John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, mine is a motion to commit the reconciliation bill back to the Finance Committee to report the bill back without the brandnew, whopping 3.8 percent tax on investment and savings. This is a $123 billion mistake. It will discourage savings and investment and decrease the standard of living for millions of Americans. Simply put, increasing taxes on investment income and savings income is a job killer. It is just one of many job-killing provisions of this bill, $100 billion of new taxes and fees on health care consumers, an employer mandate that will kill jobs. My motion will also make sure the bill does not break another one of the President's promises when he pledged that everyone in America will pay lower taxes than they would under the rates Bill Clinton had in the 1990s. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I think the Senator explained it very clearly. Put in this larger context, can you imagine being asked to cast a career- ending vote because the people in your district hate this bill. Yet you are following Speaker Pelosi's instructions to vote for it and defying the wishes of your constituents. Can you imagine doing it in the context where there is so little certainty as to the outcome because of this reconciliation process and the Byrd rule and the points of order we have talked about. Put that also in the larger context that the Senator mentioned of the deeming of the bill passed. I think that is clearly unconstitutional. Have you ever heard of a bill becoming law that wasn't passed by the House and the Senate? There have been legal scholars who have written this is clearly unconstitutional. I imagine there is going to be months, perhaps years, of litigation, possibly even going to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging this bizarre ``Alice in Wonderland'' procedure known as deeming the bill passed. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I have heard this process whereby the House is going to deem the Senate bill passed and then pass a reconciliation bill which will then be sent over to the Senate as Speaker Pelosi is asking Members of the House to hold hands and jump off a political cliff, hoping the Senate will catch them by passing the reconciliation bill unaltered or just in the same form that it passed the House. But is it not true that complications arise in section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act because of the Byrd rule? We have heard a lot of talk about the Byrd rule, what points of order might be appropriate in the Senate. I wonder if the Senator--he touched on this a moment ago--would explain, with 41 Senators agreeing to sustain all points of order in the Senate, how many different holes can be punched in the reconciliation bill passed by the House when points of order are sustained. The Senator from New Hampshire mentioned the Cadillac tax. I note that the president of AFL-CIO was visiting with President Obama at the White House on Wednesday seeking further reassurances that the tax on the Cadillac plans would be deferred, and presumably that would be part of the reconciliation bill. Can the Senator from New Hampshire explain what kind of jeopardy the Byrd rule and points of order call into play that would make it unlikely that the President's promise to defer the tax on union Cadillac plans could pass the Senate?

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will allow me another question to clarify a point he made, and then certainly turn to the Senator from South Dakota, the point of order we are talking about, is it true that under section 313(B)(1)(F), that provision, that specific provision could drop out of the bill, but under a separate point of order under section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act, it could literally bring down the entire bill? Is that a correct reading of the Congressional Budget Act?

Mr. CORNYN. Following up with what the Senator from New Hampshire is saying by ``being sold a bill of goods,'' is he suggesting the leadership in the House and Speaker Pelosi are guaranteeing to House Members that the bill they pass--the reconciliation bill--will pass the Senate intact and, thus, they will have political cover from their constituents who don't like this bill, but they will be able to shape and affect the final outcome? Is the Senator from New Hampshire suggesting that because the 41 Senators who have said we will vote against waiving any budget points of order, that there will either be holes punched in that reconciliation bill that will make it impossible for the Speaker to keep her promise to the House Members ultimately or that it will bring down the bill entirely? Is that what the Senator is saying when he talks about selling them a bill of goods?

Mr. CORNYN. That is particularly true of the promise the President has apparently made to union leadership to defer the application of a Cadillac tax--the excise tax on Cadillac health insurance plans. That promise, as the promise to televise the negotiations and pass the bill on C-SPAN; the promise that if you have a policy you like, you can keep it; the promise that the bill would not raise taxes and the like; that would be another promise that would not be kept--that promise would be broken?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Taiwan is a steadfast ally in a very turbulent region of the world. On January 29, the State Department approved a $6.4 billion arms package to Taiwan that includes 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Harpoon antiship training missiles, and Osprey-class minehunter ships. I am pleased that the administration is taking this important step toward fulfilling the United States' commitment to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act, TRA, which requires us to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' However, despite the billions of dollars worth of weapons involved in this sale, it represents little more than a half step in providing Taiwan the defensive arms that it needs--and that we are obligated by law to provide it--to protect itself against rapidly increasing air- and sea-based threats from China. What Taiwan has repeatedly requested--and what was not in the arms package--are new fighter aircraft. Since 2006, the Taiwanese have made clear their desire to purchase 66 F-16 C/Ds to augment an air fleet that is bordering on obsolescence. On April 22, 2009, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou reiterated Taiwan's commitment to request the F-16C/Ds from the Obama Administration. And, in a December 29, 2009, letter to Senate and House leaders, members of Taiwan's Parliament stated, ``Though economic and diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China's Communist Party are improving, we face a significant threat from the People's Liberation Army Air Force. Our military must be able to defend our airspace as a further deterioration in the air balance across the Strait will only encourage PRC aggression.'' On January 21, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, completed a report on the current condition of Taiwan's air force. This formal assessment was required under a provision that I authored in the fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, which received bipartisan support. The report's findings are grim. The unclassified version of the report concludes that, although Taiwan has an inventory of almost 400 combat aircraft, ``far fewer of these are operationally capable.'' It states that Taiwan's 60 U.S.-made F-5 fighters have already reached the end of their operational service, that its 126 locally produced Indigenous Defense Fighter aircraft lack ``the capability for sustained sorties,'' and that its 56 French-made Mirage 2000-5 fighter jets ``require frequent, expensive maintenance'' while lacking required spare parts. Furthermore, the report found that although some of Taiwan's 146 F-16 A/Bs may receive improvements to enhance avionics and combat effectiveness, the ``extent of the upgrades, and timing and quantity of aircraft is currently unknown.'' In the past, what has kept Taiwan free and allowed its democracy and free enterprise system to flourish has been a qualitative technological advantage in military hardware over Chinese forces. In simple terms, it would have been too costly for Beijing to contemplate an attack on Taiwan. This in and of itself created a stabilizing effect that promoted dialogue and negotiations. Yet due to the massive, nontransparent increase in China's defense spending, the past 10 years have seen a dramatic erosion in this cornerstone of Taiwan's defense strategy. A gauge of how quickly this tide has turned can be found in the Department of Defense's Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China. The 2002 version of this report concluded that Taiwan ``has enjoyed dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan Strait for many years.'' The DOD's 2009 Report now states this conclusion no longer holds true. Taiwanese defense officials have also recognized this alarming trend, predicting that, in the coming decade, they will completely lose their qualitative edge. Beijing will have an advantage in both troops and arms. This imminent reality holds critical consequences for both our ally Taiwan and the United States. If China becomes emboldened, it might be tempted to try to take Taiwan through outright aggression or cow Taiwan into subservience through intimidation. How would the U.S. react in the face of Chinese belligerence towards Taiwan? Would we deploy our ships and aircraft to ward off Chinese aggression? Would we decide to counter force with force? These are difficult and tough questions, and the soundest policy option is to ensure they never have to be answered. We know a Taiwan that is properly defended and equipped will raise the stakes for China, and that would serve as the best defense against belligerent acts. Strategically, assisting Taiwan in maintaining a robust defense capability will help keep the Taiwan Strait stable. We should remember that, in 1996, Beijing rattled its Chinese saber and launched ballistic missiles off Taiwan's coast and initiated amphibious landing training exercises. This prompted President Clinton to dispatch two carrier battle groups as a show of strength. President Ma recently commented on the latest weapons sale by stating, ``The more confidence we have and the safer