John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. So this bill has been passed by a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. For Senator Reid to say he will refuse to take this up or President Obama to say--if it were passed in the Senate--that he would veto it is irresponsible, and the shutdown of the government would clearly be on their hands. This demonstrates a very disconcerting trend that we are seeing of a failure of leadership at the highest office in the land; that is, the President of the United States--a President who goes to Brazil and talks about, well, I am for free trade, yet has been sitting on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Panama Free Trade Agreement since he entered office, a President who says he is for bringing down the price of gasoline, for making America less dependent on imported energy from abroad, and goes to-- believe it or not--Brazil and says: It is great you are going to be drilling for more oil offshore in Brazil. And do you know what. We are going to be one of your best customers--in other words, saying one thing in America and doing another thing abroad. This is the same President who appointed a fiscal commission that reported in December of 2010, which documents the sobering reality of the debt crisis we are facing in this country and what we must do responsibly to deal with it on a bipartisan basis, but in his State of the Union Message, in his budget he has presented, it is not even mentioned. We know we have important issues to deal with. This is the most immediate one ahead of us. But this is small compared to the bigger issues we are going to have to deal with in just a month or two, which is the debt ceiling. America has maxed out its credit card, and the President is asking us, the Treasury Secretary is asking us to raise the credit limit to allow us to continue to borrow more money. We know that is an unsustainable path. We know the American people are sick and tired of the typical gamesmanship and the ``gotcha'' politics in Washington, DC. What they want, I truly believe, is for us to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve the problems in front of us and not to kick the can down the road, not play a game of ``gotcha,'' setting up our political adversaries for the next election in 2012. That is what this smells like. That is what this looks like. This is irresponsible on the part of the President. It is irresponsible on the part of the majority leader to fail to take up this bill and to allow us to vote on it tomorrow to prevent the shutdown of the government. It is irresponsible to threaten our men and women in uniform, fighting three wars across the globe, with being deprived of their paycheck by our failure to act, by the President's commitment to veto any legislation that were to be passed on a temporary basis to stop this government shutdown. I hope the American people will call, write, e-mail, I hope they will let their representatives know that is unacceptable and that Congress must act tomorrow in advance of the deadline; and if the Senate does pass the bill, that they communicate to the White House, by every means necessary, that, Mr. President, you shall not veto pay to our troops while we are fighting three wars. To do so not only is an abdication of your responsibility as Commander in Chief, but it is an abdication of the leadership people expect from the President of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, congratulations to the Texas A&M Women's Basketball team for their NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship victory against Notre Dame. The game was an exciting and hard fought victory, and a fitting end to a championship season. Thanks to the Aggies's hard work, determination and tireless work ethic, they have finished out the 2010-2011 season with a strong 33-5 record, second place finish in the Big 12 Conference and a National Championship title. I salute head coach Gary Blair for coaching the Aggies to their first NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championship after 38 years of helping young women compete and reach their full potential. Associate head coaches Vic Schaefer and Kelly Bond, and assistant coach Johnnie Harris also worked to lead the team to this fine achievement. And the Lady Aggies's success would be incomplete without great athletes such as MVP and All-American, Danielle Adams and her teammates: Kelsey Assarian, Maryann Baker, Kristi Bellock, Kelsey Bone, Sydney Carter, Skylar Collins, Sydney Colson, Adaora Elonu, Karla Gilbert, Kristen Grant, Adrienne Pratcher, Catherine Snow, Tyra White, and Cierra Windham. Today, it is my honor to join with the entire Texas A&M University family and the State of Texas to honor the Aggies. This team has learned what it takes to become national leaders. The experience that each of these athletes has gained in this endeavor is invaluable, and it will surely lead to future success in life. The following article written by Dawn Lee Wakefield for the Examiner.com describes Coach Blair's and the Aggies's persistent and positive approach to the game and this exciting championship series: [From the Texas A&M University Arts Examiner, Apr. 6, 2011] Texas A&M Women's Basketball, NCAA Champions Win It for the Aggie Family (By Dawn Lee Wakefield) Bryan-College Station.--Texas A&M University sports fans around the world celebrated another important first tonight, their very first NCAA Women's Basketball Championship. For almost as long as TAMU Women have been competing in NCAA athletic competition, the road has been long, and the ability to gain respect for the team has been tough. A real battleground in fact. Even as recently as four months ago, you couldn't get a crowd into Reed Arena to see the Lady Aggies play basketball. But that all changed tonight, in 40 short minutes of play, in the heart of Indianapolis, Indiana, seen around the world on ESPN. On-campus support for TAMU Athletic teams, by the Aggie student body is legendary, for that trademarked 12th Man Spirit. Even more in the forefront of all sports is the 12th Man Foundation (formerly the Aggie Club), whose mission it is to garner funds and endowments by which to support Texas A&M Athletics. And yet, it was not all that long ago that a few hundred stalwart fans would arrive at Reed Arena (there was no charge to park as in men's games, because they really didn't expect much of a crowd), that Coach Blair himself would walk up and down the steps of Reed Arena, carrying bags of candy, tossing them to fans and thanking them for coming. Never one to be subtle, Coach Blair would work the crowd by saying, ``bring a friend next time, bring two friends; let's fill this place!'' After each game, the Lady Aggies didn't head to the locker rooms to rest after a hard-fought game right away. Instead, they would come up into the stands and thank people for coming. Week after week, game by game, it simply mystified the Aggie faithful in attendance as to ``what are they thinking'' about why the TAMU Athletic Ticket office wasn't being pushed for