John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a couple of minutes--I know the time at 4:45 is otherwise obligated; I will be briefer than that--about President Calderon's visit to the United States, his joint session speech to Congress, and a border security amendment I intend to offer, hopefully, as soon as tomorrow. As you know, Mr. President, President Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress, and I was fortunate enough to have a very brief conversation with him in the anteroom before he came to the floor of the House, during which time I told him I admire his commitment to fight the drug cartels in Mexico. During his remarks before the Congress and to the American people, President Calderon said some things I thought were very important for all of us to hear. First of all, he said Mexico has gone ``all-in'' against the cartels--with increased commitments and personnel and equipment--and, unfortunately, is suffering significant losses and casualties in the fight. There have indeed been 23,000 Mexicans, approximately, since 2006, who have lost their lives in Mexico during these drug wars. President Calderon also reminded us that Mexico is one of our most important trading partners, primarily as a result of NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement. He pointed out that Mexico has, notwithstanding its other challenges, managed to keep its budget deficit low relative to its GDP--a record of fiscal discipline that should give us some embarrassment in Washington. President Calderon acknowledged--and I think this is very important-- that the lack of economic opportunities available in Mexico are a primary cause of illegal immigration into the United States. While I admire some of the things President Calderon said, I do think he crossed a line he should not have crossed when he used this setting--a speech to a joint session of Congress and to the American people--to lecture Americans on our own State and Federal laws. For example, he criticized America's gun laws and seemed to suggest that we should somehow consider relinquishing our second amendment rights in order to help them disarm the cartels. With all due respect to President Calderon, America's second amendment rights are not a proper subject of international negotiation with Mexico or any other nation. Then President Calderon went on to criticize Arizona's immigration law last week on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--at the White House and at the Capitol--which I also believe was inappropriate under the circumstances. There is no doubt there is fear and frustration all along the border--fear that the border violence that is raging just to the south is going to spill over into the United States, and frustration that Washington, DC--especially Congress and the President--is not doing enough about it. Arizona's law was written in response to this fear and frustration. It is important to note--and this is a key fact that needs to be corrected on the record--that the Arizona Legislature amended their law to make clear that ethnic and racial profiling by law enforcement officials is strictly prohibited. That was a necessary and important change. But it doesn't appear President Calderon or many of the critics--including the President of the United States, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--have actually even read the 10-page bill, which you can read online if you have access to the Internet. I have found it always helps in any discussion to actually know what you are talking about, to have actually read the bill so that you can have an intelligent conversation and perhaps then differ about policies. But to misrepresent the contents of the bill, not having read it, is simply inexcusable. To be sure, a patchwork of State laws is not the optimal way to fix our broken immigration system. We need sensible reforms at the national level. I am prepared to work in good faith with anyone committed to immigration laws that make sense in terms of our national security, in terms of the restoration of the rule of law, in terms of our economy and our values. But some of the criticism of Arizona's law by the administration has been just simply misleading and counterproductive. Just last week we learned that a State Department representative--Michael Posner-- actually apologized to China for the Arizona law, saying: ``We brought it up early and often.'' Early and often in talks with one of the most repressive regimes in the world? Unbelievable. President Obama himself has set a bad example, repeatedly criticizing Arizonans for taking action while his own promises for immigration reform have gone unfulfilled. The problem raging on our southern border is that the Federal Government needs to do more to improve our border security. That is something on which we can all agree and should all agree. How bad is the situation? Well, this morning the El Paso Times reported: Mexican Federal police were attacked by a drive-by shooting during the weekend as Juarez surpassed 1,000 homicides for the year. Ciudad Juarez--within several hundred feet of the city of El Paso in the United States--has lost 1,000 people to the drug wars just this year. As I mentioned, it is estimated that 23,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in the drug wars during the last 3 years. The fear is palpable on this side of the border. I must tell you, I have never seen it quite this way. From Laredo, TX, to McAllen, TX, to El Paso--where people are accustomed to the novelty and the unique nature of our international border with Mexico, and they believe in maintaining those ties for economic and other reasons--people along the border in Texas, the longest section of the U.S.-Mexican border, are more apprehensive and concerned about what lurks just beyond the border. That fear ranges from cartels actively recruiting students in our public schools to gangs in order to help them with their drug- smuggling operations. The Border Patrol has developed ``Operation Detour'' to show our students how the cartels treat the young people they recruit. The response to this video presentation has reportedly been powerful. For example, in McAllen, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley, a 14-year-old girl made an emotional exit halfway during the presentation. She told the Border Patrol her father had recently been the victim of a cross- border abduction and her family was afraid to report the kidnapping to authorities for fear of retaliation from the cartel that took him. In Rio Grande City, TX, another city in the Rio Grande Valley, kids were crying midway through the first video because the night before a classmate had died while running drugs. Mr. President, our children are living in fear, but the White House's budget for border security shows it is living in denial. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 cuts the Secure Border Initiative by more than 25 percent, and we know the Department of Homeland Security is considering the elimination of the SBInet Program with no alternative or replacement in place. The SBInet Program is a Secure Border Initiative. This is supposed to be the virtual fence that, along with boots on the ground and tactical infrastructure, are designed to help us contain and control movement of people across the border. Yet it has been cut by some 25 percent. The President's budget also cuts the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program--or the HIDA Program--by over 12 percent. The White House even wanted to make cuts--albeit modest--to the Border Patrol by about 181 agents, before those of us in Congress made clear this was simply unacceptable. Rather than cutting, we need to be growing the size of the Border Patrol and the boots on the ground. Mr. President, the amendment I intend to offer at the first opportunity--hopefully, tomorrow morning--says border security is a priority, not an afterthought. This amendment will fix six priorities to improve border security. First, it will fund additional equipment that