John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The firefighters were disappointed in Judge Sotomayor's decision, and, indeed, some of her colleagues on the bench were shocked by the refusal to even acknowledge, much less address, the claims by these firefighters. One colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by President Clinton, worked to get the case reconsidered by the entire Second Circuit. He wrote that the case might involve ``an unconstitutional racial quota or setaside.'' He said, ``At its core, this case presents a straightforward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of the examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?'' Judge Sotomayor apparently was not persuaded to answer that question. But thankfully the U.S. Supreme Court will. In a matter of days, we will know the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, which will help the American people understand whether Judge Sotomayor's philosophy is within the judicial mainframe or well outside it. There are other statements that the judge has made in the course of her long career, including one at Berkeley in 2001, which has received quite a bit of press coverage where she said: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. President Obama has said she misspoke. But it is clear that is not the case. Congressional Quarterly reported that she used this language, or something very similar to it, in multiple speeches in 1994 to 2003. It would be one thing if Judge Sotomayor was simply celebrating her own journey as a successful Latino woman in our country. Every American would understand that, every American would embrace that, because her story is an American success story. And all of us can justly take pride that someone of a humble origin who worked hard and sacrificed has achieved so much in this country. In particular, the Hispanic community is justly proud of her achievements. She is, indeed, a role model for young people and is a symbol of success. All Americans can be proud that Hispanics are assuming more and more positions of authority in our society. Indeed, the Bush administration nominated more Hispanic Federal judges than any previous administration. Unfortunately, they have not always received the sort of fair and dignified consideration that Judge Sotomayor will. Miguel Estrada, who was nominated for the Second Circuit, was not treated respectfully during his confirmation proceedings. He was filibustered seven times, and denied an up-or-down vote on his confirmation. So I wish to make clear that there is no problem if Judge Sotomayor was simply showing pride in her heritage as we all should as a nation of immigrants. But if it suggests a judicial philosophy that says that because of sex or race or ethnicity, a judge is better qualified and more likely to reach correct legal decisions, I simply do not understand that contention, and I would like the opportunity to ask her about it. One of her fellow judges contrasted their views by saying: . . . judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. I think that is exactly right. So we need to know whether Judge Sotomayor embraces this notion of colorblind justice that most Americans expect from the highest Court in the land. I hope she will be given an opportunity--indeed she will be given an opportunity--to clarify her comments and let us know whether she intends to be a Supreme Court Justice for all of us or just for some of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would like to turn to another important topic; that is, the pending confirmation of Judge Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Like many Senators, I have had the opportunity to visit with Judge Sotomayor in my office and, of course, congratulated her on this great honor. I further pledged to her that she would receive a fair and dignified confirmation proceeding. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case in the Senate, but I did tell her that as far as I was concerned, I would do everything I could to make sure she was treated with respect. Over the last few weeks, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and I have begun a thorough review of her record. Judge Sotomayor comes with one of the longest tenures of any judge nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court on the Federal bench--for about 17 years, so there is a rather lengthy record to review. In addition, she has given, as you might expect, many speeches and written law review articles and made other statements that deserve our attention. She has responded to the questionnaire sent by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and there are other followup questions which I anticipate she will be answering in the coming weeks. So our review is ongoing in anticipation of a confirmation hearing beginning July 13 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. But so far it is fair to say that there are a number of issues that have come up which I would like to talk about briefly that I anticipate she will have an opportunity to clarify or otherwise respond to and make her position clear for the American people and for the Senate as we perform our constitutional obligation under article II, section 2 of the Constitution. Most of the focus, during a judicial confirmation hearing, is on the President's authority under the Constitution to nominate individuals to serve as judges. But, in fact, the very same provision of the Constitution, the very same section of the Constitution, section 2 of article II, also imposes an obligation on the Senate. In other words, we have a constitutional duty ourselves in the Senate to provide advice and consent and then to vote on the nomination once voted out of the committee. The concerns I wish to raise at this point do not suggest that these are disqualifying, by any means, for Judge Sotomayor. I believe that, as I have indicated, she deserves the opportunity to explain her approach to these issues and particularly her judicial philosophy more clearly and to put the opinions and statements we have come across during our review in proper context. I believe it is not appropriate for any of us to prejudge or to preconfirm Judge Sotomayor. Our job as Senators is to ask how she would approach the duties of an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. And the areas, as I said, I would like to focus on are numbered three. The first issue has to do with her approach to the second amendment. Of course, the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, incorporates the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment says: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The American people understand that the second amendment limits government and protects individual liberty. As Justice Joseph Story wrote nearly 200 years ago, the second amendment acts as a ``strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.'' As the U.S. Supreme Court itself held last year in the District of Columbia v. Heller: ``There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.'' I agree strongly with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Heller decision, and I think most Americans accept that as the law of the land. Judge