ticket sales. Every game the Lady Aggies gained style, grace, accuracy, and stature and yet, the only crowds of Aggies lined up to camp out for ticket-pulls for student tickets were for the men's games. They didn't know what they were missing, the ones who weren't there. They were missing the faithful Aggie Yell Leaders leading the crowd, the Hullaballoo band doing a rendition of ``Sweet Caroline'' that would make Neil Diamond proud, and the crowd responding, ``Aggies Ball!'' every time PA announcer Mark Edwards would identify ball possession for the team. Mike Wright and Tap Bentz, with their radio play- by-play, kept those in touch who couldn't get there in person, and local TV KBTX did their best to show highlights. And yet, the second deck of Reed was filled only once, when Baylor came calling. With a solid loss at the hands of the Greiner-Mulkey-driven offense, those who'd come to see the game left, and some didn't come back. That didn't faze the Lady Aggies or the coaching staff. As part of Coach Blair's and Coach Schaefer's mandate, the Lady Aggies participate in a multitude of community charity events. One night last October, the starting players and waiting-in-line players crowded into a Double Dave's to participate in a pepperoni-roll making contest against the men's team, and then stayed to visit with the crowd, thank them for coming out to support them, by contributing to United Way, and once again, they went home to study. They're some of the hardest-working kids in town, and yet the words ``national champions'' were never spoken, or expected by those who loved them `anyway'. It is surreal to some to think that, the newly crowned national champions, Texas Aggie Women's Basketball, has for years remained the best kept secret on campus. Until tonight. Throughout the NCAA championship series, the Lady Aggie basketball team overcame naysayers, doubters, and brutal physical competition in the most exciting display of Aggie spirit shown in years. They did it by creating a sense of family, with whomever embraced their love of basketball, the coaching staff, and Texas A&M University. Never was the spirit of Aggieland greater than after each game, seeing President Loftin (easily recognizable in his signature bow tie) in the middle of a long line of Aggies, ``sawing varsity's horns off'' as they sang the Texas Aggie fight song after each victory. Local business sponsors paid countless thousands of dollars to create ``jewelry cam'', ``kiss cam'', ``know your Aggie players--what's on their iPod'', ``the berney cam'' and flying blimps to make each game an event, an exciting event, and share the love of family Aggie basketball style. The prelude to the national championship was nothing short of high-octane spectacular. Almost 500 Aggie fans waited in the basement of Reed Arena in the Aggie practice room 3 weeks ago, to find out what the NCAA draw would be, and where they were to begin their journey to the Sweet Sixteen. When the announcement came on ESPN, ``Shreveport'', the cheers were deafening as Aggie fans knew they were within driving distance to watch the first, and hopefully second, round of play as the bracket opened, and the race was on, the only goal at the time, to make the Sweet 16, out of the Superb 64. Just being in the NCAA championship was enough, almost, for most Aggie fans. It was an unprecedented thrill to think that this year's team had the perfect combination of talent, strategy, coaching staff, and the hearts and minds of players who refused to let go of one goal, and one goal only: Victory. Getting that W. The girls studied in buses, on planes, at 2 a.m. when the rest of Aggieland was fast asleep. The Lady Aggies knew how important it was to stay true to the title ``student-athletes''. On March 20th in Shreveport, the CenturyTel Center still had plenty of room in the stands for Aggie fans, but the faithful alumni, friends, and fans of the Lady Aggies made the pilgrimage with joy and great expectation to watch them defeat McNeese State by the score of 87 to 47. The crowd reaction was joyful, and yet people were just thrilled to be there, not thinking much about the next game to come against Rutgers. When the Lady Aggies made short work of Rutgers with a score of 70 to 48, the Aggie family was again surprised, if not thrilled, to be going to the Sweet 16, at last. Advancing to the NCAA 3rd round on March 27th, again, Aggie fans picked up numbers, if not their speed, as they gassed up their cars and planes for the short hop to Dallas, to the American Airlines center to watch their team face Georgia's Lady Bulldogs. Georgia was at first an `unknown quantity with potential and power,' but the Lady Aggies came to play, making short work of their solid opponent, 79 to 38, in a game that looked much like a 3-point shooting clinic. The work of the Big D, defense, proved to be a powerful force meeting an immovable object. Not only was Tuesday, March 29th the occasion of the 4th round of the NCAA finals, that Elite 8 night, it marked the 4th matchup between Texas A&M and the highly advertised Baylor Bears. Three times, the Aggies had met them; three times they had fallen, as hard as Kim Mulkey's snakeskin jacket hit the ground in disgust one night when she didn't like the referee calls. Although 11,000+ fans crowded into Dallas' American Airlines Center to watch ``The 4th time's (hopefully) a Charm'' matchup, the gold and green far outweighed the maroon and white in the seats. And yet, the Aggies gathered, the faithful, were loud, proud, and the happiest people in the state of Texas with a victory that was hard fought, in a night where the Lady Aggies refused, again, to give in to negative expectations. Instead, they focused mentally on the ``+'' sign that Coach Blair draws on the back of his left hand, self-created to remind him to stay positive throughout the game. ``They're kids, 18-22, and this is just a game'' as he announced as a reminder to all that sports were about sportsmen and sportswomen, in the spirit of competition. Lessons well taught. Lessons well learned. Every after-game interview, you'd hear one word above the rest. ``TEAM''. No stars, even among the player of the game. It was ``my team, our team, this team''. The class possessed by the Lady Aggies spoke for itself, loud and clear. The chant went up, ``Final Four, Final Four'' after the Lady Aggies stunned Baylor, 58 to 46. The Aggie faithful didn't want to leave the American Airlines center as they stood and swayed to the Aggie war hymn, and watched each member of the team, the yell leaders, Lady Aggie Dance Team, Hullaballoo band, staff, and the sports announcers each cut down a piece of the winning game net. Coach Blair thanked everyone for coming and encouraged people who could to make that trip to Indianapolis to root on their team in the Final Four. Outside the arena in the hallways of the American Airlines center, Aggie faithful made new friends among those who'd lingered to absorb the joy of the Elite Eight to Final Four pathway. With tears in their eyes and joy shining from their countenance, three women introduced