can help protect our border, including helicopters and Predator drones. We have been fighting with the Federal Aviation Administration to try to get them to quit dragging their feet in authorizing the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol our southern border, to help the Border Patrol and other law enforcement officials do their job. We are just beginning to see some headway, but they are incredibly undersourced with the lack of helicopters and the lack of additional Predator drones. Second, my amendment will fund additional personnel in several law enforcement agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; Custom and Border Protection; and the Counterdrug units of the National Guard. The third thing my amendment will do will be to fund improvements for task forces and fusion centers that enhance interagency cooperation. Fourth, it will fund additional personnel and facilities to improve detention and removal activities under Federal law. And, fifth, it will create a $300 million grant program to assist State and local law enforcement officials who operate within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. Because the Federal Government simply hasn't done enough in terms of border security, local and State law enforcement have had to step up, and they need the additional help that this grant program will provide to those local and State law enforcement agencies operating within 100 miles of the border. Finally, my amendment will provide $100 million to fund infrastructure improvement at our ports of entry. This amendment is urgently needed, and I must add that it is fully funded. The total cost of my amendment is roughly $2 billion. This cost is fully offset using unspent stimulus funds because we know the White House predictions about the uses of those stimulus funds have been discredited. Remember, we were told if we voted for a $787 billion unfunded-- borrowed money--fund in order to get the economy moving again, unemployment would be kept to no more than 8 percent. Now, with unemployment at 9.9 percent, roughly, we know that stimulus program has been unsuccessful. Two-thirds of the American people believe, according to Rasmussen--or I believe it is a Pew poll--the stimulus funds simply have not created or helped to retain jobs. We know during the period of time the White House predicted 3\1/2\ million jobs would be saved and created that 3 million jobs have been lost or destroyed by the recession. This amendment represents a clear choice: a choice between funding the Nation's priorities, such as border security or funding the same failed stimulus strategy. It is a choice between paying for our Nation's priorities or adding more debt to our national credit card, already nearly maxed out at $13 trillion. I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and help send the message to our border communities and across our country that the Federal Government acknowledges and accepts and embraces its responsibility to help keep them and our Nation safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a couple of minutes--I know the time at 4:45 is otherwise obligated; I will be briefer than that--about President Calderon's visit to the United States, his joint session speech to Congress, and a border security amendment I intend to offer, hopefully, as soon as tomorrow. As you know, Mr. President, President Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress, and I was fortunate enough to have a very brief conversation with him in the anteroom before he came to the floor of the House, during which time I told him I admire his commitment to fight the drug cartels in Mexico. During his remarks before the Congress and to the American people, President Calderon said some things I thought were very important for all of us to hear. First of all, he said Mexico has gone ``all-in'' against the cartels--with increased commitments and personnel and equipment--and, unfortunately, is suffering significant losses and casualties in the fight. There have indeed been 23,000 Mexicans, approximately, since 2006, who have lost their lives in Mexico during these drug wars. President Calderon also reminded us that Mexico is one of our most important trading partners, primarily as a result of NAFTA--the North American Free Trade Agreement. He pointed out that Mexico has, notwithstanding its other challenges, managed to keep its budget deficit low relative to its GDP--a record of fiscal discipline that should give us some embarrassment in Washington. President Calderon acknowledged--and I think this is very important-- that the lack of economic opportunities available in Mexico are a primary cause of illegal immigration into the United States. While I admire some of the things President Calderon said, I do think he crossed a line he should not have crossed when he used this setting--a speech to a joint session of Congress and to the American people--to lecture Americans on our own State and Federal laws. For example, he criticized America's gun laws and seemed to suggest that we should somehow consider relinquishing our second amendment rights in order to help them disarm the cartels. With all due respect to President Calderon, America's second amendment rights are not a proper subject of international negotiation with Mexico or any other nation. Then President Calderon went on to criticize Arizona's immigration law last week on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue--at the White House and at the Capitol--which I also believe was inappropriate under the circumstances. There is no doubt there is fear and frustration all along the border--fear that the border violence that is raging just to the south is going to spill over into the United States, and frustration that Washington, DC--especially Congress and the President--is not doing enough about it. Arizona's law was written in response to this fear and frustration. It is important to note--and this is a key fact that needs to be corrected on the record--that the Arizona Legislature amended their law to make clear that ethnic and racial profiling by law enforcement officials is strictly prohibited. That was a necessary and important change. But it doesn't appear President Calderon or many of the critics--including the President of the United States, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security--have actually even read the 10-page bill, which you can read online if you have access to the Internet. I have found it always helps in any discussion to actually know what you are talking about, to have actually read the bill so that you can have an intelligent conversation and perhaps then differ about policies. But to misrepresent the contents of the bill, not having read it, is simply inexcusable. To be sure, a patchwork of State laws is not the optimal way to fix our broken immigration system. We need sensible reforms at the national level. I am prepared to work in good faith with anyone committed to immigration laws that make sense in terms of our national security, in terms of the restoration of the rule of law, in terms of our economy and our values. But some of the criticism of Arizona's law by the administration has been just simply misleading and counterproductive. Just last week we learned that a State Department representative--Michael Posner-- actually apologized to China for the Arizona law, saying: ``We brought it up early and often.'' Early and often in talks with one of the most repressive regimes in the world? Unbelievable. President Obama himself has set a bad example, repeatedly criticizing Arizonans for taking action while his own promises for immigration reform have gone unfulfilled. The problem raging on our southern border is that the Federal Government needs to do more to improve our border security. That is something on which we can all agree and should all agree. How bad is the situation? Well, this morning the El Paso Times reported: Mexican Federal police were attacked by a drive-by shooting during the weekend as Juarez surpassed 1,000 homicides for the year. Ciudad Juarez--within several hundred feet of the city of El Paso in the United States--has lost 1,000 people to the drug wars just this year. As I mentioned, it is estimated that 23,000 Mexicans have lost their lives in the drug wars during the last 3 years. The fear is palpable on this side of the border. I must tell you, I have never seen it quite this way. From Laredo, TX, to McAllen, TX, to El Paso--where people are accustomed to the novelty and the unique nature of our international border with Mexico, and they believe in maintaining those ties for economic and other reasons--people along the border in Texas, the longest section of the U.S.