we feel, the more interactions we can have with mainland China. The new weapons will help us develop cross-strait ties and ensure Taiwan maintains a determined defense and effective deterrence.'' During the Reagan years, we knew this common-sense strategy as ``Peace Through Strength.'' The benefits of an F-16 sale to Taiwan are not limited to national security--this sale also stands to benefit the American economy during a difficult period. The F-16, one of the world's finest tactical aircraft, is proudly assembled in Fort Worth, TX. The overall production effort involves hundreds of suppliers and thousands of workers across the United States. The sale of 66 aircraft to Taiwan would be worth approximately $4.9 billion and guarantee U.S. jobs for years to come. The ripple effects of this sale through our economy would be significant, especially for workers in states where the recession has hit hard. This sale will also be a shot in the arm to America's defense industrial base, where constructing and equipping the F-16 means high-paying jobs for Americans. The Obama administration has indicated that it intends to further review Taiwan's request for F-16s. Yet, the time for a decision regarding this sale draws near, and this review cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Taiwan needs these F-16 C/D aircraft now. What's more, the F-16 production line is approaching its end, after having manufactured these world-class aircraft for decades and having equipped 25 nations with more than 4,000 aircraft. If hard orders are not received for Taiwan's F-16s this year, the U.S. production line will likely be forced to start shutting down. Once the line begins closing, personnel will be shifted to other programs, inventory orders will be cancelled, and machine tools will be decommissioned. When the F-16 line eventually goes ``cold,'' it is not realistic to expect that it would be restarted. At the same time, through economic and diplomatic threats, China has effectively cut off all other countries from selling arms to Taiwan. In the months leading up to the administration's recent arms sales announcement, the administration took great pains to telegraph to Beijing their intention that the sale would provide only defensive arms to Taiwan. Nevertheless, China has responded to the sale by threatening U.S. companies, cancelling high-level meetings with U.S. officials, and launching verbal assaults against our country. Beijing's blustering is clearly intended to intimidate the United States and dissuade us from selling new F-16s to Taiwan. This is unacceptable. The United States must not allow Beijing to dictate the terms of any future U.S. arms sales or other support for Taiwan. President Ma and Taiwan parliamentarians have been clear and direct in their request for these aircraft. It is my hope that they will redouble their efforts here in Congress, as well as with the administration, to make the case and demonstrate the urgent need for the sale of these F-16C/Ds. This is a telling moment for the Obama administration. Our allies are watching carefully, and so are our potential adversaries. Without question, the path of least resistance for the administration would be to not move forward with the sale of F- 16s, under the guise of continued analysis of the proposal. Then, once the F-16 production line had shut down, the proposed sale would be a moot issue for the administration. However, that path would ultimately leave Taiwan--and U.S. interests in the region--dangerously exposed. The sale of these F-16s to Taiwan would send a powerful message that the U.S. will stand by our allies, both in the Taiwan Strait and in other parts of the world. I urge the President to move forward expeditiously with the sale of F-16s to Taiwan. I hope he will do so, and I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this sentiment.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act with respect to the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. About 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about Texas Independence Day. On this day in 1836, delegates from 59 Texas settlements signed a declaration of their right to live in liberty, and to take charge of their own destiny. The document they produced shares much in common with the Declaration signed in Philadelphia six decades earlier. For example, both sets of Founders believed in fundamental human rights, including the right to address their government for grievances. Both groups of Founders insisted on the obligation to change their form of government if it trampled on those rights. Both groups of Founders created new nations and have been honored by successive generations for creating legacies of liberty. Of course, there were differences between the conventions of 1776 and 1836, between Philadelphia and Washington-on-the-Brazos. For one thing, the Texans took action quickly. They adopted their declaration on the second day of their convention. They acted quickly because they knew the forces of tyranny were already in the field and at that moment were trying to crush their freedoms. Less than 200 miles to the west, Santa Anna's army was laying siege to the Alamo. Its young commander, William Barret Travis, had sent out an inspiring letter 6 days earlier. In it he wrote: Fellow citizens and compatriots, I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. The enemy has demanded a surrender. . . . otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword. . . . I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender or retreat. History tells us that death came to the defenders of the Alamo. But soon victory came for the people of Texas. On April 21 of that year, Sam Houston and about 900 Texas soldiers defeated the much larger Mexican army at the battle of San Jacinto. By this victory, Texans won the independence they had declared less than 2 months earlier. Sam Houston, the commander of those troops and commander in chief of the battle at San Jacinto, served as a Congressman from Tennessee, he served as Governor of Tennessee, and after the battle of San Jacinto, he went on to be elected to the Republic of Texas and became one of the first Texans to serve in the Senate in the seat I currently occupy. I believe that he and the other founders of our Republic and of our great State would be proud of the 24 million Americans who call Texas home. They would be proud that Texas remains a land of opportunity, and that we are outperforming the Nation in job creation. They would be proud of the fact that Texas remains a welcoming State for pioneers of all stripes, and we have led the Nation in population growth over the last 2 years, as people have voted with their feet and moved to the land of opportunity, otherwise known as Texas. They would be proud that even during a severe recession we continue to build businesses, raise families, and make our communities even better places to live. Just like the founding generation, we are showing the world that, when faced with adversity, Texans do not retreat, we reload. In honor of the founders of the Republic of Texas, and all who are free because of their vision and sacrifice, I say: God bless Texas and may God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was not on the floor after the vote last night, but I did get a chance to read some of the transcript of the back-and-forth between Senator Bunning and Senator Durbin and others. I understand that Senator Durbin retained the floor for the most part and yielded for questions, but basically the procedure denied Senator Bunning and Senator Corker, who I know also weighed in, an opportunity to explain precisely what was going on. I have seen some news reports this morning that have suggested that because of the objection to more deficit spending in order to pay for this temporary extension of benefits--that this was an unreasonable thing to do, to actually insist that Congress pay for benefits it is providing. I would like to put it in a little bit of context. I think if there are two things that are causing the lack of approval of the American people of Congress these days it boils down to two things. One is a lack of fiscal discipline, and the second is a complete lack of credibility whatsoever when it comes to fiscal matters. Let me give one example. Pay-go, the so-called pay-as-you-go requirement that was passed about 2 weeks ago, in the jobs bill that was passed earlier this week, $15 billion, the Senate voted to waive those pay-as-you-go rules that it passed 2 weeks ago and the President signed into law with great fanfare. But the problem goes further than that. It is not just the Senate being unwilling to live by the very law that it passed 2 weeks earlier and was signed by the President. It is the illusion of fiscal responsibility. Let me tell you what I mean by that. For example, within the pay-go requirement itself, I think most Americans would be surprised to learn that discretionary spending, which is about a third of the Federal budget, is exempted completely. In other words, the senior Senator from New Hampshire frequently calls this the Swiss cheese pay-go because it is so full of holes, it is not what it would otherwise appear to be, and you can see why, if it exempts discretionary spending. Nor does pay-go apply to current entitlement spending--baseline. For example, many of us talked about the $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Medicare itself which is not fixed, which was actually made worse by the health care proposals which have been made by the President most recently and which passed the Senate on Christmas Eve. The pay-go rules don't even apply to current entitlement spending. So under the rules that give the illusion of fiscal responsibility but not the reality, entitlement spending can continue to grow 6 percent annually. Suffice it to say as well that the problem the majority leader just got through talking about, which is the inability to pass these benefits because they are not paid for, is really a product of his own creation. You recall a couple of weeks ago Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley were working on a large jobs bill, which was a bipartisan bill, which was rejected in its entirety by the majority leader in favor of a partisan bill. He did not allow any amendments, did not allow any other suggestions. That was the very jobs bill that was passed by waiving the pay-go requirement. All the Senator from Kentucky