themselves to the BCS fans, saying ``that's our Coach, that's our Coach'' about Blair. Turns out they'd been his players at South Oak Cliff High School. And, true to form, Coach Blair had mentioned each and every team he'd been a part of in his thank-you speech following the game. A man who's never forgotten who brung him to the dance, was now ``going to the dance'' in Indianapolis. Though the distance was longer, those who could afford the charter planes, the buses, or the time and gas to drive made their plans to attend the Final Four in Indianapolis. The Final Four was in store, and all eyes were only on the prize of eliminating the Stanford Cardinal. No other goal was announced. Stanford was considered in the same light as the Aggies. A number 2 seed. Overlooked. Relegated to the category of ``nice, but not a contender''. How wrong the rankings can be in predicting who is the champion of the day. The oft-used expression, ``any given day'' was never more true than when the Lady Aggies went back to work, and walked out of Conseco Field House with a 63 to 62 win, thanks to Sydney Colson's pass to Tyra White for the layup, and 39 minutes and 45 seconds of defense, defense, defense, and the hot shooting arms of every player who made their play a key' play. Fans were stunned. It seemed too good to be true. The Championship game was in sight, and the Championship title was at stake. Could it be, that same team, who 16 short weeks ago couldn't find a crowd had emerged as a national powerhouse, a force to be reckoned with, was now the darling of ESPN up-close interviews, sound bytes by Blair, and the contemplation of Vic Schaefer's `drawing board' where he'd drive that defense to excellence each and every game of the way. Blair and Schaefer, together with Associate Head Coach Kelly Bond and Assistant Head Coach, Johnnie Harris, are not to be overlooked. Team. Family. United. Aggies. Spirit personified filled each player with a sense of family such that even the motto printed on the tickets at the beginning of the season read, ``This is Home''. So, tonight, as Texas A&M set out to prove their worth outside the walls of their hometown, they were taking on a first-class team with a second-tier rating in Notre Dame. It was the Fighting Texas Aggies vs. the Fighting Irish. How appropriate. For 40 minutes of regulation play, all these players did was fight, not against each other as much as against misperceptions, being overlooked, disregarded, and essentially underappreciated as the true champions each team came to be realized before the game started. Aggie fans throughout the Brazos Valley jammed the restaurants, bars, and homes of their friends, anywhere there was a TV powered `on', it was tuned to ESPN from 6 p.m. central until at least midnight, as the Women's Basketball team pulled out all the stops on offense and defense. With a ``never-say-die'' spirit, the can-do Aggies, led by America's favorite new coach, Gary Blair, and King of Defense, Vic Schaefer, let loose and held forth as the Aggies pulled out a 76-70 victory that still seems unreal, unless you saw it yourself. Never. Say. Die. The Lady Aggies, per Coach Blair's pre-game speech, stayed on the bus, to come out winners. Said Blair, ``if you don't plan on winning tonight, then get off the bus. There's only one thing that counts. Winning''. Taking his words to heed, each team member committed to that outcome, and emerged the first national champions in Texas A&M Women's basketball. History was made. Throughout the NCAA series the team: MVP Danielle Adams, Tyra White, Sydney Carter, Sydney Colson, Adora Elonu, Maryann Baker, Adrienne Pratcher, Kelsey Assarian, Karla Gilbert, Kristi Bellock--battered, bruised, in visible pain, tossed and slammed onto the floors of field houses, arenas, and stadiums, play after play, time after time, just got back up and showed America what it meant to be a proud `Fightin' Texas Aggie'. ``Some may boast of prowess bold, of the school they think so grand, but there's a spirit that's ne'er been told. It's the Spirit of Aggieland. We are the Aggies, the Aggies are We, true to each other as Aggies can be. We've got to fight boys (old traditions die hard), we've got to fight, we've got to fight for maroon and white. After they've boosted all the rest, they will come and join the best, for we are the Aggies, the Aggies are we. We're from Texas AMC''. The words to the school song never sounded sweeter as they did to those who witnessed history in the making, in a fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Wednesday, April 6th at 2 p.m., history will be made once again. The Lady Aggies will be at Reed Arena to be greeted by their Texas Aggie family, the Aggie Nation, and at last their time has come. Word to the wise: get there early if you're going. For the first time in the history of Women's basketball, there's going to be a parking problem to welcome home the champions. The Lady Aggies have brought honor, dignity, and joy to those who call TAMU their team. Sunday night, TV audiences were treated to a one-shot of a little fellow holding up a cardboard sign saying, ``Coach Blair is my hero''. That went viral across Facebook and Twitter. Turns out, it was the coach's grandson, Logan. His sign tonight, shown to the nation, said, ``after we win Coach Blair is taking me to Disneyland''. That only seems fair, as Coach Blair took Aggies everywhere to the top of the college sports world tonight. And it was the ride of a lifetime, and sheer joy every minute of every game of every season. Gig em, Aggies, for tonight you are indeed the NCAA Champions.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN. This is what the President's own fiscal commission has said about such a concept. I know Members of the Senate and the political parties are divided about many things, but this is something that should be noncontroversial and should be bipartisan. I hope my colleagues will listen briefly and consider cosponsoring and joining us in passing this important amendment establishing this sunset commission. Again, this is what the President's own fiscal commission said about this concept: Such a committee has been recommended many times, and has found bipartisan support. The original and arguably most effective committee exists at the State level in Texas. The legislature created a sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate waste and inefficiency in government agencies. Estimates from reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed 27-year savings of over $780 million, compared with expenditures of $28.6 million. Based on the estimated savings achieved, for every dollar spent on the sunset process, the State received $27 in return. We all know the challenges we face in Washington when it comes to proper oversight. Once programs are created--even so-called temporary programs--they tend to take on a life of their own. Indeed, I think that must be what Ronald Reagan was talking about in one of my favorite quotations, when he said that ``the closest thing to eternal life here on earth is a temporary