-Mexican border, are more apprehensive and concerned about what lurks just beyond the border. That fear ranges from cartels actively recruiting students in our public schools to gangs in order to help them with their drug- smuggling operations. The Border Patrol has developed ``Operation Detour'' to show our students how the cartels treat the young people they recruit. The response to this video presentation has reportedly been powerful. For example, in McAllen, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley, a 14-year-old girl made an emotional exit halfway during the presentation. She told the Border Patrol her father had recently been the victim of a cross- border abduction and her family was afraid to report the kidnapping to authorities for fear of retaliation from the cartel that took him. In Rio Grande City, TX, another city in the Rio Grande Valley, kids were crying midway through the first video because the night before a classmate had died while running drugs. Mr. President, our children are living in fear, but the White House's budget for border security shows it is living in denial. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 cuts the Secure Border Initiative by more than 25 percent, and we know the Department of Homeland Security is considering the elimination of the SBInet Program with no alternative or replacement in place. The SBInet Program is a Secure Border Initiative. This is supposed to be the virtual fence that, along with boots on the ground and tactical infrastructure, are designed to help us contain and control movement of people across the border. Yet it has been cut by some 25 percent. The President's budget also cuts the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program--or the HIDA Program--by over 12 percent. The White House even wanted to make cuts--albeit modest--to the Border Patrol by about 181 agents, before those of us in Congress made clear this was simply unacceptable. Rather than cutting, we need to be growing the size of the Border Patrol and the boots on the ground. Mr. President, the amendment I intend to offer at the first opportunity--hopefully, tomorrow morning--says border security is a priority, not an afterthought. This amendment will fix six priorities to improve border security. First, it will fund additional equipment that can help protect our border, including helicopters and Predator drones. We have been fighting with the Federal Aviation Administration to try to get them to quit dragging their feet in authorizing the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol our southern border, to help the Border Patrol and other law enforcement officials do their job. We are just beginning to see some headway, but they are incredibly undersourced with the lack of helicopters and the lack of additional Predator drones. Second, my amendment will fund additional personnel in several law enforcement agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; Custom and Border Protection; and the Counterdrug units of the National Guard. The third thing my amendment will do will be to fund improvements for task forces and fusion centers that enhance interagency cooperation. Fourth, it will fund additional personnel and facilities to improve detention and removal activities under Federal law. And, fifth, it will create a $300 million grant program to assist State and local law enforcement officials who operate within 100 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. Because the Federal Government simply hasn't done enough in terms of border security, local and State law enforcement have had to step up, and they need the additional help that this grant program will provide to those local and State law enforcement agencies operating within 100 miles of the border. Finally, my amendment will provide $100 million to fund infrastructure improvement at our ports of entry. This amendment is urgently needed, and I must add that it is fully funded. The total cost of my amendment is roughly $2 billion. This cost is fully offset using unspent stimulus funds because we know the White House predictions about the uses of those stimulus funds have been discredited. Remember, we were told if we voted for a $787 billion unfunded-- borrowed money--fund in order to get the economy moving again, unemployment would be kept to no more than 8 percent. Now, with unemployment at 9.9 percent, roughly, we know that stimulus program has been unsuccessful. Two-thirds of the American people believe, according to Rasmussen--or I believe it is a Pew poll--the stimulus funds simply have not created or helped to retain jobs. We know during the period of time the White House predicted 3\1/2\ million jobs would be saved and created that 3 million jobs have been lost or destroyed by the recession. This amendment represents a clear choice: a choice between funding the Nation's priorities, such as border security or funding the same failed stimulus strategy. It is a choice between paying for our Nation's priorities or adding more debt to our national credit card, already nearly maxed out at $13 trillion. I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and help send the message to our border communities and across our country that the Federal Government acknowledges and accepts and embraces its responsibility to help keep them and our Nation safe. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the permission of the bill manager, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and to call up amendment No. 3986.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am advised the bill is ready to be reported.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand the bill has not yet been reported, but I would like to make a few comments on my amendment. As soon as the bill is reported, I will call up the amendment more specifically. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and to call up amendment No. 3986.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I continue to have deep concerns about the legislation we are debating. I mentioned some of those concerns last week, including the bailout provisions that still effectively remain in the bill and the so-called orderly liquidation process that could give some firms special treatment outside of the Bankruptcy Code. I repeat my appreciation to Senator Sessions from Alabama for offering his amendment last week which would have corrected that. Unfortunately, it was defeated last Thursday, as most of the amendments have been. At this time, I offer another amendment that would protect the American taxpayer from bailing out foreign governments. We all know that this scene, which we saw displayed across cable television and in the newspapers, is being played out now in Greece where literally a Greek tragedy is unfolding. How did this happen? First, Greece's public debt was 115 percent of its gross domestic product, according to the International Monetary Fund. Putting that in context, according to the Congressional Budget Office report of March 2010, the public debt of the United States is currently 53 percent of our gross domestic product. However, the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper of the government, says, all else being equal--in other words, if nothing else happens--the baseline estimate for that debt in ten years will be 67.5 percent, up from 53 percent last