Sotomayor, on the other hand, as a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was one of the judges that first was given an opportunity to apply that Supreme Court precedent in Heller to the States. She concluded in that decision that the right to keep and bear arms was not a fundamental right, and, therefore, was not enforceable against the States via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her decision in that case was troubling in light of the Heller decision, especially because her opinion included very little significant legal analysis. I would expect and hope Judge Sotomayor would elaborate on her thinking about this case, as well as the scope of the second amendment, during the course of the confirmation hearings. Americans need to know whether we can count on Judge Sotomayor to uphold all of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment. The next subject that I think will bear some discussion during the confirmation hearings is Judge Sotomayor's views of private property rights, another fundamental right protected by our Bill of Rights, that is simply stated in the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the right not to have property taken for public use without just compensation. The fifth amendment provides an absolute guarantee of liberty against the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only for public use. Our colleagues will recall the controversial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 in Kelo v. City of New London, a decision where the Supreme Court greatly broadened the definition of public use and, thereby doing, greatly limited the property rights protected by the Bill of Rights for more than two centuries. The Court held that government can take property from one person and give it to another person if the government decided that by so doing it would promote economic development. The Kelo decision represents a vast expansion of government power of eminent domain. And that is why I introduced legislation that same year to limit that power and to restore the basic protections of our homes, small businesses, and other private property rights that the Founders intended in the fifth amendment to the Constitution. I believe the Kelo decision went too far. Yet by her decision in the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester, it appears Judge Sotomayor did not feel like it went far enough. Judge Sotomayor was part of a panel that upheld an even more egregious overreach by government when it came to private property rights. In that case, two private property owners wanted to build a pharmacy on their land but in an area the government had essentially handed over to another private developer. The developer offered the owners a choice: Give me a piece of the action or we will proceed to condemn your property. The property owners, as you would think would be their right, refused. Yet the government, the local government, delivered on the developer's threat the very next day. I believe this decision represents an outrageous abuse of the power of eminent domain for a nonpublic purpose and a tremendous extension of an already flawed decision in the Kelo case by the U.S. Supreme Court. So I think it is only fair and right that we ask Judge Sotomayor how she can square that decision in the Didden case with the plain meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution and, indeed, even the Kelo case itself. The third area we need to understand Judge Sotomayor's approach to deciding cases involving employment discrimination. We need to understand how Judge Sotomayor interprets and applies the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment, which reads in part: No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. For most Americans, the ``equal protection of the laws'' means just what it says. It means that government cannot treat you differently based on your race or your sex or your ethnicity. It simply means that government cannot legally practice discrimination, including reverse discrimination. But in a case recently argued to the U.S. Supreme Court called Ricci v. DiStefano, Judge Sotomayor participated in a Court of Appeal's decision which raises legitimate questions about her commitment to the provisions of equal protection of the laws in the Constitution. At least I think it raises questions that we need to ask her to respond to and to hopefully clarify her views on whether government can lawfully discriminate based on skin color. The facts of that case--the case involves firefighters in New Haven, CT. The fire department established a testing program to ensure a fair process in deciding who would be promoted to captain and lieutenant. The testing was rigorous, and it was not racially biased. It was racially neutral to give everyone a fair chance to succeed in taking the test. But the government, as it turned out, did not get the results it wanted. The mayor and five commissioners of New Haven felt that not enough African Americans had passed the test, so they threw out the test and refused to promote anyone. This was unfair to the firefighters who had qualified for promotion. Many of the firefighters were of Italian or Hispanic descent and felt they themselves had fallen victim to racial discrimination by the city government. In fact, one of the fire commissioners was quoted as saying the department should stop hiring people with too many vowels in their name. So the firefighters sued in Federal court. The case came before a three-judge panel, including Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor voted to dismiss the case even before these firefighters had a chance to go to trial. The panel of three judges that she participated in issued a one- page opinion that was unpublished and did not even address these claims for the merits of the case or the constitutional issues brought by these petitioners. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 3 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the importance and challenge of health care reform, something that is on the fast track in the Senate. Recently, as I traveled my State of 24 million people, I heard many similar themes from my constituents. What they told me is that our top priority ought to be reducing the cost of health care because, of course, by reducing the cost it becomes more affordable by more people and we attack what is one of the other principal concerns, and certainly one of mine, and that is too many people who are uninsured in this country. We know cost is one reason why 46 million people are not insured in this country, some of whom have good jobs that pay well, but if they are young they would rather put the money in their pocket than pay for health care. Others have different circumstances, maybe small businesses that are priced out of the market. It is a fact that American families have seen their health care premiums double over the last 10 years. My constituents and the American people generally are also very concerned about our future. As they see so much borrowing and so much spending here in Washington, they worry about the fact that Medicare, which is the health care program for seniors, has an unfunded liability of $38 trillion. So, to