government program.'' We all know what happens once a program is created. A constituency is created, and they come in and ask for a cost of living or other increase, and they grow and grow, and there is no one--I am not criticizing the standing committees, but there is not adequate time or opportunity given to looking at these programs to see whether they are still needed or whether their budgets are justified. So you see these programs growing and Federal spending growing and no real time and effort given to cutting out wasteful spending and eliminating programs that have not been authorized or which are duplicative or redundant, as pointed out by the GAO. My hope is that when we soon have a chance to vote on this amendment, we can all answer this important call. I think in the process we can ask the single most important question Congress can ask when it comes to spending and programs, which is: Is this program still needed? A sunset commission would help us do our job of oversight and accountability. It would help rein in runaway Federal spending and, hopefully, along with growth in the private sector and investments by the job creators and entrepreneurs, help us get past where we are now, where we have not only runaway spending but unsustainable debt, and a private sector sitting on the sidelines not creating new jobs the way we need them to do it. I yield the floor and thank the manager.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this is a very important amendment, which addresses the three critical issues that face our country today: too many people out of work, the Federal Government engaged in runaway spending, and our unsustainable national debt. This actually comes from a portion of President Barack Obama's fiscal commission report, which pointed out a Texas program that had been in place since 1977 and its impact on providing oversight and review of wasteful or no longer needed programs for spending. That is what this amendment does. It establishes a bipartisan U.S. Authorization and Sunset Commission. Actually, it would be composed of eight Members of Congress, who would go through programs that have spending associated with them but have not been authorized by the Congress, and who review redundancies and duplicative programs such as those pointed out most significantly by the General Accounting Office within the last week to 10 days. As I said, this is modeled after the sunset process that my State instituted in 1977, which has been enormously successful. It has eliminated more than 50 different State agencies and saved taxpayers in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Vitter, Enzi, DeMint, Rubio, Paul, Ensign, Ayotte, and Risch be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 186 and ask for its immediate consideration, and I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. CORNYN. I don't think anybody believes the way things are operating now is appropriate. What this does is it seeks to bring a new set of eyes, particularly regarding the spending levels in programs-- whether they are necessary. As the President's own fiscal commission pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. We know with that kind of increased scrutiny, we can begin to cut out duplicative and unnecessary spending and prioritize those that are important, such as homeland security. Part of the problem we have is that the spending levels we have now make it almost impossible for us to decide what our priorities are and fund those because everything seems to be a priority. Well, everything can't be a priority, everything cannot be essential. This is a commonsense approach, based on an effective State model, that would allow Congress to do its job better and deal with the most important issues that face the country today, which is runaway spending and unsustainable debt, and too high unemployment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am glad to respond to the question. As the Senator knows, many programs that are currently up and running are operating on the basis of an appropriation without an authorization by the committee of jurisdiction, and that is part of what the sunset commission would look at because, frankly, it hasn't been authorized, the kind of oversight that is needed in order to scrub the numbers and make sure the program is still necessary and the spending is appropriate doesn't happen. This also is designed specifically to deal with what the GAO pointed out in the last 7 to 10 days, where we have dozens of programs designed to do exactly the same thing. In other words, rather than making sure that existing programs work, we tend to layer those on over time, forgetting that those existing programs are even there. So this would be designed primarily to do two things: one, to deal with programs where there is spending because there has been an appropriation made but no authorization; and it would also deal with that duplication. If, in fact, Congress comes back and authorizes the program, that is one way they could respond to the report of the commission.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment, No. 186.

Mr. CORNYN. Well, Madam President, I have been waiting all day, as all my colleagues, and I am on the Senate floor to offer an amendment. I am sorry the Senator thinks it is necessary to object. I am not sure what harm it causes to get another amendment pending, and I am happy to vote on any of these amendments as the majority leader determines to set the votes, or the bill managers. But I will speak just briefly on amendment No. 186, which I will call up at the appropriate time. All of us can agree the Nation faces the greatest fiscal challenge in its history, with growing deficits and record debt. Currently, the deficit is roughly 9.8 percent of our gross domestic product, and the debt is north of $14 trillion--so high that, in fact, we will be asked sometime in the spring to consider voting on lifting the debt limit, in effect raising the debt limit on the Nation's credit card because it is maxed out. According to the two Cochairs of the President's own fiscal commission, the Nation could be facing a debt crisis, a loss of confidence that we would actually be able to pay back our debts, and that crisis could come as soon as in the next 2 years. That is why the amendment I am offering today, which I hope will enjoy broad bipartisan support, establishes, indeed, a bipartisan U.S. Authorization and Sunset Commission that will help improve oversight and eliminate wasteful government spending. The amendment is modeled after the sunset process that was instituted in Texas in 1977, which has over the years eliminated 50 different State agencies and saved taxpayers more than $700 million. That may not seem like big money in Washington terms, but that is a substantial savings in Texas. This is what the President's own fiscal commission had to say about such a concept: Such a committee has been recommended many times and has found bipartisan support. The original and arguably the most effective committee exists at the State level in