year. Under the President's proposed budget, that number skyrockets to 90 percent of gross domestic product by 2020. While some may say here in America we are in relatively good shape because our debt is only 53 percent of our gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the President's own budget, that will soar from 53 percent of the gross domestic product to 90 percent of GDP by the year 2020, which makes that 115 percent number for Greece look not so much higher than what the American number will be come 2020. Deficits are high in Greece for the same reason they are too high in the United States--too much government and too much reckless spending. Similar to the U.S. Government, the Greek Government has been financing its operations by borrowing money. But over the last few weeks, the capital markets made clear investors--the people who buy that debt--do not trust the Greeks to be able to pay it back, hence, the need for these extraordinary bailouts by the International Monetary Fund. But, again, the comparison is unavoidable. What happens if the United States does not change its current trajectory of going to 90 percent of our gross domestic product when it comes to our debt by 2020, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office? What do we do if we continue to borrow and spend? What do we do if China, for example-- which is the primary country that buys that debt--either refuses to continue to finance our deficit spending and our debt or demands higher interest rates. What is happening now in Greece with these kinds of demonstrations I do not think it takes a great imagination to say could happen in America if we are not more responsible in dealing with our out-of- control spending, our out-of-control debt--unless we say no to the President's proposed spending budget, which would grow that to 90 percent of our gross domestic product by 2020. But back to my amendment. Why is it people are so upset about bailing out Greece, using the International Monetary Fund to do so? Well, I am referring to an article from the Associated Press entitled ``Europe bristles at paying for Greek retirement.'' Let me read a couple paragraphs: In Greece, trombone players and pastry chefs get to retire as early at 50 on grounds their work causes them late career breathing problems. Hairdressers enjoy the same perk thanks to the dyes and other chemicals they rub into people's scalps. Skipping down a couple paragraphs: Like many [European Union] countries, the general retirement age in Greece is 65, although the actual average [retirement age] is about 61. However, the deeply fragmented system also provides for early retirement--as early as 55 for men and 50 for women--in many professions classified as ``arduous and unhealthy.'' So we see why people are reluctant, to say the least, to bail out Greece because of these reckless pensions that facilitate these early retirements under the thinnest of pretenses. But we know the European Union and the International Monetary Fund recently approved a $145 billion bailout for the Greek Government. Mr. President, $40 billion of that represents loan guarantees from the International Monetary Fund. Since the United States has funded about 17 percent of the IMF's budget, our share--that is, the American taxpayers' share--of that bailout would be at least $7 billion. That is right, U.S. taxpayers are on the hook to help bail out Greece to the tune of at least $7 billion. We know a $1 trillion bailout fund is being discussed for other European nations. While the details are being discussed, once again, U.S. taxpayer funds could make their way through the International Monetary Fund to bail out irresponsible foreign governments. As CNBC reported on Tuesday: U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook for $50 billion or more as part of the European debt bailout, which is likely to be a close cousin to the strategy used to rescue the American financial system. CNBC went on to say: The entire bailout package has been nicknamed ``Le Tarp'' for its similarity to the Troubled Asset Relief Program that bailed out US companies with taxpayer-backed loans. They are calling this bailout fund Le Tarp for a reason. Once again, billions of dollars will be in the hands of government bureaucrats, and the U.S. taxpayer will be asked simply to trust those so-called experts who have let us down before and who seem to be making much of this up as they go along. It is no surprise that 63 percent of respondents to a recent Rasmussen poll have said they oppose using U.S. taxpayer funds to bail out foreign governments. I am actually surprised it is only 63 percent. American taxpayers should not be involved in bailing out foreign governments. As George Will pointed out last week in the Washington Post, Greece has a gross domestic product that is less than the Dallas- Fort Worth metropolitan area's. Greece is simply not, under any stretch of the imagination, too big to fail. If Greece defaults on its debt, then the European banks that bought the debt need do write it off. If the European governments want to bail out their banks or prop up their currency, let them do it without help from the American taxpayer. American taxpayers simply should not be involved in this process. Our first priority should be to unwind all the bailouts we have, thanks to this administration, not to create new ones overseas. Moreover, there is a good chance this Greek bailout is not even going to work; in other words, that we will not even be able to get our money back. It will not be a loan; it will be throwing more good money after bad. The chief executive of the Deutsche Bank doubts the Greeks can even repay this debt. We have all seen pictures of these protests that have continued under the ``austerity measures'' that have now been imposed that the government was forced to make in order to secure the deal. As one blogger recently put it: It was the Greeks who gave us the word for democracy. They also gave us the words for demagoguery, tyranny, crisis and chaos. That is what this photograph looks like: chaos as a result of uncontrolled spending and out-of-control debt. What we are seeing is what Robert Samuelson calls the ``Death Spiral of the [Modern] Welfare State.'' He said: ``The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy countries,'' including, I might add, the United States of America--unless we change our ways. The President of the European Council put it this way: We can't finance our social model anymore--with 1 percent structural growth we can't play a role in the world. What my amendment--which will be among the four amendments voted on when we gather again at 5:30--does is, it says the American people are tired of bailouts, and Congress should protect the American taxpayer from bailing out foreign governments, particularly when we cannot get our money back afterwards. My amendment would bring needed transparency and accountability to what the International Monetary Fund is doing with American taxpayer dollars, including the roughly $60 billion our country has already provided to the IMF over the years. Specifically, this amendment would require the administration to look more closely at any proposed IMF loan to see if that country's debt exceeds its GDP; and when it does, as Greece's does, to certify to Congress that the loan will be repaid. If the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF cannot certify to Congress that the loan will be repaid, my amendment would require the President of the United States to direct the Executive Director to vote against the bailout by the International Monetary Fund. The logic of this amendment could not be more clear: Any country that owes more money than its entire economy produces is, by definition, a very bad credit risk, and the United States should not be loaning money to such a nation, unless we are absolutely confident our taxpayers are not subsidizing failure and will ultimately get their money back. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must act quickly, so the amendment will apply to future bailouts of nations like Greece that have spent way beyond their means. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will make two points. No. 1: This amendment will help protect American taxpayers from bailouts of foreign governments. Greece is going to get $40 billion in loans from the IMF, out of which $7 billion is attributable to the contributions of the American taxpayer. They shouldn't have to do that unless we have an assurance we will be paid back. The second point is that Greece's current public debt relative to its gross domestic product is 115 percent--meaning it owes more money than its entire economy produces. Under the President's budget, in 2020, looking at the same metric for the U.S. Government--our debt will be 90 percent of our gross domestic product. If we are not careful, America will turn into Greece and need a bailout, except there won't be anybody there to bail us out, including the American taxpayer. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to speak on the underlying bill, particularly on the Sessions amendment to the bill, but let me just precede that with some more general comments. I was very concerned when I read in the most recent publication of National Affairs comments from the inspector general of TARP--appointed to oversee that program that has now gotten completely out of control. More to the point, he says what has happened since September of 2008 is that we have seen further consolidation of the banking industry. Actually, he has said what has happened is that things have actually gotten worse as a result of the several mergers that have actually made banks larger. The implicit guarantee of moral hazard that we are not going to let these large institutions fail has contributed to them engaging in more and more risky conduct. The problem with too big to fail and these large institutions, particularly large banks with assets of over $100 billion, is that they can actually borrow money cheaper than community banks in Texas or New York or Connecticut or elsewhere, and they actually represent a $34 billion subsidy to the largest 18 banks in America because this bill does nothing to eliminate the concept of too big to fail. Indeed, in many ways, it makes it worse. It institutionalizes the concept. I want to address specifically the provisions in the Dodd bill--the underlying bill--which have to do with how we deal with these large financial institutions if they get into trouble. The underlying bill empowers the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--which previously has had no experience dealing with investment banks or other companies that engage in financial transactions, other than depository banks--to seize a vast range of financial companies based on nothing more than their impression that the institution is in ``danger of default.'' Of course, we know one of the reasons we have gotten into this mess-- why Wall Street has gotten into the shape it has gotten into--is because either regulators were too close to the people they were supposed to regulate or they were asleep at the switch. If we empower the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation now to take on this new role as megaregulator in the resolution authority, it literally is going to have to run these businesses--something they are not prepared to do, something they have never done before. It will actually encourage management at the institutions that are subject to this new expanded authority of the FDIC to foster stronger relationships with the regulators, further entangling the government with the fabric of the U.S. private sector. This underlying legislation creates a resolution scheme for large complex financial institutions that allows the FDIC to serve in multiple capacities at once--as corporate management, as creditor to the corporation, and referee of the liquidation process. There is no question that in the underlying bill there are going to be enormous conflicts of interest on the part of the government agency itself when it is required to wear this many hats at the same time. The underlying bill also provides the government--and here specifically the FDIC--the authority to discriminate among creditors of the same class. All we have to do is look at what happened when the Federal Government took over General Motors, where we saw the government's $15 billion gift to labor unions to the disadvantage of the bond holders. This is the same sort of abuse that is propagated and continued in the underlying resolution authority in the bill which needs to be fixed. It needs to be changed. This underlying legislation also forces companies that are financially sound and that have done nothing wrong to contribute to a fund to bail out organizations and institutions--I should say companies--that have been irresponsible and done exactly the wrong thing. I must say I really wonder why we are rushing through this legislation so fast when the very commission that Congress has created to report back to us--the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission--is not supposed to report until December. So in the very complex and complicated area such as financial regulatory reform, we are going to be denied the very report that Congress commissioned, which is due in December, that will tell us, hopefully, how to get this done and get it done right. I think it is a terrible mistake for us to give the FDIC this incredible authority and discretion which will just alter the relationship again between the private sector and government. We have seen a tendency over the last year and a half to grow government and to basically burden the private sector in ways that cause many people to wonder whether we are still committed to a free enterprise system or whether we are going to have one government takeover after another. This legislation--particularly this resolution authority--represents something that will provide for more government intervention in the private sector without making sure ``too big to fail' comes to an end. Amendment No. 3832 I want to talk specifically about the Sessions amendment, as I said, because the Sessions amendment restores the rule of law to the resolution authority that would be granted under this bill. Under American bankruptcy law, we have an adversarial process. We have judges who are independent, we have a requirement that when you walk into bankruptcy court you actually have to swear under oath, under the penalty of perjury, that what you are saying is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I don't know why we should allow these big financial institutions that are covered by the resolution authority under the underlying bill a special set of rules. Why shouldn't they be forced to operate under the same rules--bankruptcy rules--that apply to every business that gets into financial trouble all across America today? Many scholars and policy analysts have argued convincingly that bankruptcy reform would be the most effective action Congress could take to protect against future financial panics and bailouts. There is one note I would make of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. As the Chair and my colleagues know, there was a voluminous report written by the court-appointed examiner who dissected the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy for reasons why Lehman Brothers failed. This is a 2,209-page examiner's report which documents accounting gimmicks that were used to hide the extent of Lehman's indebtedness, which was not even known to the Securities and Exchange Commission because the Securities and Exchange Commission took the position it didn't have jurisdiction to do this very sort of regulation and very sort of oversight that might have detected and prevented the meltdown of Lehman Brothers and all across Wall Street. Amazingly, Richard Fuld, chief executive of Lehman Brothers, when he was confronted with the examiner's report documenting the various maneuvers, including one known as Repo 105 transactions, said he had no