has asked for is that we do what every American family has to do and what every small business has to do; that is, be honest in our accounting of the public's money and to not continue a sham, which is to pretend as if we are being fiscally responsible when, in fact, we are not--by waiving the requirements, by creating the perception or patina of fiscal responsibility with these pay-go rules but which are so fraught with exceptions that they really do not mean what they are sometimes represented to be. We know there is broad bipartisan support for the legislation that is pending before this body. All the Senator from Kentucky has asked for is that it be paid for, that we not add $10 billion more to the Federal deficit. That is on top of the roughly $1.6 trillion that already exists. That is just the deficit. That is not dealing with the unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government. I am advised that there is about $100 billion left in discretionary spending from the stimulus bill that was passed the first part of last year--$100 billion. Using those funds, using $10 billion of that to pay for this extension of jobless and other benefits does not seem like an unreasonable request at all. It does raise the question, again, of whether Congress is continuing to say one thing and do another. I remember when we talked about the stimulus funds that it was advertised as being targeted, timely, and temporary. We know it was none of those things because now there is still $100 billion left in discretionary spending here a year later, along with the TARP which is used as sort of a revolving charge account by Congress--again, more deficit spending. This has been anything but fiscal responsibility when it comes to doing the people's business here in the Congress. If there is one message I hear from my constituents in Texas and other people around the country it is this: Stop the spending and be responsible when it comes to these unmet liabilities, whether they be annual deficits or when it comes to unfunded Federal liabilities. But while Congress purports to be fiscally responsible on a number of fronts, you see small bills such as this benefits extension, not paid for, $10 billion a clip, which continue to add up, and pass the burden of paying for that on to our children and grandchildren, because that is what they are going to inherit, huge deficits, huge unfunded Federal liabilities, that they are going to pay for, not the present generation. That is not right. I want to say I admire the courage of the junior Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. It is not fun to be accused of having no compassion for the people who are out of work, the people for whom these benefits should be forthcoming, and I believe will be forthcoming. But somebody has to stand up finally and say enough is enough: No more intergenerational theft from our children and grandchildren by not meeting our responsibilities today. That is what I interpret him to have done. If the majority leader and the majority wanted to have this taken care of, they could have had it done in the Baucus-Grassley bipartisan bill that the majority leader shelved in favor of his partisan jobs bill. I anticipate that next week when we do take up further legislation, we will take care of these requirements that are now being objected to because of deficit spending. That is appropriate. But I hope, unlike this current proposal, we will do the right thing by the American people and by our children and grandchildren and not borrow or, probably more correctly stated, steal from future generations. We will meet our responsibilities by making sure that any legislation we pass is paid for by an offset, unlike the current bill that has been objected to. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as are many of us, I have been watching with great interest the bipartisan health care summit that is being broadcast on television. I am happy there is a bipartisan meeting at the White House to discuss health care reform. The practicalities are that only 38 of the 535 Members of Congress can participate directly in the summit, but I know that representatives of our political parties are there, along with the President. They are talking about something that is very near and dear to all of our hearts, and that is how to bring down the costs of health care which is priced out of the reach of many of the American people, including too many in my State of Texas. Unfortunately, sometimes in Washington what happens is, you see what is happening on TV or what is happening on the floor of the Senate, and it looks like one thing. Then you find out that behind the scenes something very different is happening. What I am speaking about in particular is, in contrast to a bipartisan summit on health care, my understanding is there are efforts underway on the part of the staff of the majority party to consider the use of reconciliation to try to pass an unpopular health care bill with 51 votes on a party-line basis. I think that contrast between what people are seeing on TV and what is actually happening behind the scenes is pretty telling. I would say it is disappointing because I think health care reform is too important. It affects one-sixth of our economy. It affects 300 million Americans. It is simply too significant a step to take to try to do so strictly along partisan party lines. So while it is true that reconciliation has been used in the past, it has never been used for anything such as this. This would be unprecedented. I think it would be an act of defiance toward the American people who overwhelmingly disapprove of this legislation. There is no doubt that we need health care reform. Premiums have more than doubled over the last decade. Medicare, which provides access to health care for our seniors, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability which translates into an IOU for every American family in the amount of $325,000. If we heard anything out of the recent election in Massachusetts, I think it is that the American people think there is too much spending and too much borrowing taking place in Washington, DC; too many responsibilities, such as this unfunded Medicare liability, that are simply not being met. We know Medicaid continues to be problematic in not providing access to enough low-income people who are ostensibly beneficiaries of Medicaid. In the Metroplex in Texas, Dallas-Fort Worth, only 38 percent of doctors will see a new Medicaid patient because reimbursement rates are so low. That is not keeping the promise of access. It is, unfortunately, too much like appearing to do one thing on the one hand and actually delivering something far different on the other hand. I think everyone agrees we need to solve these important problems. But how we go about solving the problem is important to maintaining the confidence and trust of the American people. I think bipartisanship on this subject is absolutely crucial. After Massachusetts sent our newest Senator, Scott Brown, to Washington, we know there was more talk about bipartisanship. But instead of working together to solve these problems, bipartisanship has so often translated into: Take it or leave it; if we can do this strictly with a majority party vote, we will. That is what happened on Christmas Eve. I remember that 7 a.m. vote on Christmas Eve when 60 Senators on the other side voted to pass a health care bill that the American people have simply said in poll after poll they do not want. Of course, now we see the White House repackaging an unpopular House bill with an unpopular Senate bill and posting 11 pages on the White House Web site and claiming this is somehow a package that is sacrosanct and cannot be touched. But in no sense could it possibly be considered a bipartisan piece of legislation. To only let the majority party say: Well, this is the basic template, and you can tweak it around the edges but you cannot change any part of it--that is not bipartisanship. So now after the election of Senator Scott Brown, who campaigned on the pledge that he would be the 41st vote to defeat the Senate health care bill because of its spending, its raising taxes, and its raising premiums on people with insurance, its taking $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare--already another fiscally unsustainable entitlement program, with $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities--to create yet another entitlement program, the people of Massachusetts sent Senator Scott Brown here to stop the health care bill that they don't want. Now we find the majority party wanting to use reconciliation, a hyperpartisan tactic, to ram a bill through that the American people have rejected, most recently in Massachusetts. If we are talking about trying to regain the public's confidence, not only is bipartisanship important in terms of bringing solutions to health care but transparency is crucial when we are talking about something so big that affects so many. You will remember in 2008 when President Obama was Senator Obama running for President of the United States, he promised to broadcast negotiations on C-SPAN for the American people to see who was arguing on their behalf and who was not. In stark contrast, again, between what was said then and what was actually done, we saw the White House cutting deals with special interest groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry. We saw individual Senators demand and get special deals for their States as a condition to giving their votes to pass that bill. As much as anything else in the bill, I think the way the bill was passed with the sweetheart deals, secret negotiations, and lack of transparency turned the American people off to these health care bills. I know the President said that after his election Washington would not be business as usual. Unfortunately, it has been, and the American people don't like it. This subject--health care reform--is too big and too important and too costly to do through sweetheart deals, backroom negotiations, and with utter disregard for transparency. The American people are smarter than I think many folks in Washington, DC, give them credit for because they know this health care proposal is not lasting reform, and it simply would not work as advertised. The White House proposal will still increase premiums on American families; that is, if you have health insurance now, this White House proposal, an amalgam