understand, while we have roughly $2 trillion in annual deficits running, we also have $38 trillion in unfunded Federal liabilities for Medicare and the trust fund is anticipated to go insolvent by the year 2017, less than 8 years from now. I appreciate the urgency of focusing on health care reform. We have been working under Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the Finance Committee. I know other Senators have been working hard at this as well--Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi on the HELP Committee. I urge us to keep working very hard to work through all the complexities and moving parts of this very challenging problem. I also want to say that I think how we discuss health care reform is very important, but I am also concerned that some voices are greeted with derision or even implicit threats that suggest they better keep quiet if they know what is good for them. A tremendous amount of work has gone into the series of three Finance Committee roundtables and walk-throughs. But I am disturbed by some reports that perhaps Senators, certainly staff, have urged key stakeholders in the health care reform debate to keep their mouths shut. Every American citizen has a right to petition their government. This is a right every American citizen has, and no American should be told to keep quiet on the subject of health care reform, in particular. We know reforming health care is an urgent priority, as I said, and more than 300 million Americans have a stake in our success. The Congress needs to take the time given the fact that this represents 17 percent of our gross domestic product and is so complex. We need to take the time and get the input from everyone who has something to offer as we undertake this massive task. We have a highly complex, $2.6 trillion system, and we need to take time to get the reforms done right. I am not talking about peddling in place, I am not talking about wasting time, I am talking about doing what the American people expect us to do; that is, get it right, not try to rush according to some arbitrary timetable. So I am pleased to say that some stakeholders are standing up against this notion that this deal ought to be cut in a closed back room somewhere. The American Medical Association, for example, has announced its opposition to a government-run plan. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation Of Independent Businesses have expressed concerns about some aspects of the legislation that has been proposed by the President and by leadership here in Congress. But more voices, not less--indeed all voices--deserve to be heard on something of such fundamental importance to our country. The American people deserve a transparent and open debate about the reforms, the various proposals that are on the table, so they can judge for themselves whether Washington elites have their best interest in mind or, to the contrary, whether they believe something else is going on. I also express my appreciation for the professionals at the Congressional Budget Office for refusing to compromise their integrity and for continuing to provide objective analysis of all reform proposals. That is their job. Their job is not to make policy, but it is their job to give us unvarnished, objective information about costs so we can determine what policy makes sense and what policies we can afford. In particular, I commend the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, who I read was quoted as saying that the Congressional Budget Office ``will never adjust our views to make people happy.'' That demonstrates the kind of integrity and objectivity we would want to inform our decisions. We are the ones who are elected to make those decisions on the part of the American people. We are the ones who should be held accountable for those policies. But we have to get good, objective, unbiased information from professionals with integrity such as Dr. Elmendorf and his staff at the CBO. Some, it has been suggested, do not like the big price tag the Congressional Budget Office has put on some of their proposals. But the solution is not for the Congressional Budget Office to get creative, it is for Senators to get real and deal with the reality and to use that information in order to craft decisions that work. I wish to speak in particular about the only bill that has actually been rolled out, more or less, or provisions, and that is the bill proffered by our colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in the health care reform debate for more than four decades. I appreciate the fact that he is the first Democrat on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue who has actually put out a proposal with some detail for us to evaluate and react to. While more details are certainly needed, and I hope they will be forthcoming, we already know there are some red lines, some hot spots, some areas that, if embraced by the Democratic leadership, will result in failure, not in success. I think we all should be invested in the goal of bipartisan success. In fact, there are some provisions in the Kennedy bill that would make things worse, in my view and in the view of others. I think there is one thing we should do; that is, take the Hippocratic Oath, the same oath medical practitioners take to ``do no harm.'' I think we should take a legislative Hippocratic Oath to first do no harm as we undertake this massive reform. For example, in the Kennedy bill, it describes a plan called ``a public health insurance plan operated by the Federal Government with a payment scale that is set in statute and based on Medicare.'' I believe ``Medicare for all'' or a government-run health plan is a disaster in the making for the millions of Americans who will depend upon us to get this right. Let me explain why. First, a government-run plan will ultimately take away the health insurance people have right now. Last year, President Obama campaigned on the promise that if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. I agree with him. That ought to be our goal. But with a so-called government plan, that will not happen because we all know that the government is not just the regulator, but it is also the one paying the bills; that ultimately, the government cannot be calling the balls and strikes even as it takes to the field to be a so-called competitor. Let me put a finer point on it. One group of analysts, the Lewin Group, said a government plan would take away, ultimately, current health benefits from 119 million Americans and force 130 million into a Washington-run health care plan. How does that happen? Well, ostensibly you would have the government competing with the private sector to provide health care. But we know the government ultimately would provide a more generous package and could do so, of course, at taxpayer expense and save the difficulty of having to compete in the marketplace. Ultimately, as the Lewin Group concluded, it would undercut private competitors, leaving people with no choices and ultimately leaving everyone, or at least 130 million Americans, on a Washington-run health care plan--not a good idea, in my opinion. Secondly, we know a government plan would drive up costs for those who remain with private