Texas. The legislature created a sunset commission in 1977 to eliminate waste and inefficiency in government agencies. Estimates from reviews conducted between 1982 and 2009 showed a 27-year savings of over $780 million, compared with expenditures of $28.6. Based on savings achieved, for every dollar spent on the sunset commission the State has received $27 in return. This commission under my amendment would be made up of eight Members of Congress who would focus on unauthorized programs that continue to receive taxpayers' money. As the chair knows, one of the biggest problems we have when it comes to unsupervised spending is the fact that the authorizing committees do not necessarily authorize a program, but yet the appropriators for one reason or another have appropriated money, and those are never given the kind of oversight that is really necessary. This means Congress has dropped the ball--spending without authorization--when it comes to doing the hard work of figuring out if these programs are working, but the spending nevertheless continues. As Ronald Reagan famously said, the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a temporary government program--there is no such thing here in Washington, DC. The Congressional Budget Office regularly finds that billions of dollars are being spent in unauthorized programs. In addition, the commission would focus on duplicative and redundant government programs annually identified by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO, as we all recall, recently found that billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on duplicative and redundant government programs. For example, the Federal Government has more than 100 different programs dealing with surface transportation issues--100; 82 monitoring teacher quality; 80 for economic development; 47 for job training; and 17 different grant programs for disaster preparedness. I think common sense would tell us that kind of duplication and overlap is not efficient and it is not an effective use of taxpayer dollars. Under my amendment, the sunset commission would review each program and submit the recommendations, which must be considered by Congress under expedited procedures like we use under the Budget Act. In other words, it could not be filibustered; it would have to be voted on. Congress would not be able to ignore the commission's reports. The amendment provides expedited procedures that would force Congress to consider and debate the commission's work. Congress would have 2 years to consider and pass the commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it would be abolished by operation of the law. In other words, the program is abolished if Congress fails to reauthorize it 2 years after the commission completes its review and analysis of the program. This commission would help force Congress to do the necessary oversight to make sure every taxpayer dollar is wisely spent. While we all do our best to ensure that proper oversight is given to each program, we simply do not have the tools currently available to monitor and review every program. This sunset commission would provide Congress with those tools. It would improve government accountability and provide for greater openness in government decisionmaking. We know programs that have simply outlived their usefulness or failed to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently are a burden on the American taxpayer and should be eliminated. We simply do not have the means to get there from here. Congress has a spending process in place, and we should put together a sunset process for streamlining and eliminating government waste. That is what this amendment would do. The commission would supplement the work of the congressional committees that are already in place that I know mean well and intend to do the oversight but simply never seem to get around to it. It will not replace the work of those committees; however, it will supplement-- and I would say improve and strengthen--their oversight work. It will serve as another set of eyeballs, keeping a close eye on the wallets belonging to taxpayers. This commission will help Congress answer a simple but powerful question: Is this program still needed? Is this program still needed? A sunset commission would help us make many programs more effective by giving them the attention they deserve and exposing their faults to the light of day. It will improve government accountability and provide for greater openness and government decisionmaking. Programs that outlive their usefulness or fail to spend tax dollars efficiently are a burden on the American taxpayer and must be eliminated or reformed. As we continue to face the mounting deficit and a struggling economy, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to spend smarter and spend less? Imagine the tax dollars that could be saved by reviewing and revamping outdated and inefficient programs. It is my hope that our colleagues will join me in supporting a governmentwide sunset commission, and I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment so we can start setting our spending priorities straight.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am going to object to any unanimous consent requests until we have some understanding about when I will be allowed and others will be allowed to offer their amendments.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am sorry the Senator from Louisiana objects to my calling up the amendment and getting it pending. I was told--and, indeed, I think everyone is operating under the impression this is going to be an open amendment process--we would have debate on important issues. This happens to be relating to the establishment of a sunset commission, such as that which was recommended by the fiscal commission appointed by the President of the United States and which enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague, Senator Hutchison, in commending to our colleagues the nomination of Judge Diana Saldana of Laredo, TX, who has been nominated, as we have heard, to be a U.S. district judge in the Southern District of Texas. This is a busy docket, as one can imagine, being right on the U.S.