of the Senate and House bills, will raise your insurance premiums because of costly Federal Government mandates. But this White House bill does one thing the Senate bill did not. It actually spends $75 billion more than the Senate bill that passed this body on Christmas Eve, at 7 a.m. The White House bill does share some common elements with the Senate proposal. It still cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare to create a new entitlement program, including a program that is very popular in my State called Medicare Advantage, which gives seniors access to more choices and the quality care they like. Rather than allow them to continue to keep that Medicare benefit, this proposal, the White House bill--like the Senate bill--would cut $500 billion from Medicare, including Medicare Advantage. The basic problem, again, is that we call this ``health care reform,'' but the health care bill offers no long-term plan for the Medicare Program's solvency--in other words, that $38 trillion I mentioned a moment ago. This actually makes it worse by taking another $\1/2\ trillion out of Medicare and makes things worse, not better, when it comes to the program's long-term solvency. I simply think the choice the President has made, and that the Senate and House health care bills have made, to force millions of low-income people onto Medicaid is simply not right, giving them no choices but a government- run program which, as I mentioned earlier, denies them access too many times to a doctor because they cannot find a doctor who will see patients and accept government rates for Medicaid reimbursements. I mentioned the 38-percent figure in the Metroplex of Dallas-Fort Worth. Only 38 percent of the doctors there will see these patients because of the rates. Yet these health care bills force millions of people onto that program along with, in the process, promising them access to care but then not delivering as advertised. Then there is this problem. As you know, the Medicaid Program--the cost of that is borne by the Federal Government and the State governments. In my State alone, the health and human services commission in Texas estimates that the expansion of Medicaid under the President's proposal will cost Texas taxpayers an additional $24.3 billion over the next 10 years. That $24.3 billion is an unfunded mandate that is contained in this bill. Where does that money come from? Well, too often--I think some of our former Governors will tell you that what happens is, that is money that has to be used for an unfunded mandate from the Federal Government that comes from education, higher education budgets, law enforcement budgets, and other State priorities. It is simply irresponsible for Congress to force on State taxpayers this responsibility to pay for this unfunded mandate when there are other priorities the States have chosen that they think are important--things such as education, as I mentioned, and law enforcement. The unfunded mandate in this bill is simply unacceptable. The Wall Street Journal summed up the President's proposal this way: It manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. . . . It includes more taxes, more subsidies, and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them--but by expanding them to everyone. We know the furor it caused across the country when some Senators were able to negotiate more favorable Medicaid reimbursements than the rest of the country and when everybody found out those who were not in those favored States would end up paying for those special favors that were necessary in order to get 60 votes. This bill doesn't repeal those; it simply expands them to everybody, vastly increasing the cost of this legislation and making it even worse, not better. The President and his congressional allies who support this legislation seem to think the only reason the American people oppose these bills is ``misinformation.'' I suggest we simply look at the facts--in this case straight from the Congressional Budget Office--and see what they, the official scorekeeper for Congress, have to say about these pieces of legislation. The CBO said premiums for those who have health insurance of some kind--85 percent of the American people--whether it is through government programs like Medicare, the VA, or the like, but those who have private insurance, their premiums will go up by 10 to 13 percent or an average of $2,100 for families buying policies on their own. That is in the individual market where most small businesses and individuals have to shop for their insurance. Their health insurance premiums will go up an average of $2,100 a family or 10 to 13 percent. No wonder the more people learn about this legislation the less popular it becomes, and individuals who get health care through small businesses or larger employers, which is 83 percent of Americans, will see the status quo. They will see their premiums continue to increase by 5 to 6 percent a year. I thought health care reform was about bringing down the cost and making it more affordable, ``bending the cost curve,'' to use the jargon that has been used here time after time over the last year and a half. But we find out that for those in the individual market, premiums will go up 10 to 13 percent. For those in the larger employer market, it will go up 5 to 6 percent. It will not bend the cost curve down. It will either be ineffective at all and keep premiums basically where they would have been anyway or it will make it worse. Then there is the gamesmanship in how it deals with the budget deficit. Here is what CBO said about the bill's impact on the budget deficit: Washington budget gimmicks allow the White House to pretend the bills reduce the deficit by $132 billion, which is a fraction of Washington's $1.3 trillion budget deficit. Americans don't believe ``reducing the deficit'' is possible at the same time we are spending $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years, and they are right. It is easy to pretend we are reducing the deficit when we are raising taxes by $500 billion and taking another $500 billion from Medicare in order to pay for this program. The Obama administration's own actuaries have worried that future Congresses would not let the $500 billion in Medicare cuts happen. In other words, the bills spend now but would not pay later. I assume the majority leader will bring up the doc fix sometime soon because he needs to. The 23-percent cut in reimbursement rates for doctors who don't take Medicare patients is not taken care of in this bill, and it should be. If this is really about health care reform, shouldn't it be making sure that our seniors on Medicare have access to doctors and that they can actually find a doctor who will see them? If you cut 23 percent in the doctor reimbursement rates, which is where we are headed now, they are not going to have access to doctors. Here is what the Obama administration's own experts say about the cost curve. The Senate bill, they say, will increase overall American health care expenditures by $222 billion. It will not bend the cost curve down. It will actually bend it up, making things worse, not better. The American people have been pretty smart about this. They have been more engaged, better informed on this subject than I have seen in a long time. Of course, health care reform is a very complicated area. But they have gotten very well informed about it. They want lasting reform that will lower costs. Here is what we know works to lower costs, but this is not something that is in the President's bill and, apparently, not something the majority party is even willing to consider. If they did, I submit this would be a big step forward to bending the cost curve down, making health care more affordable, and yield a bipartisan product the American people could support. I believe we need to give control over health care dollars to patients, not to Washington bureaucrats or to insurance company bureaucrats either. The American Academy of Actuaries found that consumer-driven health care plans have saved as much as 12 to 20 percent in health care premiums--12 to 20 percent. That is a lot. Then, of course, there is a practice of defensive medicine, ending lawsuit abuse which would save $54 billion over the next 10 years, according to the CBO. We also support allowing small businesses to pool together such as big companies do to pool their risks to help bring down premium costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would lower premiums for small businesses by 2 to 3 percent--that is not a huge amount, but I am sure they will tell you every little bit helps--and in conjunction with these other reforms would have a real, meaningful impact in terms of bringing down health care costs. I also support and our side of the aisle supports allowing Americans to purchase health insurance from any State they want to, and that would create national competition. It would allow people to buy policies they can afford that suited their family's needs rather than those loaded with State government mandates with no choices, which would result in higher costs. If Congress would allow Americans to purchase their health insurance in any State they choose and thereby increasing competition, the Congressional Budget Office says the cost of their health care premiums would go down by 5 percent. Clearly, competition, transparency, keeping the power in the hands of the consumer not in government are some of the things that would lower the costs, not cause them to go up. Are these part of the bipartisan health summit at the White House? Unfortunately, apparently not. I would also support--and I think there would be a lot of support on a bipartisan basis--giving Medicaid patients, the ones who cannot find doctors because of low reimbursement rates, premium assistance; that is, to supplement what they can pay so they can buy private sector coverage which pays doctors at more of a level they would accept in terms of seeing those Medicaid patients. Providing Medicaid premium assistance rather than forcing people onto a Medicaid Program that is dysfunctional and does not work would be an improvement, and you could do it cheaper. According to CBO, this would reduce Federal spending by $12 billion over 10 years. My conclusion from all this is, the American people want us to start over. We need lasting health care reform. I have offered some concrete suggestions on how we could lower the costs and make it more affordable. I believe that if Republicans and Democrats can work together, we can achieve it. On something as big and important and as costly as this, we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. It needs to be transparent. It needs to be devoid of special interest deals and secret negotiations and done out in the open where people can see it and trust it for what it is. We have to reject purported solutions that will do nothing but increase spending, increase taxes, and increase premiums. We need to start over and implement commonsense steps that will lower costs. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to speak as in morning business, and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to explain why I will vote against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Ben Bernanke is a brilliant and honorable man. He deserves our Nation's thanks for his years of public service-- especially during the greatest financial crisis in decades. I agree with Chairman Bernanke's supporters that some of his actions mitigated that crisis--and that we might be in a much worse place today if not for his leadership. Nevertheless, I believe the Federal Reserve needs a fresh start--with a new Chairman--for several important reasons. First, Chairman Bernanke was a member of the Fed's Board of Governors where he strongly supported Chairman Greenspan's monetary policy that kept interest rates very low. In fact, the Federal funds target rate reached a low of 1 percent by mid-2003. Most economists agree that these low interest rates were one of the factors--certainly not the only factor--that contributed to the housing price bubble that expanded for much of the previous decade. And when the housing bubble burst, our global financial crisis began. This isn't ancient history. Earlier this month, Chairman Bernanke delivered a remarkable speech to the American Economic Association in Atlanta. In that speech he defended the Fed's actions before the crisis--and largely absolved himself of any responsibility for it. Now I am willing to support a person who makes tough decisions--and learns from them when things don't go well. But under Chairman Bernanke, the Federal Reserve missed the signals that the economy was in trouble--such as the housing bubble, and unsettled credit markets. The Fed missed the chance to take action sooner--action that might have prevented the necessity of its massive intervention later on. And today, Chairman Bernanke still does not recognize the missed opportunities that occurred on his watch. Second, Chairman Bernanke played a role in the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program--or TARP. It is important to remember what Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson were telling us before we all voted on TARP in October 2008. In public, their testimony was alarming. On September 23, 2008, Secretary Paulson said that Congress must act ``in order to avoid a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets that threaten . . . the very health of our economy.'' Chairman Bernanke was one of those who told us--in effect--that we were perhaps days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system. So a lot of us did our patriotic duty. We trusted the experts and we authorized the TARP program. And almost immediately after we did so, the Treasury changed what they said they were going to do with the money. Only weeks after TARP was enacted, the Bush administration abandoned the goal of purchasing ``toxic assets.'' Instead, they funneled billions of taxpayer dollars directly to many of the Nation's largest financial institutions. Soon the Federal Government was acquiring ownership stakes in banks, financial institutions and automakers--with the full support of the incoming Obama administration. In fact, the Obama administration has gone even further, using its TARP leverage to set executive pay at several companies. And during the reorganization of General Motors, the Obama administration used its leverage to benefit its union allies--over the rights of secured bondholders who had loaned their savings to the company. TARP may have also enabled public corruption and criminal activity. According to the latest report from TARP's inspector general Neil Barofsky, there are 54 ongoing criminal and civil investigations into TARP related activities. These activities include: ``complex issues concerning suspected TARP fraud, accounting fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, bank fraud, mortgage fraud, mortgage servicer misconduct, fraudulent advance-fee schemes, public corruption, false statements, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax-related investigations.'' President Obama and the Senate leadership have resisted our attempts to end the TARP program. Last week, 45 Democrats voted down Senator Thune's amendment which needed a 60-vote threshold to end the TARP program. And last night, President Obama proposed using TARP to fund his new stimulus bill--in order to get around his own 3-year spending freeze. By the way, using TARP on new spending would also break the promise that the President made when he voted for TARP in this very Chamber. Then-Senator Obama said: [I]f American taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. They should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers. Mr. President, TARP is a government credit card that should be cancelled. And Chairman Bernanke was one of the key enablers that led to its creation in the first place. Third, I believe we need a Fed Chairman who demonstrates a greater commitment to transparency. The Federal Reserve has been very resistant to giving the Government Accountability Office, GAO, independent audit authority. In fact, the GAO told the Senate Finance Committee last year that the Federal Reserve was resisting its investigation efforts in reviewing the response to the financial crisis by claiming that it would impair the independent nature of monetary policy. I agree that politics should not be involved in monetary policy. Yet since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has routinely exercised unprecedented, emergency powers that resulted in a $3.4 trillion expansion of its balance sheet according to some estimates. This is risk that will be borne by the American taxpayer and they deserve to know what their government is doing. Another example of the Federal Reserve resisting transparency surrounds the assistance provided to AIG. The Federal Reserve initially refused to disclose the identity of the banks to whom AIG paid out the vast majority of its Federal assistance. They even opposed AIG disclosing details of its transactions in public filings required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Federal Reserve argued that disclosing the identity of these counterparties who engaged in exotic, risky transactions with AIG would destabilize AIG, would harm the counterparties, and could destabilize the market as a whole. However, following significant public and congressional pressure, the identities of the counterparties were finally released and the market moved forward. The inspector general for TARP is now investigating into whether there was misconduct at the Federal Reserve in regard to its role in the failure of AIG to disclose billions of dollars in counterparty payments to the SEC last year. And just yesterday at a hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the TARP inspector general announced that additional documents and facts have come to light that have caused them to initiate an investigation to review the extent of the Federal Reserve's cooperation during the course of its audit of the AIG counterparty payments. Clearly, the Fed needs more transparency, not less. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009. This bill would require the GAO to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve System and its banks and report back to Congress by the end of 2010. But in addition to an audit, the Fed clearly needs a new Chairman--one more clearly committed to transparency and accountability. Supporters of Mr. Bernanke argue that to vote against him will politicize the Federal Reserve. I could not disagree more. An up-or- down vote is part of our responsibility as Senators to provide our advice and consent. Some supporters also argue that we could wind up with someone worse than Mr. Bernanke--and that any transition would unsettle financial markets. On this point, I would contend that the current uncertainty job-creators face today is due to the policies being pushed by this administration; this is the main obstacle to building confidence and growing jobs for Americans. But again, the Senate will have the opportunity to provide its advice and consent to any future nominee. And if Chairman Bernanke's term expires, Vice Chairman Donald Kohn would immediately assume his duties. And Mr. Bernanke would still remain on the Fed's Board of Governors. So the supposed ``transaction costs'' of voting down this nomination are overstated, in my opinion. The simple truth is: No one person is indispensible in any public office. I believe the American people and our financial system will be better served by new leadership at the Fed. And therefore I will vote against this nomination.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I voted against the Reid health care bill last night because it cuts $470 billion from Medicare to create a brand-new entitlement program that will cost approximately $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years--a price we cannot afford. It increases premiums for American families who currently have health insurance and who are struggling to make ends meet during tough economic times. It increases taxes on small businesses and individuals, which is a terrible idea, particularly at a time when our economy is struggling and our job creators are struggling to be able to keep people on their payroll and possibly expand their payroll and hire people back and bring down the unemployment rate. I want to talk about the way this bill came to pass--at least the cloture vote this morning at 1 a.m.