insurance. How does that happen? Well, we know there is a phenomenon in health care called cost shifting. That is because Medicare and Medicaid pay submarket rates and health care providers have to make it up somewhere else. Where do they make it up? They end up making it up from people who have insurance. And how do they do that? By people who have insurance paying more than they ultimately receive because the costs are literally shifted from Medicare and Medicaid onto private insurance. According to a respected actuary, Milliman, commercial payers subsidize the cost of Medicare and Medicaid by nearly $90 billion a year in cost shifting. This represents a hidden tax on American families and small businesses. Milliman estimates that the average private health care premium is more than $1,500 higher per family, more than 10 percent higher than it would be without this government cost- shifting phenomenon. A new government program would increase this cost shifting dramatically and increase the health care premiums of every American family who continues on their private health insurance plan. Third, we know this Medicare-for-all or government-run plan would basically be like Medicare and Medicaid on steroids. Lest anybody be confused, that is not a good thing. I believe Medicare illustrates what happens when the government takes over health care delivery. For example, first of all, it is not fiscally sustainable. As I mentioned, Medicare is going to go insolvent in 2017 and currently has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Low reimbursement rates--and frankly, that is how Medicare and Medicaid try to deal with costs. They cut payments to providers-- hospitals and doctors--below the otherwise market rates. These low reimbursement rates reduce patient choice and increase wait times for the physicians they see. Many providers, as I am sure the distinguished occupant of the chair, in his State, knows--we know many doctors are not even taking new Medicare patients and new Medicaid patients because lower reimbursement rates are the problem. Every year, Congress has to come back and reverse the cuts to physician payments under the Medicare sustainable growth rate formula, and those cuts, unless we act to reverse them, will cut physician payments by 20 percent this January. According to the Washington Post last fall, taxpayers also pay up to $60 billion a year in fraudulent claims on Medicare. So in addition to being fiscally unsustainable, in addition to rationing or providing unrealistically low payments, denying people access to health care, we have $60 billion in fraud and waste in the Medicare Program--hardly a model for Medicare, for a government-run option. Well, Medicaid has even more problems. Medicaid provides coverage, but it does a poor job of providing access. In one way, this is really a ruse that is being perpetrated on the American people under Medicare and Medicaid. We say: Yes, you have coverage. But if you cannot find a doctor or a health care provider who will provide you access at that price, then their coverage does not do you any good. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, Medicaid's low reimbursement rates, which are actually lower than Medicare, have resulted in 40 percent of physicians restricting access to patients in the program. So it is no wonder, as the journal Health Affairs said last month, that ``physicians typically have been less willing to take on new Medicaid patients than patients covered by other types of health insurance.'' Medicaid reimbursement rates, as I said, are even lower than Medicare, more than 25 percent lower than Medicare. The story of Pediatrix Medical Group, which has a significant presence in my State, illustrates the problem. Pediatrix has more than 1,300 physicians and 500 advanced practice nurses. They specialize in the care of newborns and other very vulnerable children. Pediatrix has noted that ``the lack of appropriate reimbursement is among the common reasons for physicians to refuse to accept new Medicaid patients.'' They have noted that within their own national neonatal and hospitalist patient population, the current government rates pay an average of 28.7 percent less than rates from private insurers. No wonder it is hard for Medicaid beneficiaries-- notwithstanding what Congress does, it is hard for them to find a physician who will actually see them at that kind of rate. Pediatrix has said, ``We believe a public plan structured [after Medicare and Medicaid] would ultimately erode the availability of private health and negatively impact patient access to needed health care.'' The fourth problem I have with the plan in the Kennedy bill is that the government plan would ultimately lead to a rationing of health care. What does that mean? Well, that means delay or denying access to treatment. All we have to do is look at Canada. A recent op-ed by Dr. David Gratzer in the Wall Street Journal this last week talked about what a government-run plan in Canada has done. Thousands of our friends to the north, of course, come to America each year for lifesaving surgery, if they can afford it, after their government has told them they will just have to wait. Various studies indicate that Canadians, especially the poor, are less healthy under socialized medicine than those in our country. More and more Canadians want to reduce the role of government and expand private options for health care, even as the elites in Washington want to move America in the opposite direction. The fifth reason a government plan is not a good idea is it would lead to poorer health outcomes. Many Canadians are realizing that socialized medicine is not working for them, and so are many folks in Europe. According to a piece in the Washington Examiner this week, breast cancer rates in Europe, under nationalized health care systems, are significantly higher than they are here in the United States. European women are much more likely to have breast cancer than are American women. Currently, the United States leads the world in treating breast cancer. Women in our country with breast cancer have a 14-percent better chance of survival than those in Europe. Compared to the United States, breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. This is not something we should want to emulate. We also see some poor health care outcomes in the United States under government-run health care. For example, numerous studies have documented the poor patient outcomes under the Medicaid Program relative to patients in private plans. For example, Medicaid patients are more than 50 percent more likely to die of coronary bypass surgery than patients with private coverage or Medicare. There are other problems with the bill that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has proposed. Again, I credit him with being the first one to lay out a plan. We have not yet seen one from any other source. But the fact is, the Kennedy bill is not paid for. We don't know how much additional borrowing or how much higher our taxes will have to go up in order to pay the price. It also includes a concept known as pay or play for small businesses. In other words, if you don't have health care coverage for your employees and are a small business, you