-Mexico border, with the unfortunate drug-trafficking and immigration-related cases and the like. So this is a very important nomination. I hope my colleagues will join us in confirming her nomination. Senator Hutchison and I, as do many Senators, have a bipartisan committee of lawyers in the State--people who are very respected in the legal community who screen the people who apply for these positions, recognizing the importance of them and that they are lifetime appointments. We do our very best to make this a depoliticized process, believing that whether one is a good judge doesn't depend on whether one is a Republican or an Independent or Democrat as long as one is always willing to enforce the law and not impose one's own personal beliefs or any other type of agenda. Diana Saldana really represents the manifestation of the American dream. I had the opportunity to introduce her at the hearing she had before the Judiciary Committee, along with her wonderful family. Throughout the process, the more I learned about Diana's personal story, the more I grew to admire not only all she has accomplished but what she stands for in terms of our national guarantee that if you come to America, if you work hard, if you make the most of your God-given gifts, you can achieve anything. Judge Saldana represents that dream. At the age of 10, she began traveling with her parents and siblings from her home in Carrizo Springs to Minnesota and North Dakota to work as migrant farmers in the soybean, sugar beet, and potato fields. Because of the seasonal nature of migrant farm work, Diana and her siblings would often leave South Texas before the school year ended and return after the next school year had begun. Of course, one can imagine how tough that is on a young student. She traveled 1,500 miles north and worked with her family in the fields every summer through high school and college, and she even worked in the fields during her first year of law school as well. Despite these challenges, Diana rose to the occasion, and she succeeded in becoming the first person in her family to get a college degree. She recalls that while working as a migrant farmer, her mother told her that an education was the only way out of doing manual labor, and indeed she learned that lesson very well. She was once asked what person had the greatest impact on her, and she said, as many of us might answer, her mother. She said: My mother has a third grade education, but she was able to raise six children by working hard and having a deep faith in God . . . I remember her working up to three jobs at a time, taking naps in the family car, when our finances were especially tight, to make ends meet . . . My mother instilled in us a strong work ethic and encouraged us to dream for a better life. Today, Judge Saldana doesn't just receive the gifts she has gotten as being the child of a hard-working and dedicated and sacrificing mother, she has turned it around and become a mentor to young people herself, using her own story as an inspiration to others and saying: If I worked hard and I was successful, you can, too, even as improbable as that may seem at the time. I could go on and on about Judge Saldana because her life story is truly remarkable and quite an inspiration, but I will conclude with this: Diana Saldana has been nominated to fill the vacancy left by her own mentor, Judge George Kazen, who is taking senior status. Judge Kazen knows Diana better than just about anybody, other than her family. She served as his law clerk, appeared before him as a Federal prosecutor, and presided over many cases as a Federal magistrate judge. Judge Kazen described Diana as ``one of the finest law clerks'' he ever had and a ``tough, no-nonsense prosecutor.'' He called her the ``quintessential judge--intelligent, hard-working, fair, honest, and decisive.'' Finally, Judge Kazen told us it would be his ``personal honor'' if Judge Saldana was confirmed as his successor. I can't think of any higher praise. In just a few minutes, the Senate will confirm Diana Saldana as a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Texas. I know I speak for many Texans when I say we could not be more proud. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak briefly on the amendment that has been offered by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, that would, in effect, repeal the health care bill that was passed on Christmas Eve at 7 a.m. in the morning about 1 year ago--1 year ago this last Christmas Eve. Since the time the bill was passed, strictly along party lines, with 60 votes--all our colleagues on the Democratic side voted for it; all the folks on our side voted against it--we predicted this bill would lead to an increase in premiums for those who have health insurance, it would raise taxes on everyone in order to fund this huge expansion of the Federal Government--some $2.7 trillion worth of extra spending--and it would also take a $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare--which, as you know, is one of our troubled entitlement programs that is sorely in need of reform--it takes $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare to fund yet a new entitlement program, this health care bill. We also know that on at least two occasions now a Federal judge has found that this bill violates the Constitution of the United States because both these judges have said Congress has overreached its authority under the Constitution. The arguments were made that this was within Congress's power, but actually I agree with a law professor, Jonathan Turley, whose comments I saw today, who said that if the Supreme Court of the United States upholds this health care bill as being within Congress's power, federalism is dead. There is no limit to the Federal Government's authority if the Federal Government can compel you or me or anyone else to buy a government-approved product. There are no limitations. The 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution that says all powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and to the people might as well be written out of the Constitution. So that is why I think these decisions are very important--the one in Florida and the earlier one in Virginia--because they reveal a defect in this bill over and above the others I have already mentioned: raising taxes, taking from Medicare to create a new entitlement program, and, of course, imposing this onerous mandate. But the real problem with this bill is more nuanced than my remarks would suggest. What it does is, by imposing a mandate on employers to provide government-approved health insurance or pay a penalty--what many employers are going to find out is, it will cost them less to pay the penalty than it will to provide health insurance for their employees. Thus, many Americans who have health coverage they like, which the President promised them time and time again they would be able to keep if they liked it, will find that is not the case because employers will--making a rational business decision, where it costs less to pay the penalty than it does to provide the government-mandated health insurance--they will simply choose to drop their employees and, thus, they will have to go into the exchanges which are supposed to be created by 2014 under this bill. What is wrong with that? Well, we know this bill was gamed in all sorts of ways to try to provide a Congressional Budget Office score which actually only reflects a fraction of its true cost, implemented over 10 years. The most accurate estimate I have seen is this bill actually will cost some $2.7 trillion over 10 years as opposed to the roughly $1 trillion pricetag the Congressional Budget Office has given, in part, because it was scored over a 10-year period of time but with only 6 years of implementation and through various other ways. As I say, that score--the true cost of this bill--was gamed. But one of the things the bill provides is that