--and I want to talk about the process. I recall when Senator Obama was running for President, he talked about wanting to change politics as usual in Washington, DC. But I have to tell you, the majority and this administration have, in many ways, confirmed people's worst suspicions about Washington politics as usual. They have taken it to a new level--and not a higher level; it is a lower level. As a matter of fact, the bartering for votes for cloture, the special sweetheart deals with drug industries, with Senators, in order to get the 60 votes last night, does nothing more than confirm the worst fears and cynicism the American people have about the way Washington works. We know this bill is a direct result of many special deals with special interest groups and their lobbyists. We heard the President say when he campaigned that he wanted to have a transparent process; that this would take place in front of C-SPAN and at a roundtable so people could see who was making arguments on behalf of the drug companies and the insurance companies. But that rhetoric conflicts with the reality, where the drug companies and the insurance companies and others were negotiating behind closed doors for sweetheart deals that ultimately ended up getting 60 votes. So it turned out it was the Obama administration that cynically said one thing during the campaign and then, when it came to actually passing legislation, did completely the opposite. This is tragic, in my view, Mr. President. The American people want to believe in their government. They want to believe their elected leaders are trying to do their best on behalf of the American people. But this process confirms their worst suspicions. No wonder public opinion of Congress is in the toilet. Rather than listening to the American people, the creators of this bill started cutting deals with special interests first and cut those deals early. The White House struck a deal with the pharmaceutical industry, as you know, which produced in part, as the New York Times reported, about $150 million in television advertising supporting this bill. This deal got 24 Democrats when we were debating the issue of drug reimportation to switch their votes from their previous position against drug reimportation earlier this month. Notwithstanding all the rhetoric about insurance companies, basically this is a sweetheart deal with insurance companies because insurance companies will get $476 billion of your tax dollars and my tax dollars to pay for the subsidies and the insurance provided in this bill. The hospital industry cut a special deal that provided them an exemption from the payment advisory board. Then there were groups such as AARP that purport to serve seniors as a public interest but, as we know, primarily pocket money as a result of the sale of insurance policies--insurance policies that are going to be necessary because of cuts in Medicare Advantage for 11 million seniors, just to name one example. This bill was the result of backroom deals with specific Senators, persuading them to vote for cloture, which has caused some people on the blogs and the Internet to call it ``Cash for Cloture.'' In order to get 60 votes for cloture, we know one of the first examples of that was the so-called ``Louisiana purchase.'' Charles Krauthammer said it well: Well, after watching Louisiana get $100 million in what some have called ``The Louisiana Purchase,'' she ought to ask for $500 million at least. And that's because Obama said he would end business as usual in Washington. So it's a new kind of business as usual. In other words, I guess the price has gone up. But as one business leader in Louisiana points out, notwithstanding the special sweetheart deal for the State of Louisiana directing $300 million to the State, the Medicare expansion alone will result in the taxpayers and the people of Louisiana being a net loser. We also know in order to get 60 votes, the majority leader had to cut a deal with a Senator from Nebraska--the senior Senator from Nebraska-- in order to get the vote for cloture. It has been widely reported that the meeting with the senior Senator from Nebraska took place for 13 hours behind closed doors, after which they negotiated some language which, purportedly, no longer allowed the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions. But according to the Conference of Catholic Bishops and other pro-life groups, the language is completely ineffectual and it restores or actually produces taxpayer-paid-for abortions for the first time in three decades. What else did the senior Senator from Nebraska get? Well, the State of Nebraska purportedly got a free ride from Washington's new unfunded Medicare mandates on the States. But, of course, we know every other State ends up paying for that sweetheart deal the senior Senator got for Nebraska. What do Nebraskans think about it? Well, ask the Governor--Governor Dave Heineman--who said yesterday he had nothing to do with that bill, and called the overall bill bad news for Nebraska and bad news for Americans. Governor Heineman said Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal. We also know that in order to get 60 votes, the majority leader had to cut a special deal for Vermont. One Senator from Vermont threatened to vote against the bill, but then, lo and behold, the managers' package included $600 million benefiting only that one State. The Senator who threatened to vote no decided to vote yes after that special deal was concluded. The New York Times lists several other sweetheart deals that produced this monstrous piece of legislation. The intended beneficiaries, though, in many instances, were identified in a vague and sort of cryptic way, such as: Individuals exposed to environmental health hazards recognized as a public health emergency in a declaration issued by the Federal Government on June 17. Well, there is only one State that would qualify for that, notwithstanding this sort of vague description designed to hide the ball and obscure what was actually happening through another sweetheart deal as part of this bill. Another item in the package would increase Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals in any States where at least 50 percent of the counties are ``frontier counties,'' defined as those having a population density of less than six people per square mile. Then we know there was another $100 million sweetheart deal for an unnamed health care facility affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a State where there is only one public medical and dental school. The Associated Press reports that the State that qualifies for that special deal is the State of Connecticut, where the senior Senator currently is in a tough reelection fight. When asked about these special deals in the managers' amendment, the response of Mr. Axelrod--the architect of the campaign strategy for this administration to bring change to Washington--was pretty telling. He said: That is the way it has been; that is the way it will always be. Well, maybe in Chicago, but not in my State, and not in the heartland and the vast expansion of this great country where the American people want us to come and represent our constituents and vote for what is right in terms of policy, not what kind of sweetheart deals we can eke out at the expense of the rest of the American people. The very thing that is happening with this health care bill demonstrates why Washington takeovers are such a terrible idea because instead of health care decisions being made between patients and doctors, health care decisions are overcome through a political process where elected officials choose winners and losers. Politics has become a dirty word outside the beltway, and certainly we can understand why. This process has only reconfirmed in the minds of many people that what we are doing here is not the people's business but protecting special interests and special sweetheart deals. Rather than making decisions about what is best for the American people, this deal has been driven by deals with special interest groups and lobbyists. Rather than listen to constituents, individual Senators have decided that their votes should be traded for tax dollars and other sweetheart benefits that go to their States. No doubt about it, this bill takes the power from individual Americans to make their own health care decisions and transfers that to Washington, DC, and this new low level of politics as usual. According to one recent poll that was reported today, Rasmussen, for one State I will not mention by name, found only 30 percent of the respondents to this poll favor this health care bill and 64 percent are opposed. The Senators from those States voted for the bill where only 30 percent of their constituents reportedly support the bill. That is not the only example. You can only ask yourself why in the world would Senators vote for a bill when two-thirds of their constituents are opposed to it. Who must they be listening to? Are they listening to the people whom they represent and who sent them here to Washington to represent them or are they listening to the special interests or have they decided somehow that they have become miraculously smarter than their constituents and they know what is better for their constituents than what their constituents know themselves? This debate is not over. There is still a chance to vote against this bill. As Senator McConnell said last night, any single Senator on the other side of the aisle can stop this bill or every one who votes for it will own it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Grassley raised a parliamentary inquiry on rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. As my colleagues recall, this was a rule that the Senate passed pursuant to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The question had to do with whether the managers' amendment we are getting ready to vote on complied with rule XLIV's earmark disclosure requirement. At the time, the Chair indicated that the disclosure list was not submitted at the time. That was 6 p.m. today. My inquiry is this: Is the Chair aware of the disclosure list being made available as required by rule XLIV now as we vote in the next 30 minutes?