will have to pay a punitive tax. The bill also provides very generous Federal subsidies to individuals making as much as $110,000 a year. We are all for a safety net for people who are low income and can't otherwise provide for themselves. But why should taxpayers be forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize health care for people making over $100,000 a year. It doesn't make sense. The bill also includes an innocuous-sounding council called the Medical Advisory Council, which in effect would give the government power over personal health care decisions, particularly to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Of course, the bill creates new entitlements, which we have no hope of paying for, at the same time when unfunded liabilities for so much of our entitlement programs remain unpaid for. Frankly, while I applaud the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and his leadership on this issue, I worry that this is a bill that has no bipartisan input. I applaud Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, and other Democrats on that committee who said we need to come up with a bipartisan solution. When I raised this concern this morning in the Finance Committee, the Kennedy bill was described as more of a wish list than anything else. The bill reflects very few ideas from Republicans, which we have offered to discuss and would hope to include in any comprehensive health care reform. It includes several provisions which Republicans have made clear are off the table, if our colleagues want a truly bipartisan bill. I mentioned the government plan option which kills bipartisanship because Republicans cannot support a policy that will lead to a Washington takeover of our health care system. There are better alternatives, alternatives which empower individuals and preserve the individual choice each of us has to make health care decisions, in consultation with our physician or family doctor, in the best interest of our families. Empowering people rather than government is a much better solution than this proposal we see under the Kennedy bill. Innovators in both government and the private sector have learned that by empowering patients and providing them some incentives, they can actually see costs lowered. There are a lot of good ideas out there. Unfortunately, the partisan proposal we have from the HELP Committee is not one of them. We hope we can continue to work together, on a bipartisan basis, toward a successful outcome. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CORNYN. With all due respect to my colleague from New Mexico, I am advised that the nomination has not yet been cleared on this side. We are going to keep working on it, but at this time I must object and I do object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. That is my wish.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Actually, Madam President, I intend to speak on the underlying bill. But because the bill manager is not here, I think my remarks are just as appropriate in morning business. I rise to offer my support as a cosponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the so-called FDA regulation of the tobacco bill that is currently before the Senate. This is a rarity these days in Washington. It is actually a bipartisan bill--people of both parties working together to try to solve a real problem--and I want to particularly thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd for their leadership on the bill. I also want to thank the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for organizing more than 1,000 public health groups, faith-based organizations, medical associations, and other partners to support this legislation. The House, as we know, passed the bill in April on a bipartisan basis, and now it is time for the Senate to do its job this week. This comes to us in a rather unusual historical and regulatory posture. The fact is, we know tobacco is a killer. It is a killer. It kills 400,000 Americans each year in the United States, including 90 percent of all deaths from lung cancer, one out of every three deaths from other types of cancer, and one out of every five deaths for cardiovascular disease. The real tragedy is not just that adults choose to smoke and harm their health--and many of whom, unfortunately, die premature deaths as a result--it is that many smokers begin their addiction to tobacco--the nicotine, which is the addictive substance within tobacco--when they are young, before they are able to make intelligent choices about what to do with their bodies and their health. Every day about 1,000 children become regular daily smokers. Medical professionals project that about one-third of these children will eventually die prematurely from a tobacco-related disease. Not surprisingly, at a time when we are contemplating health care reform in this country, the huge expense of health care and the fiscal unsustainability of the Medicare program, it is also important to point out that tobacco directly increases the cost of health care in our country. More than $100 billion is spent every year to treat tobacco- related diseases--$100 billion of taxpayer money--and about $30 billion of that is spent through our Medicaid Program. America has a love-hate relationship with tobacco, and Congress, I should say, and State government does as well. My colleagues will recall that tobacco actually presents a revenue source for the State and Federal Government. One of the most recent instances is when Congress passed a 60-cent-plus additional tax on tobacco in order to fund an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. So government has become addicted to tobacco, too, because of the revenue stream it presents, and that is true at the Federal level and at the State level. However, because of the political clout of tobacco companies years back, when the FDA regulation statute was passed, tobacco was specifically left out of the power of the FDA to regulate this drug. The active ingredient I mentioned is nicotine, which was not acknowledged to be an addictive drug for many years until finally the Surgeon General did identify it for what it was: an addictive drug that makes it harder for people, once they start smoking, to quit. Then, of course, we tried litigation to control tobacco and the spread of marketing tobacco to children and addicting them to this deadly drug, which it is. Then, we found out it had basically no impact, that massive national litigation through the attorneys general in the States. Basically, the only thing that happened as a result of that is lawyers got rich, but it didn't do anything to deal with the problem of marketing tobacco to children. One might ask, as a conservative: Why would one support more regulation rather than less? Well, because of this split personality the Federal Government has in dealing with tobacco--recognizing it is a deadly drug, recognizing marketing often targets the most vulnerable among us, and recognizing the fact that it kills so many people and increases our health care costs not only in Medicare but in Medicaid-- why in the world wouldn't we ban it? I know the Senator from Oklahoma has said maybe the world would be a better place if tobacco