individuals who go to the State-based exchanges to buy their health insurance because they do not have it available from their employer will be subsidized by the Federal taxpayers up to, I believe, $88,000 for a family of four. What happens if a whole lot more people drop their coverage or their employers drop their coverage and they are forced to go to the State- based exchanges in order to buy their health care, which is subsidized to this degree? Well, it is going to explode the costs of this health care bill in ways the Congressional Budget Office score does not adequately reflect. I am not quibbling with the Congressional Budget Office. They take the assumptions they are asked to take and they do the best they can to try to predict what the costs will be. But, again, it is possible and, indeed, this is an example to game the Congressional Budget Office scoring process to make it look much cheaper than it will actually be, once fully and finally implemented. So at a time when we are going to be asked to raise the debt limit-- our credit card is maxed out, nearly maxed out at $14 trillion-plus--at a time when our deficits are $1.5 trillion--that is just for this current, last fiscal year--we are left with the question, everything else aside about this health care bill: Can we and can the American people afford it? I would say the answer to that is absolutely not. Because we can do so much better by making sure the government does not get between patients and their doctor and by leaving the flexibility and the choices in the hands of consumers to make decisions that are in their best interests. We could, if we tried--and I hope we will--come up with a better way of delivering health care because, unfortunately, this bill did not-- well, we squandered an opportunity to try to help bend that cost curve down. Indeed, all the evidence is, it bends the cost curve up and makes it more expensive. Let me conclude on this thought. At a time when the President's own fiscal commission says our fiscal situation is dire and is unsustainable, at a time when the President--I had hoped during his State of the Union Message he would say: This fiscal commission I appointed has come up with a report. We need to take this seriously and need to work, on a bipartisan basis, to try to fix what is broken about our Federal Government's finances. The President did not do that. He talked about investment, which we all know when the Federal Government invests money, it is code for more spending, and we have been on a spending binge the last 2 years, with 42 cents of every dollar borrowed from the next generation and beyond, and we know we cannot keep it up. So beyond the fundamental problems with this bill--No. 1, that it is unconstitutional, so held by two Federal judges; that it continues to make health care more expensive rather than more affordable; that it denies people the opportunity to keep what they have because of the incentives it puts on employers to dump their employees into the exchanges and that they will get the subsidies that Congress voted on, which will make this bill even more expensive than it was originally thought to be--this bill is one that should be repealed. We can, working together on a bipartisan basis, do better. This is what happens when one side or the other overreaches. They think the victory is worth it when, in fact, what we find out is, there is a tremendous backlash by the American people, reflected in the November 2 election. The more they learn about this bill, they do not like it more, they like it less. Now that two Federal judges have held that this bill is unconstitutional, it is time for us to take up this matter again--once we repeal this bill--and do a better job, which we should have done in the first place. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I think we are playing with fire when we talk about amending the Senate rules. All of us have been here for different periods of time. I have been here for 8 years, which actually sounds like a long time, but in the life of the Senate is not very long at all in an institution that has existed for more than 200 years. I have been here when our side was in the majority. As a matter of fact, we had the White House, we had both Houses of Congress. And I have been here when we have had President Obama in the White House and Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress. I can tell you, unequivocally, it is a whole lot more fun to be here when you are in the majority. But there are certain temptations that the majority has which I think are exacerbated when, for example, during most of the last 2 years, one party or the other has the ability in the Senate to basically pass legislation by essentially a party-line vote; in other words, as I recall on that morning at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve a year ago, when the vote on the health care bill came up where all 60 Democrats voted for the bill and no Republicans voted for the bill. My point being: The temptation is, when you have such a large majority--60 or more--there is a huge temptation in both parties--not just the Democrats; Republicans, I am sure, would be tempted as well-- to try to go it alone. Thus, I think it detracts from what is one of the great strengths of this institution, which is that this institution's rules force consensus, and unless there is consensus, things do not happen. We are, thus, the saucer that cools the tea from the cup, and all the various analogies we have heard. But the important thing is not how this affects us as individual Senators. This is not just an abstract discussion about the rules. This is about what is in the best interests of a country of more than 300 million people. I would submit any time one party or the other is not only tempted but yields to that temptation to go it alone to try to push legislation through without achieving that consensus, I think it hurts the institution and I think it provokes a backlash, much as we saw on November 2. Because the American people understand that checks and balances are important. When we do not have checks and balances, either through the self- restraint of the majority or through recognizing the rights of the minority to offer amendments, to have debates, to contribute to legislation, then the American people are going to fix that by changing the balance of power, as they did on November 2. Here again, I do not want to be misunderstood as making a partisan argument. I think Republicans would be just as tempted as Democrats to do the same thing. But I think that is where we have to show self- restraint and where, if we do not show self-restraint, then the American people will change the balance of power and establish those checks and balances. Here again, I think for most people who are listening--if there is anyone listening out there on C-SPAN or elsewhere to this debate--this should not be about us. This should not be about the arcana of these rules. This should be about the rights of the American people to get legislation that affects all 300-plus million