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I look forward to engaging with both the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham. I have been in the Senate now for 7 years, which is not all that long compared to the length of service of a number of Senators. I was and have been proud to represent the 24 million citizens of the State of Texas here in the Senate and the seat that was first held by Sam Houston in 1846. Sometimes the Senate is referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. I think that description is a description that inspires schoolchildren and lovers of this great democracy of ours to admire and respect this body. But I have to tell you, I think the world's greatest deliberative body might not apply to this particular piece of legislation. It might, rather, be called the world's biggest railroad because of the railroading of the legislation that was revealed here only yesterday by Senator Reid, cooked up behind closed doors with a variety of interest groups negotiating deals on the side, deals that are unknown. We know some of those pertain to hospitals, some to the pharmaceutical companies. Then I heard one of our other Senators from North Carolina yesterday say we should call this ``The Price Is Right'' because we know a number of Senators held out for various inducements, financial inducements, to encourage them to get to the 60 votes. So we do not know what kind of deals have been cut behind closed doors, what kind of deals individual Senators may have made. But the American people need to know what is in this legislation and how it will affect them. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that the President of the United States said, You know what, when I am elected President, we are going to have negotiations around a big table and televise it on C- SPAN, good luck. So much for that broken promise. We know other Senators who expressed the same concerns the Senator from Georgia did about having at least 72 hours by posting this on the Internet so the American people can read it and so we can consult with our constituents--the hospitals, the small businesses, the doctors--to say how does this affect you? We had eight Democratic Senators on October 6, 2009, who said they wanted the CBO scores and they wanted them posted 72 hours ahead of time before the first vote. So much for that. We know that is going to be thrown out the door as well. That demand, I suppose, was made more for public relations rather than any real desire to find out what is in the bill and share it with the American people because we know legislative language will be available only 40 hours before the first vote at 1 a.m. this morning, literally in the middle of the night. The Congressional Budget Office score is available only 37 hours before the first vote. What we are talking about is this legislation. The Senator from Georgia said 2,700 pages, I believe, when you consider all of the legislation we are going to be asked to vote on the first time on a cloture vote at 1 in the morning, about 12 hours from now. We have been feverishly reviewing this language to find out what is in it. Frankly, what we find out is that it makes things worse rather than better in a number of key respects. For example, we know that America spends near double what any other industrialized Nation does on health care. One of the stated goals, one which the Democrats and Republicans both agree on, is that this reform ought to control those costs rather than make it worse. I have an amendment, amendment No. 2806, designed to ensure that health care reform achieves the goal we all support. We know that private insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last 10 years for American families. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayer spending on government health programs will rise to 12 percent of our economy by 2050. That will be a debt of $322,000 for the unfunded liabilities of Medicare alone. This bill does not make things better. It makes things worse, according to the Obama administration Chief Actuary. I have an amendment which would apply the truth test to the Obama administration's own independent Actuary, based on the evidence the Reid bill would increase health care costs for the Nation, for American families, for American taxpayers. This amendment leaves it up to the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. If that office finds the Reid bill does lower health costs as advertised, the bill would then proceed to go into effect. But if, in fact, it does not, then it will not. Advocates of the Reid health bill continue to promise it lowers health care costs, but this amendment will apply the truth test to the Obama administration's own independent Actuary. I see the distinguished majority whip on the floor. I am glad he is here because he may have something to say about this. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 2806.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his important leadership. He is absolutely right. As much as we would all like to be home with our families, especially at this time of year, this battle to inform the American people about what is about to happen to them is too important for us to simply give up or acquiesce to what the Senator from Iowa seems to think is inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about this. The only thing I think inevitable about it is, in light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We do not know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps one of the first days of accounting will be election day 2010. I do not understand how people who are elected to represent their constituents can try to impose something that is so obviously unpopular with their constituents and expect somehow to be patted on the back and told: Well, you are right, you are smarter than we are. You do know better than we do what is better for our families and what we ought to be limited to when it comes to health care choices. I think that is an upside down way of looking at the world. Maybe that is the reason why we have such disparate views of what we are engaged in here. Clearly, on the other side of the aisle, they believe that government is the answer. They believe government can do a lot better than the private sector in providing choices and providing cost controls. Well, the only way government can do that, of course, is by price controls, which we have seen happen in Medicare and Medicaid, which have not worked very well. Here we are 5 days before Christmas, and we are going to be having a vote tonight at 1 a.m. on a 2,733-page health care bill that we got yesterday morning. We do not know what is in the bill. We are still reading, and apparently the Congressional Budget Office is still trying to figure out the impact of the bill. They have already had to correct one mistake because they are being asked to rush to judgment on this bill that will affect one-sixth of our economy and all 300 million Americans. But we do know this: We do know it will cut Medicare by $470 billion. Medicare is paid for by employers and the workers into a trust fund, and that trust fund is going to be pilfered, robbed, in order to create a brandnew entitlement program that the beneficiaries of that entitlement program never paid for as did the beneficiaries of Medicare. That is one part of this. We also know it is going to increase taxes by $518 billion. We already know President Obama's promise as to people making less than $250,000 a year will not be kept under this bill, and that this bill, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, will impact small businesses and their ability to create jobs and retain workers during one of the worst recessions we have had in this country. Then, of course, we know this bill--without the phony accounting gimmicks, such as implementing a bill 4 years into a 10-year budget window--will actually fail in universal coverage. It will leave 23 million people uninsured, and it will cost roughly $2.5 trillion, and it will increase the cost of premiums for people who already have insurance. What is so disgusting about this process is, this exactly confirms the most cynical view that the American people have about Congress and Washington, DC. Rather than a change in that process--one that is more transparent, one in which everybody's views are considered, and where we try to come together in a bipartisan consensus for a solution--this is going to be passed strictly along party lines by a political party and by their leadership who apparently care more about chalking up a victory, albeit a Pyrrhic victory, rather than listening to their constituents. The American people want Washington to start over again. Fifty-six percent of voters in this most recent poll said they want us to stop this bill and start over. We know this process is a product of deals struck behind closed doors with special interest groups and their lobbyists. The pharmaceutical industry got 24 Democrats to switch their votes on reimportation. What is that all about? To preserve a special deal cut behind closed doors? The insurance industry will get $476 billion of tax money from this bill. Then other parts of the health care community are going to be exempted from cuts by the payment advisory board because they cut their deal behind closed doors. We know this bill is being attempted to be jammed through when most people are spending time with their families because of the Christmas season. Even the distinguished majority whip, last week, said: I am in the dark almost as much as other Senators are. He said: I am in leadership. So this bill has been written with a small group of people behind closed doors, including the Senator from Nebraska, who spent 13 hours-- 13 hours--on Friday behind closed doors with Democratic leadership and White House officials. In the meantime, we are left completely in the dark as to what is in this bill other than what we could glean in the limited time we have been given. After the ill-fated stimulus bill passed in the first part of the year, I remember we got that bill about late Thursday night, and then we were asked to vote on it less than 24 hours later--less than 24 hours later. We--like that--spent $1.1 trillion, including the interest, in this stimulus bill that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent. Well, we know how well that worked with unemployment going as high as 10.2 percent and now at 10 percent. One thing the American people told us after that is, they want us--well, I almost hate to say it, it seems so simple and straightforward--they want us to read the bill. They want us to understand the bill. They want to be able to read it and understand it before they give their consent to our voting for it. They want to know what the impact is going to be on their coverage. Is it going to raise their taxes? Is it going to raise their premiums? Is it going to cut into their Medicare benefits? If you are