knowledge of the accounting maneuvers that were used to take some of the financial obligations of Lehman Brothers off its books. So I would ask my colleagues: Don't we want this sort of transparency and accountability that comes only out of a bankruptcy-type resolution authority? Don't we want that kind of information so we can hold the people who were responsible for these huge meltdowns of our financial system accountable? I would say we must insist on that kind of accountability. Unfortunately, under the authority given to the FDIC to conduct this resolution in the Dodd bill, there will be no sort of report by court-appointed examiners such as the one that exposed Lehman Brothers' accounting gimmicks and the complete abdication of responsibility of the chief executive officer for not knowing what kind of accounting transactions were taking place and which hid a lot of their liabilities not only from him but also from examiners. We would not have that kind of information. That is another reason I believe bankruptcy provides a far superior way of handling this resolution rather than giving the FDIC--a sort of FDIC on steroids--the power to make these decisions without the kind of transparency and accountability we need. Recently, in the Wall Street Journal, a couple of professors wrote: If there were a silver bullet in financial reform, legislation would have been enacted a long time ago. There isn't, but removing the special treatment of derivatives in bankruptcy comes close. It could provide the basis for a sensible compromise on derivatives regulation while also addressing the bailout problem. That is exactly what the Sessions amendment does. With a small tweak of bankruptcy law, we could assure that everyone is going to have to play by the same rules, and when any financial institution goes bankrupt the automatic stay, which protects the court's jurisdiction to be able to sort out the creditors and debtors, can be used in an appropriate way to deal with derivatives contracts. Currently, derivatives contracts are exempted from the automatic stay, which creates a very dangerous risk of a run on the bankrupt entity's derivatives book. This could lead to a cascade effect, exacerbating systemic risk. The Sessions amendments provides for timely court supervision over any stay on derivatives contracts. Other than that, the Bankruptcy Code would apply as it does every day in bankruptcy courts across this country involving businesses both large and small. So I think the Sessions amendment provides much more transparency, much greater accountability, much more certainty, and certainly helps restore the rule of law to an otherwise discretionary authority over a Federal agency that has never exercised this kind of authority before, one that has the very real danger of perpetuating the kind of picking of winners and losers that we saw in the GM bankruptcy where the bondholders, who were supposed to be among the most secure creditors, if not the most secure, were forced to take a significant loss in favor of unions, which happened to be more active players in the political process. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Sessions amendment, which makes bankruptcy a preferable alternative to dealing with future failures of financial institutions. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know there are a number of Senators on the floor who wish to speak on unrelated matters. I wish to speak on the underlying bill. I believe Senator Whitehouse and maybe Senator McCaskill and Senator Bennet wish to speak on the hold issue. I merely ask that we alternate back and forth after the next speaker speaks on whatever subject they do and that I then be allowed to speak on the underlying bill and then go back to the other side of the aisle.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to defer to them under those circumstances and then ask to be recognized following those 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week President Obama is scheduled to visit the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Many Americans expect the President to explain his vision for human space flight in the decades ahead. I would say this vision is long overdue. One year after celebrating its 50th anniversary, as well as the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing, the White House has proposed a budget that will force NASA to abandon its historic role in space exploration. The administration has stated its intention to terminate NASA's Constellation Program, our Nation's flagship endeavor to return Americans to the Moon and beyond. After $9 billion invested over 7 years, the President would leave NASA adrift and without a mission. I hope the President will announce that he has thought better of that initial decision, and this morning I would like to take a few minutes to explain why I think he should do so. Texas is proud of our close connection with NASA's human space flight program, and we recognize how it has helped transform the greater Houston area into a high-tech leader. Johnson Space Center has helped send astronauts into space for nearly four decades. We would love for the President to visit the Johnson Space Center and see how we have helped our astronauts complete their missions and return home safely. We remember the region endured several years of challenges following the termination of the Apollo Program in 1974. We saw some of the brightest minds at the Johnson Space Center end their careers. The future of the entire industry seemed uncertain. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was recently quoted as saying: With all due respect to everybody who opposes the budget-- In other words, the cut of the Constellation Program-- a very serious and real concern is the jobs. Now, he was correct in one way: the cancellation of Constellation, combined with the retirement of the space shuttle, could cost the region as many as 7,000 direct jobs, according to the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. With all due respect to General Bolden, Texas support for human space flight is not merely based on parochial concerns. We understand the local economic impact would be nothing compared to the strategic opportunity cost for the United States of America. For one thing, the end of the Constellation Program will increase our dependence on Russia to transport Americans to the International Space Station--a space station built with billions of American taxpayer dollars. Earlier this month, NASA signed a $335 million contract with Russia that will cost our country nearly $56 million per seat on Russian spacecraft--or about $8 million more per seat than what NASA paid in 2007. So we are literally having to depend on Russia to transport American astronauts to the International Space Station. Many Americans are already concerned about this arrangement. Many Americans suspect the Russians will raise the price once the shuttle program is ended because we will be completely dependent on them to transport our astronauts. Indeed, the head of the Russian space agency recently stated his eagerness to renegotiate costs to access the International Space Station following the retirement of the space shuttle. Soon, Russia will not be the only nation to surpass the United States in human space flight. The governments of China and India have also accelerated their investments. All of these nations are investing in human space flight not only because they want their flags to be the first on Mars but also because they know those investments will generate a good return. Innovations that will help humans survive and thrive in space will likely create as many spinoff technologies in the 21st century as we saw in the first decades of the space age. If we do not incubate these life-supporting technologies here in America, our children will have no choice but to import them from other countries. Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell put it this way. He said the end of the Constellation Program ``will have catastrophic consequences on our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology.'' He said: ``They haven't thought through''--talking about the administration's proposed cut in the Constellation Program--``the consequences.'' I think that is correct. The White House has said it believes the private sector can play a larger role in space exploration, and I would say they are right--to a point. We certainly want to encourage private investment and public- private partnerships in the development of space technologies. We want to help NASA become an even better partner with aerospace entrepreneurs. Leveraging the potential of the private sector is no less an imperative in space exploration than it is in other fields of innovation. But NASA cannot pass the baton of human space flight to a runner who is still trying on its shoes. The private sector requires years of further development before it can send a human being to the Moon or compete with America's international rivals. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel--a group of independent experts created by Congress--reported in January that: No manufacturer of Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is currently qualified for human-rating requirements, despite some claims and beliefs to the contrary. The panel has warned: To abandon the [Constellation program] for an alternative without demonstrated capability or proven superiority is unwise and probably not cost effective. NASA was assigned the constellation mission for the same reason it took on Apollo: It remains the only entity in our country capable of getting the job done. So what should President Obama say when he visits the Kennedy Space Center this week? I would like to offer just a few thoughts. First, I hope President Obama would recognize the tremendous uncertainty his administration has created by proposing to end the Constellation Program without identifying a viable alternative. Second, he should make clear that Congress has the last word on the Constellation Program--which we do--and that NASA will follow the current law during this fiscal year and every year Congress continues to fund the program. Third, I hope he would articulate a clear vision for the future of human space flight in our country, and that vision would include a clear exploration mission, a timeline, goals, and a destination. And I hope his vision would include a new commitment to the Constellation Program, which remains America's best bet to ensure America's continued leadership in human space exploration. Fourth, I hope he would make a budget request that will fund this vision and that it will carefully be aligned with this exploration plan. Just yesterday, a number of American heroes made clear what a vision for American space flight should look like. More than two dozen former astronauts and flight directors, as well as a former NASA Administrator, wrote an open letter to the President. They wrote, in part: America's greatness lies in her people: she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. America's challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. NASA must continue [to be] at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. I hope President Obama listens to those words. I hope the President listens to Congress, which has given broad bipartisan support to the Constellation Program over many years. And I hope he listens to the millions of Americans who understand that human space flight represents our Nation's future, not merely its past. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this amendment would ensure that health care reform costs are lowered by this piece of legislation. If independent actuaries for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cannot certify that this health care reform legislation lowers national health expenditures, this bill will not go into effect. I reserve the remainder of my time before the vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment will lower the deficit while attacking the scourge of fraud and waste in our Medicaid Program. The $3.4 trillion Medicaid Program is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, and improper repayment rates that range roughly in the 10- percent range for the Nation. Some States and some cities are even worse. In Washington, DC, 19.3 percent of Medicaid payments are classified by Health and Human Services as improper payments. In Oregon, one out of every five people on Medicaid is not even eligible to be on Medicaid. That is 20 percent. This amendment takes the $434 billion that we are putting into the health care coverage, much of it in Medicaid, and it provides a financial incentive for the States to reduce their improper payment rates. Since the Medicaid expansion does not go into effect until 2014, this provides a more than adequate period of time for the States to comply with bringing their improper payment rates down under Medicaid and thus to avoid any penalty under this amendment. I ask my colleagues for their consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if you raise taxes enough and if you cut Medicare enough, you might be able to claim, through phony bookkeeping, that somehow this cuts the deficit. The administration's own actuaries have concluded this law will raise health care costs. That is why it is important we pass this amendment, so that the central purpose of this legislation--to bend the cost curve down--is actually realized. I urge colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3712, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3698 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Is there time remaining?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending motions and amendments so I may offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, my amendment is a motion to commit the reconciliation bill back to the Finance Committee to report the bill back without a brandnew tax on savings and investment for certain taxpayers. This is an additional 3.8-percent tax on savings, which includes dividends, capital gains, ordinary savings for many consumers, many Americans who have not had to pay before but which this bill imposes. This is a $123 billion tax hike on those categories of income. This is a mistake for a lot of reasons. One, it will discourage the very thing we need to be doing more of, which is saving. It will reduce productivity, and it depresses wages and the standard of living for millions of Americans. Simply put, increasing taxes, particularly during a recession, on the very sectors of the economy that we want to invest and to create jobs is a terrible mistake. According to forecasts by the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a 2.9-percent tax increase--not 3.8 percent but a 2.9- percent previously proposed--would depress economic growth by 1.3 percent and reduce capital formation by 3.4 percent. The damage to jobs and economic growth during a recession when unemployment is at 9.7 percent would be even greater under the current proposal because we are talking about a 3.8-percent tax, not a 2.9- percent tax, which was the subject of a Wall Street Journal article and this report from the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. Not only will this motion protect jobs and the investment security of taxpayers, it will also make sure the reconciliation bill does not break yet another one of President Obama's promises. This is just another one of the President's promises that have been broken by this bill when he said, talking about this bill: Everyone in America--everyone--will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. But the truth is, this additional tax on savings and investment will make taxes higher than they were even back in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. I ask my colleagues to support my motion to commit this bill to the Finance Committee. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks two articles--a March 17 Wall Street Journal article entitled ``ObamaCare's Worst Tax Hike'' and the report I referred to a moment ago from the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this is not the only job-killing provision in this bill, this brandnew 3.8 percent tax increase that will attack savings and investment. Other examples of job-killing proposals in this bill include increasing the hospital insurance payroll tax. This tax is increased to 3.8 percent. It will hit thousands of small businesses that file as subchapter S corporations and pay taxes at individual rates. In addition, this revenue will not be used to pay for Medicare but will be used to fund a brandnew entitlement. Another job-killing proposal in this bill includes new taxes and fees on health care consumers. That is right, the very people for whom we are trying to lower costs and trying to make health care more affordable, many will have to pay additional taxes and fees to the tune of $100 billion which both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee have confirmed will inevitably be passed down to consumers. Then there are the higher premiums for individuals who do not get their health coverage from their employer but have to go into the group market. We are talking about a lot of small businesses, individuals, partnerships, sole proprietors, and the like. One consulting firm concluded that premiums in the group market could go up as much as 20 percent because of the mandated, government-approved insurance that has to be sold under this bill. CBO said they concluded a somewhat lower level--between 10 and 13 percent. But still, if the purpose of health care reform is to make health care more affordable, this bill simply goes in the wrong direction. Then there is the employer mandate. I met this morning with representatives of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The Hispanic Chamber told me something I knew before but reiterated--the important role of small businesses in terms of job creation--and pointed out to me how many Hispanics and minority business owners are engaged in the very kind of job creation we should be encouraging, not discouraging. This employer mandate will kill jobs because the additional cost of health insurance will be passed along to workers in the form of lower wages or result in reduced hours or layoffs. In a July 2009 report entitled ``Effects of Changes to the Health Care Insurance System on Labor Markets,'' the CBO concluded that the employer mandate is ``likely to reduce employment.'' At a time when unemployment is at 9.7 percent, people are losing their jobs, and they cannot pay their mortgages, so they are being kicked out of their homes due to foreclosure, we are making things worse with this bill, not better. All told, this bill that has been signed into law by the President and the bill before the Senate, this reconciliation bill, include more than $500 billion in tax increases. It makes no sense, except in the rarefied air under this dome, for Congress to even consider raising taxes, imposing new mandates on employers and individuals at a time when unemployment is so high and when that is the most pressing issue confronting the Nation today. Congress is making this worse, not better. Why Congress would pass a new tax on investment that will act like a wet blanket on the economy to further exacerbate unemployment and make recovery harder is, frankly, beyond me. Madam President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 17, 2010] ObamaCare's Worst Tax Hike The forced march to pass ObamaCare continues, and all that matters now is raw politics. But opponents should go down swinging, and that means exposing such policy debacles as President Obama's 11th-hour decision to apply the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax to ``unearned income.'' That's what savings and investment income are called in Washington, and this destructive tax wasn't in either the House or Senate bills, though it may now become law with almost no scrutiny. For the first time, the combined employer-worker 2.9% Medicare rate would be extended beyond wages to interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties and rents for individuals with adjusted gross income above $200,000 and joint filers over $250,000. That would lift the top capital-gains rate to 22.9% as the regular rate bounces back to 20% from 15% when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. The top rate for dividends would rise to 42.5% when the Bush income-tax rates expire. The White House plan also raises the ordinary Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage points for the same filers, bringing it to 3.8%. Preliminary estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation peg the revenue from these changes at $183.6 billion over 10 years. The Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution estimates that 86% of the revenue from the investment tax would come from people making more than $624,000, or about 1.2 million taxpayers. This has led many liberals to claim that it won't matter to investors or harm the economy. Yet these static analyses ignore the incentive effects forecast by the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. Stephen Entin and colleagues estimates that the investment tax would depress GDP by about 1.3% and reduce capital formation by 3.4%, and thus reduce the after-tax incomes of everyone not paying the tax directly in the neighborhood of 1.1% to 1.2%. Labor productivity and wages would fall across the board, while the lost government revenues from the more-sluggish economy would offset the expected receipts. Senate Democrats rejected Nancy Pelosi's favored 5.4- percentage-point ``surcharge'' on modified adjusted gross income above $1 million as too radical. But they seem to be fine with its 2.9-percentage-point alter ego, although the Tax Policy Center concludes (on paper) that they'll soak more or less the same people for more or less the same amount. Earning even a single dollar more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income will slap the 2.9% tax on every dollar of a taxpayer's investment income, creating a huge marginal-rate spike that will most hurt middle-class earners, as opposed to the superrich. This two-tier tax also fundamentally and probably irrevocably alters the social insurance model that has governed Medicare for more than a half-century. Medicare is supposed to be a universal entitlement with at least some connection between the taxes paid on wages in return for benefits. The investment tax, and the apparatus of ObamaCare financing more generally, severs this link by redirecting Medicare's ``dedicated'' revenues toward a new entitlement. Even Bill Clinton didn't cross this policy threshold in the health debate of the early 1990s, proposing to fund HillaryCare entirely through new corporate taxes and preserving Medicare as its own discrete program. Mr. Obama gave a preview of the fiscal confusion this creates at a Wednesday campaign stop in St. Charles. Shortly after accusing his critics of being ``just plain wrong'' about everything, he went on to boast that ``we're going to be able to help ensure Medicare's solvency for an additional decade'' and also ``reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.'' Yet his claims are just plain wrong, as already exposed by the Congressional Budget Office. The government can't spend the same Medicare dollar twice: Either it can reduce the deficit or extend the life of Medicare, but not both. This may seem an arcane point, but the White House obviously knows better and yet continues to peddle this falsehood. The White House has embraced this investment tax because Big Labor opposed its preferred excise tax on high-cost health plans. So the White House decided to delay the excise tax, which meant losing $116.2 billion in revenue over the first 10 years. Voila, out came the 2.9% investment tax. So for reasons of political expediency, Democrats will now impose a destructive tax that will permanently skew the incentives to work, save and create jobs. Come to think of it, that sums up this entire exercise.