of us debated, amended, in a way to try to achieve that consensus and, thus, achieves broad support by the American people. Because anytime, again, we yield to the temptation to go it alone to do things on a partisan basis, it will ultimately provoke the kind of backlash we have seen over the health care bill, to mention one example. This is not a small thing. I have the honor of representing 25 million people in the Senate, and this is not just about my rights as an individual Senator or even the minority's rights, this is about their right--their right to be heard through an adequate time for debate, their right to have an opportunity to change or amend legislation, and then to have a chance to have it voted on. I understand the frustration of our colleagues when the majority leader, due to his right of prior recognition, can get the floor. He can put something on the Senate calendar that has not gone through a committee markup and that sort of due process and fair opportunity for amendment and participation; and then again, if he has 60 votes on his side to be able to push it through, then deny us any opportunity to offer amendments, much less to have a fulsome debate on these important issues. I think our country suffers from that. I think the American people suffer when we are denied on their behalf an opportunity to have a fulsome debate and to offer amendments. I do not doubt the good faith of our colleagues who are offering some of these propositions. There are even some of them that I find somewhat attractive. The idea of secret holds, for example--if there ever was a time for that, that time is long past gone. I know we are not going to agree on everything. But we ought to at least have an opportunity for everyone to be heard, and for individual Senators' rights to be respected, not because they are Senators but because they represent a large segment of the American people, and it is their rights that are impinged when the majority leader, for whatever reason, decides to deny a Senator a right to offer an amendment and a right to have a fulsome debate on the amendment in the interest of getting legislation passed. Although Senator Reid said this morning the 111th Congress has to go down in history as being one of the most productive Congresses, at the same time, he complained about Republicans filibustering legislation. There seems to be kind of an inherent contradiction there. But I suggest the explanation for that is the fact that our friends on the other side have had such a large supermajority, they have been able to muster the 60 votes and to go it alone. Again, I think that is yielding to a temptation that everyone would understand, and the American people have now since corrected that as a result of the November 2 election. I would suggest, in closing, to all of our friends on both sides of the aisle, again, I recognize the sincerity of those who have offered these proposals, but I would suggest there is not a malfunction, or should I say the rules themselves are not broken, but the rules contemplate that the rules will not be abused. I think the temptation to abuse those rules by going it alone is understandable but something that needs to be avoided. I think because of the election now--since we are more evenly divided so nobody will be able to get to 60 votes unless there is a bipartisan consensus, to the extent that 60 votes are needed--that the American people have sort of fixed the problem some of our colleagues have perceived. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the question from my friend, the Senator from Iowa. That is not what I am suggesting. But I do think we need to have a process which allows for an opportunity for amendments and debate. And if we do not have a process requiring a threshold of 60 votes, the temptation is going to be, again, for the majority leader to deny the opportunity for amendments, constrict time allowed for an amendment, for debate, by filing cloture, and we are going to see things shooting through here that have not had an adequate opportunity for deliberation. This institution has famously been called the world's greatest deliberative body, but I daresay we have not demonstrated that in recent memory. And, again, I think, as the Senator from Tennessee and others have observed, this is not a problem with the rules. This is the way the rules have actually been implemented. I think we have learned an important lesson from this and one I hope will help us respect the rights of all Senators, whether they be in the majority or the minority, to offer amendments and to debate these amendments not because they are about our rights but because they are about the rights, for example, of the 25 million people I represent. They have the right to be heard. They have a right to have any suggestions or improvements to legislation be considered. That is all I am saying.

Mr. CORNYN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would say to my friend the people who came before us thought achieving consensus was good, not unanimity, perhaps recognizing it is impossible to get 100 Senators to agree. So I would say to my friend I sometimes am as frustrated as he is when one or two or three or four Senators say: We are going to force this to a cloture vote because we are just not going to agree. I think that is frustrating to all of us, depending on which foot the shoe is on. But I would say that is a small price to pay, that frustration, to insist on assuring the rights of the minority--again, not because of an individual Senator because we aren't all that important. It is the rights of our constituents whom we represent that are so important, and it is so important we get it right because there is nobody else after we get through who gets to vote. It becomes the law of the land, and unless it is unconstitutional not even the Supreme Court of the United States can set it aside. So it is very important we get it right. I am just saying that we take the time necessary, and I think that is what the rules are designed to provide for.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, may I inquire how much more time there is on our side?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there are a long list of bills that pass on a regular basis by unanimous consent, and it is like--we are almost focused on the exception rather than the rule. There are many times--a lot of times; I can't quantify it--where legislation will pass by unanimous consent because it has gone through the committees, people have had an opportunity to offer amendments, both sides have had an opportunity to contribute to it, and then it passes without objection. Again, I can't quantify that, but the ones we seem to be focused on are the ones that seem to be more or less the exception to the rule where there are genuine disagreements, when there is a need to have a more fulsome debate and the opportunity for amendments. So I think the current rules serve the interests of our constituents and the American people well. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.