industry sectors that are making far more money. The tobacco and beverage industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the computer equipment industry, the chemical industry, the electrical equipment industry, the manufacturing industry, the apparel industry, the machinery sector--all of those come well ahead of the oil and gas sector when it comes to making money. I did not think making money was a crime in America. I thought we still believed in the free enterprise system. The very people our friends across the aisle are going to punish are the retirees and the pension holders, the people who own stock in these oil and gas companies who are going to be forced to pay higher prices which will ultimately be passed along to the consumer, I believe, in higher energy costs. The other revealing point about this debate is they want to punish people who produce American energy right here at home, and they are going to leave OPEC and these other countries to pay lower effective relative rates. If we raise taxes on American producers and we do not do anything to similarly raise taxes on their competition, what is going to happen? What is going to happen to the Saudi Arabian Oil Company? What is going to happen to the Iraq National Oil Company? What is going to happen to the Kuwait Petroleum Company, the state-owned oil company of Venezuela and the like? These are places where we end up buying oil because we do not produce it at home, and we are going to raise taxes on the people who produce it at home and make it, in effect, cheaper for foreign energy producers to produce it and sell it to us. It makes absolutely no sense. It is punitive, it is discriminatory, and it is not going to solve the problem that most Americans are complaining about today, which is high gasoline prices. In fact, it will make it worse. If my colleagues want to talk about fairness, let's talk about fairness to the 9.2 million people who are employed in the oil and gas sector in America. I witnessed the people who work in this sector in my State. In March I visited a brandnew drilling rig that is using the latest technology to produce natural gas from the Haynesville Shale in east Texas. This is amazing technology that goes down thousands of feet and drills horizontally and uses high pressure fluids to fracture this shale--in effect, the rock--to get natural gas out of it. Down in the Gulf of Mexico, after the moratorium was issued, I stood on a deepwater drilling platform that was left idle.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has pointed out the Deputy Attorney General is a member of the national security team of the President, and the President has already used the authority under the Constitution to make a recess appointment of this nominee. But the question before the Senate today is whether the Senate should confirm the nomination of James Cole to serve as Deputy Attorney General. There are three reasons why I oppose this nomination. The first is Mr. Cole is one of the earliest and most vociferous advocates of bringing foreign al-Qaida terrorists to American cities for civilian trials--a position since repudiated by the Attorney General himself in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and I am grateful for that. But Mr. Cole has never recanted his position that, in effect, these are criminal cases to be prosecuted as ordinary crimes rather than terrorist acts during a time of war. The problem, of course, with the paradigm of treating terrorism as a criminal case is that we don't punish the terrorists until they have actually been successful in committing a terrorist attack. In war, half the battle--maybe more than half the battle--is trying to stop the terrorist from actually accomplishing his or her goal of killing innocent people. We do that by interrogating detainees and finding out what they know about the organization and plans of terrorist attacks. Mr. Cole, unfortunately, stands by the outdated, outmoded characterization of these terrorist attacks being ordinary crimes. Of course, they are something much worse indeed. Quite frankly, as Mr. Holder's Deputy, Mr. Cole will only exacerbate the worst tendencies of the Department of Justice when it comes to distinguishing between criminal prosecutions and fighting a war against terrorists. This was, of course, the primary reason why Mr. Cole's nomination was unanimously rejected by Republicans in the Judiciary Committee. The American people want a Department of Justice that is committed to enforcing the law and protecting the innocent, not creating new civil rights for terrorists or treating them as ordinary criminals when they are something else indeed. In fact, the recent death of Osama bin Laden was a product of a lot of intelligence gathering that occurred over the years. That would never have occurred under Mr. Cole's proposed model of Mirandizing these people when they are arrested; telling them they do not have to provide any information because they are being treated as ordinary criminals rather than as terrorists who are eligible for rough interrogation, if necessary, in order to find out what they know in order to save innocent lives. Rather than listening to the concerns of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee about Mr. Cole's narrow view of the war on terror and of the views of the American people and perhaps reconsidering this flawed nomination, the President decided to plow ahead and bypass the advise and consent process with a recess appointment. As I said, he, of course, has the right to do so. There are actually a couple other reasons why I oppose the nomination, and I wish to first express my appreciation to Senator Chambliss and Senator Grassley. Senator Chambliss, of course, is the ranking member of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator Grassley is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They have continued to demand information from the Department of Justice and have been stonewalled at every turn. Senator Chambliss and his colleagues on the Intelligence Committee have made perfectly reasonable requests consistent with the committee's oversight responsibilities related to the Obama administration's Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force. Senator Grassley, on the other hand, from his position as the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, has requested documents concerning serious allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives knowingly allowed straw purchasers to buy firearms which were then provided to criminal drug cartels in Mexico. It has later been reported that at least two of these weapons were found at the scene where a Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry was murdered. I fully support Senators Grassley and Chambliss and regret that repeated requests for information that were well within the purview of the oversight responsibilities of Congress have been unreasonably rejected. When a minority in the Senate is denied the usual and customary information necessary for us to do our job, we are left with very few options. One of those options is to force a resolution by exercising our rights as a minority to block cloture. That is not necessarily a permanent move. It means debate continues on the nomination and we cannot come to a vote. But I submit, if rational minds would come together--if Senator Grassley and Senator Chambliss could get the information they and their committees are entitled to and discharge their oversight responsibilities--we could come much closer to resolving the differences on this particular nominee.