wasn't legal. Well, we all know that is a slippery slope for the individual choices we make. If we were to ban tobacco, we might as well ban fatty food; we might as well ban alcohol. Obviously, the government would become essentially the dictator of what people could and could not do and consume, and I don't think the American people would tolerate it and I think with some good reason. We have to accept individual responsibility for our choices. But, again, when you target a deadly drug such as tobacco and nicotine--this addictive component of tobacco to children--that, to me, crosses the line where we ought to say the Federal Government does have a responsibility to allow this legal product, if it is going to remain legal, to be used but under a regulatory regime that will protect the most vulnerable among us. Many States have effective ways to deal with underage use of tobacco. I think the regime in my State of Texas works pretty well, but it is spotty and not uniform across the country; thus, I think, necessitating a Federal response. This bill--which, as I say, should be our last resort, and in many ways it is--increases Federal regulation, I believe, in a responsible way, under an imperfect situation, where this legal but deadly drug is used by so many people in our country. This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products. It would restrict marketing and sales to our young people. It would require tobacco companies to disclose all the ingredients in their products to the FDA. There have been various revelations over time that there were actually efforts made by tobacco companies to provide an extra dose of the addictive component of tobacco, which is nicotine, in order to hook people at a younger age. I think by providing for disclosure of all the ingredients of these products to the FDA, and thus to the American people, we can give people at least as much information as we possibly can to make wise choices with regard to their use of tobacco, or not, preferably. It would require larger and stronger health warnings on tobacco products. This bill would also protect our young people and taxpayers as well. Smokers will pay for the enforcement of these regulations through user fees on manufacturers of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products. Nonsmokers will not have to pay any additional taxes or fees as a result of this bill. I hope this bill does some good. I think it will. But the key to reducing smoking is for individuals to make better choices and for our culture to change, as it has already changed, when it comes to consumption of tobacco products. I think about other examples over time where our culture has changed to where we now do things that are safer and better today than we used to when I was growing up. For example, when I was growing up, seatbelt use was very sparse. As a matter of fact, you could buy a car, and if you wanted a seatbelt, you would have to have somebody install it for you because it didn't come as original, manufactured equipment. Today we know seatbelt use is not only much broader and more widely spread, but you can't get into a car and turn it on without being dinged to death or otherwise reminded that you need to put your seatbelt on. The truth is it has made driving in cars a lot safer. It has kept people healthier, even in spite of accidents they have been involved in, and it has--not coincidentally--helped reduce medical admissions and medical expenses as well. We know there is also today a greater societal stigma against drunk driving. That was not always the case. As a matter of fact, as a result of many years of public education and stricter law enforcement, now people take a much smarter and well-informed view of drinking and particularly the risks of drinking and driving. We know also that many Americans, in dealing with energy, are dealing more responsibly by recycling and conserving energy. Of course, millions of Americans are trying to do better when it comes to eating right and exercising more frequently so they can protect their own health and engage in preventive medicine, so to speak. Government can't do it all because, as I said earlier, I think individuals bear a responsibility to make good choices. One thing government can do is help inform those choices. I think this regulation bill will help smokers make better decisions by knowing what is in the tobacco product and allowing the FDA to regulate this drug. I believe the real drivers of change, though, are not just the government, not the nanny State that will tell us what we can and cannot do, but cultural influences and, indeed, economic incentives which are more powerful than government regulations in influencing individual behavior. Some have said: Why in the world would we give tobacco regulation to the Food and Drug Administration, a Federal agency with the primary job of determining safety of food and drugs and medical devices as well as efficacy. As a matter of fact, many people have been tempted to buy prescription drugs, let's say, over the Internet but not knowing where they were actually manufactured, whether they were actually counterfeit drugs. So there is not only the question of safety--in other words, if you put it in your mouth, is it going to poison you--but it is also if you put it in your mouth and you take it expecting it actually to be effective against the medical condition you want to treat. The FDA is a regulatory agency that is supposed to determine not only safety of food and drugs but also their efficacy. There is a certain anomaly in giving the FDA regulatory authority for something we know will kill people--and does, in fact, kill hundreds of thousands of people--when used as intended by the manufacturer, but I think this is a step in the right direction. I think the world would be a better place--we would all certainly be healthier--if people chose not to use tobacco, and many have made that choice due to the cultural influences we have mentioned, as well as some of the economic incentives that are provided by employers. As we undertake the task of reforming our health system in America, something that comprises 17 percent of our gross domestic product, I think we could well learn from some of the successful experiences and experiments some employers have used and some workers have used when it comes to drugs such as tobacco. For example, one large grocery company headquartered out in California--Safeway--which also has many employees in Texas, as an employer, they noticed that 70 percent of their health care costs were related to individual behavior, things such as diet, exercise, and, yes, indeed, smoking. They recognized that if they could encourage their employees to get age-appropriate diagnostic procedures for cancer--colon cancer, for example--if they could encourage their employees to quit smoking, if they could encourage their employees to watch their weight and get exercise and to watch their blood pressure and take blood pressure medication where indicated, where they could encourage them to take cholesterol-lowering medication, if they had high cholesterol, that they could not only have healthier, more productive employees, they could actually bring down the costs of health care for their employees as well as their own costs. I think Safeway is just one example of many successful innovators across this country, where people are encouraged to do the right thing for themselves and for their employers and for their families. I think these are the kinds of issues that ought to guide us as we debate health care reform during the coming weeks. I believe this legislation fills the necessary gap in FDA's regulatory authority, an agency that regulates everything from food to prescription drugs, to medical devices. The only reason tobacco was left out of it is because of the political clout of tobacco years ago. This legislation fills that gap and I think presents the most pragmatic approach to try to deal with the scourge of underage smoking and marketing to children, as well as informing consumers of what they need to know in order to make smart choices for their own health and for the health of their family. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1139 Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on two subjects this afternoon--first of all, on the subject of various memos and interrogation techniques, notably enhanced interrogation techniques, that were carried out in response to Office of Legal Counsel memos that were written by lawyers there, designed to provide guidance to our CIA interrogators after 9/11 to help them protect the country against future terrorist attacks. I have an amendment that, because of technical reasons, we will not be able to vote on this week. But I want to assure my colleagues this issue is not going away, and we will be back to talk about it more later. But I think it is of sufficient gravity and importance that I want to highlight it here for the next few minutes. First of all, this amendment I am referring to is a sense-of-the- Senate amendment. Let me summarize what it does because I think it is important to put it in context. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment reads as follows. It says: In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, there was bipartisan consensus that preventing further terrorist attacks [against] the United States was the most urgent responsibility of the United States Government. A bipartisan joint investigation by the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives concluded that the September 11, 2001 attacks demonstrated that the intelligence community had not shown ``sufficient initiative in coming to grips with the new transnational threats''. By mid-2002, the Central Intelligence Agency had several top al Qaeda leaders in custody. The Central Intelligence Agency believed that some of these al Qaeda leaders knew the details of imminent plans for follow-on attacks against the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency believed that certain enhanced interrogation techniques might produce the intelligence necessary to prevent another terrorist attack against the United States. The Central Intelligence Agency sought legal guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice as to whether such enhanced interrogation techniques, including one that the United States military uses to train its own members in survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training, would comply with United States and international law if used against al Qaeda leaders reasonably believed to be planning imminent attacks against the United States. This amendment further notes that: The Office of Legal Counsel is the proper authority within the executive branch [of the Federal Government] for addressing difficult and novel legal questions, and providing legal advice to the executive branch in carrying out [its] official duties. It further notes that: Before mid-2002, no court in the United States had [ever] interpreted the phrases ``severe physical or mental pain or suffering'' and ``prolonged mental harm'' as used in sections 2340 and 2340A of title 18, the United States Code. The legal questions posed by the Central Intelligence Agency and other executive branch officials were-- This amendment notes-- a matter of first impression, and in the words of the Office of Legal Counsel, ``substantial and difficult''. The Office of Legal Counsel approved the use by the Central Intelligence Agency of certain enhanced interrogation techniques, with specific limitations, in seeking actionable intelligence from al Qaeda leaders. The amendment further notes that: The legal advice of the Office of Legal Counsel regarding interrogation policy was reviewed by a host of executive branch officials, including the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President, the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, the General Counsel of the National Security Council, the legal advisor of the Attorney General, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and the Counsel to the Vice President [of the United States]. Further, the amendment notes that: The majority and minority leaders in both Houses of Congress,-- Both in the Senate and in the House, as well as-- the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen and [ranking members] of [both] the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives received classified briefings on [both the proposed techniques and the Office of Legal Counsel advice] as early as September 4, 2002. The amendment further notes that: Porter Goss, then-chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, recalls that he and then-ranking member Nancy Pelosi ``understood what the CIA was doing'' [and] ``gave the CIA our bipartisan support'' [and] ``gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities'', and ``On a bipartisan basis . . . asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al Qaeda''. The amendment further notes that: No member of Congress briefed on the legal analysis of the Office of Legal Counsel and the proposed interrogation program of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 objected to the legality of the enhanced interrogation techniques, including ``waterboarding'', approved in legal opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel. The amendment further notes that: Using all lawful means to secure actionable intelligence based on the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel [of the Department of Justice] provides national leaders a means to detect, deter, and defeat further terrorist [attacks] against the United States [of America]. The amendment further notes that: The enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the Office of Legal Counsel have, in fact, accomplished the goal of providing intelligence necessary to defeating additional terrorist attacks against the United States. It further notes that: Congress has previously established a defense for persons who engaged in operational practices in the war on terror in good faith reliance on advice of counsel that [such] practices were lawful. This amendment further notes that: The Senate stands ready to work [on a bipartisan basis] with the Obama Administration to ensure that leaders of the Armed Forces of the United States and the intelligence community continue to have the resources and tools required to prevent additional terrorist attacks on the