a Medicare Advantage beneficiary, we know it will for 11 million Americans, including half a million in Texas. Then there was this discussion, and I guess this is all for show too. This was not, obviously, a sincere effort where we had eight Democrats who wrote a letter on October 6 to the majority leader and said they want the bill 72 hours before the first vote. Well, guess what. This historic vote we are going to have at 1 in the morning will occur 40 hours, roughly, after we got the bill. So much for 72 hours. We know the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, score, the cost, their estimate, even with the phony assumptions that are included in this bill, will only be available for 37 hours. Then we find out there are other sweetheart deals which makes this begin to stink to high heaven--things such as special legislative language saying the State of Nebraska--the State of Nebraska--gets a special pass from new Medicaid mandates. Vermont and Massachusetts have special deals. Then there is a $100 million earmark for an unknown hospital. Boy, I cannot wait to find out what that is about. Those are just some of the sweetheart deals we know are in these bills, and I am sure there are more we will find out about. This process has gone too fast and gone too far off track. It reminds me of what Rahm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff, said when they jammed through the stimulus bill earlier this year. He said: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. It is one thing if we were acting in response to a crisis in a responsible manner, but what this is going to do is make it even worse, as the Senator from Wyoming pointed out. I think people listening--the 56 percent and growing number of Americans who are concerned about this deal--are wondering: Are the politicians in Washington more interested in jamming this through or getting it right? Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, a member of the Finance Committee-- the one Republican to vote for the Finance Committee bill--said she will not vote for cloture on this bill at 1 this morning because this is simply an arbitrary deadline. Oh--and guess what--most of the provisions do not kick in for 4 years. So why are we doing this literally in the dead of night on a phony timetable? We know according to experts, such as the dean of the Harvard Medical School--he said: In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. You do not have to go to Harvard to figure that out. Just go to Houston, TX. A small business owner in Houston wrote to me and said: The proposed Health Care bill is going to have a negative impact on my business because the cost of employee health insurance will go up. . . . I don't believe what some are saying that costs will go down. . . . This bill does not make economic common sense. Those are true words from a small business owner in Houston, TX, who I suspect has a greater understanding of what this bill will be than some of the so-called experts here inside the Beltway. We know from the Congressional Budget Office, though, that the premiums for an average American family under this bill will go up $2,100 a year for those purchasing insurance on their own in the so- called individual market. An independent study talked about premiums in Texas specifically and said premiums in Texas, for those who purchase insurance on their own, will go up for 61 percent--61 percent--of Texans purchasing insurance on their own, that their premiums will go up under this bill. What in the world are we doing? Under the Reid bill, a family of four in Houston would see their premiums more than double to $1,352 a month. I find it supremely ironic that perhaps the next vote we will have here on the Senate floor, after this health care bill, is going to be a vote to increase the statutory debt limit because Congress has maxed out its credit card. Currently our credit limit is $12 trillion, and now that is not enough because of unwise and reckless spending such as that reflected here in this bill. I find that supremely ironic. But I suspect there are a lot of Americans who find it very sad and even scary. We know in a time when people are struggling to keep their job, when businesses are struggling to keep their employees rather than have to lay them off and make the unemployment statistics even worse, when people are losing their home because they no longer have a job, this bill will be a job killer. The only way this is going to be paid for--the pay-or-play mandates put on businesses--is for businesses to take some of the money they would have used to hire new employees and pay this new punitive tax being imposed by the Federal Government. Businesses in Texas know this is true. The Lubbock Chamber of Commerce said: An employer mandate would be a ``job killer'', raising the costs of maintaining a workforce. . . . . . . small businesses and our consumers will be the ones who suffer. . . . Then there is this Medicaid expansion that Senator Enzi from Wyoming talked about. There is an unfunded mandate here because Texas did not get the sweetheart deal that Louisiana or Nebraska or Vermont or Massachusetts got--an unfunded mandate of $21 billion over 10 years. So not only are people's Federal taxes going to go up, they are going to wreck the State budget too by pushing aside other priorities such as public education and the like--totally irresponsible. Then there is a so-called Nelson amendment on abortion that was supposed to strike a ``compromise.'' Well, one of my other constituents, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who leads Texas' largest archdiocese and is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, said this: [T]he legislation will be morally unacceptable ``unless and until'' it complies with longstanding current laws on abortion funding such as the Hyde amendment. . . . . . . .This legislation should not move forward in its current form. It should be opposed unless and until such serious concerns have been addressed. I am staggered at what we are about to witness here, at the sheer irresponsibility of the way this is being done, with artificial deadlines, votes in the dead of night, bills cooked up behind closed doors as special deals jammed down the throats of the American people who do not want it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. I am wondering if the Senator would yield for a question since we have a unanimous consent for a colloquy. The Senator was talking about this a little earlier, but one of the things that has not been adequately discussed and because of the way this bill has been railroaded and we have been denied an opportunity to offer amendments and we will be voting on the bill on Christmas Eve, as it is currently scheduled, I want to ask about the impact on businesses. You were in the real estate business and employed a number of people in your company. You had to meet a payroll and make sure you ended up in the black and not in the red. One of the things the National Federation of Independent Business said was that this bill will actually increase health care costs for businesses and the cost of doing business. I can't imagine anything worse that we could be doing during a recession, during a time when unemployment is at 10 percent, than making it more expensive to do business and thus keep people on your payroll. Won't that be the impact of this, with higher taxes, with increased health care costs going to employers, that it is actually going to make the unemployment problem worse rather than better?

Mr. CORNYN. I ask the senior Senator from Georgia, does he remember this statement by President Obama? He said he will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits, either now or in the future, period. Yet David Broder, perhaps one of the most respected journalists here in Washington, DC, who has been around a long time, said he has talked to all the experts and everybody he has talked to said these bills as they stand are ``budget-busters.'' Of course, I am sure the Senator also remembers a Washington Post-ABC poll that said 66 percent of those who responded to the poll think this bill will make the deficit worse, not better. In other words, we have a credibility problem between what is being promised here by the President and presumably by the proponents of this bill and the American people because they simply do not buy it. They do not believe it. Maybe that is why that earlier number from the Rasmussen poll said a majority of Americans do not want us to pass this bill but, rather, want us to start over and take a step-by-step or incremental approach.

Mr. CORNYN. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. If I can respond to the senior and junior Senators from Georgia on this point, my State population is 24 million. Over a 10- year period of time, this is a $20 billion unfunded mandate--$20 billion. Of course, we know--or at least we read and hear from some in the press--that not all States are going to be treated the same. That was, in fact, an inducement on the part of some Senators to vote for the bill--to be one of the 60 votes--because they were either going to get a sweetener, in terms of being held harmless for at least a portion of that, or in the case of Nebraska, I guess all of it. That strikes me as fundamentally unfair, but it also demonstrates the flaw in the way this bill has been negotiated. In order to try to get to the 60 votes, there has basically been a pay-to-play sort of approach to this, and it is just repulsive to me, frankly. Certainly, a lot of my constituents would wonder: What kind of games are going on there? I know the Senator from South Carolina has some thoughts about that.

Mr. CORNYN. I wonder if my colleagues will comment. I have one last chart I want to share with them and anybody who might be watching on this Sunday afternoon shortly before Christmas. Every public opinion poll I have seen says the American people do not want us to pass this bill. So one has to wonder: All of us have to run for election in our States. Obviously, to win an election, you have to get a majority of voters. But 56 percent of U.S. voters in the country say they do not want this bill to pass. And yet this thing seems as though it is on an unstoppable path toward passage because 60 Senators, apparently defying the will of their constituents, seem determined to pass the bill. Can my colleagues explain to me what they think is going on here?