United States. This amendment concludes with this finding or sense of the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that no person who provided input into the legal opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice analyzing the legality of the enhanced interrogation program, nor any person who relied in good faith on [that legal advice], nor any member of Congress who was briefed on the enhanced interrogation program and did not object to the program going forward should be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned. This is the amendment I sought to offer that for technical reasons is not going to be voted on now. But, I assure my colleagues, we will revisit this at a later date. I want to take issue with some of the comments by my distinguished colleague from Illinois, the majority whip, who I believe--it was yesterday, or maybe the day before--said there was no basis for my assertion that there was actionable intelligence gained from the so- called enhanced interrogation techniques, and questioned what my source was. I would remind the distinguished Senator from Illinois that the source is President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, who wrote, on April 16, 2009, that ``high-value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used, and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter in which the Director of National Intelligence made those statements be printed in the Record following my comments.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Nor was this special information available to only a few. The New York Times reported it on April 21, under the headline ``Banned Techniques Yielded `High-Value information', Memo Says.'' That is a story in the New York Times which basically recounts what the Director of National Intelligence said. I would remind my distinguished colleague from Illinois that it is, in fact, the Director of National Intelligence for President Obama who has affirmed not just the need but the usefulness of the information and intelligence derived from these enhanced interrogation techniques that were approved by the legal authority for the executive branch of the Federal Government, the Office of Legal Counsel. My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, argues that we need to allow prosecutors to follow the facts and the law wherever they may lead--certainly, a relatively harmless assertion; one I would generally agree with. But here, we know enough about the facts and the law to know there is no evidence that anyone acted with the intent required to prosecute under the law. I won't bore the Senate with an analysis of what the criminal law requires in this context, but I would say that the facts, as we know them, are to give our public servants the benefit of the doubt. As detailed in the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda, significant efforts were made to minimize significant harm that could arise from these techniques. Who could question the desire of both the intelligence community as well as the Department of Justice and the leaders responsible for protecting our national security--who could question the good-faith need to get information that would actually help prevent follow-on terrorist attacks? We know al-Qaida, on September 11, 2001, used crude weapons to attack our country. Yet they were able to kill 3,000 Americans, roughly. Our intelligence community and our national leadership knew al-Qaida was not satisfied with such primitive weapons but, indeed, was seeking biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. We know how important it was for our intelligence officials to get the information they needed. We know the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel who rendered this legal advice were doing what they thought was their responsibility in good faith. Indeed, the Members of Congress who had the responsibility to perform congressional oversight on these activities, I believe, demonstrated their good-faith desire to do what was necessary to protect our country. I believe we know enough to say these people--all of them--acted in good faith. It has been suggested the standard we apply is whether the advice fell within the range of legitimate analysis and within the range of reasonable disagreement common to legal analysis of important statutory and constitutional questions. I believe that has been demonstrated, and but for this technical objection to the amendment, I am confident we would receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote of support for this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, says we should allow prosecutors and the Department of Justice to decide whether to bring a case against these officials: The intelligence community, the lawyers who drafted the legal advice, and perhaps even the Members of Congress who acquiesced and facilitated these enhanced interrogation techniques following a classified briefing. But I would suggest there is no case to be brought against these individuals. Any prosecution that arises out of this interrogation program would clearly be based upon politics and not on the law. I would submit the amendment I have offered--and that I described and which I will reoffer again at an appropriate time--is a call for reasonableness and national unity. The calls for prosecution of good- faith patriots has simply gone too far. When bloggers and others--not to single out bloggers but even Members of this body--have suggested that we somehow need a truth commission and have suggested that prosecutions might be the appropriate outcome, when they are suggesting that prosecutions under these circumstances occur, then I think our political environment has changed in a dangerous way and one which will certainly chill our intelligence officials in gathering actual intelligence necessary to keep us safe and certainly discourage patriots who want to serve and who are willing to serve in Government. When policy differences become criminalized in ways that some have suggested, it is not helpful to our country. Indeed, I think it is dangerous to our national security. We know there is an unfortunate history of hysterias, panics, and mob rule from time to time that occurs, whether it is from Salem through the McCarthy era. When justice is steered by passion and politics rather than by reason and the rule of law, it is not worthy of the name ``justice.'' Once you stir up an angry mob, we know it is unpredictable where that mob might lead or who might get caught up in the mob's action. But we know already too many patriotic Americans have been targeted by the present hysteria. This amendment calls for an end to the hysteria and a return to reason, civility, national unity, and the rule of law. Exhibit 1 Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC, April 16, 2009. Dear Colleagues: Today is a difficult one for those of us who serve the country in its intelligence services. An article on the front page of The New York Times claims that the National Security Agency has been collecting information that violates the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. The release of documents from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) spells out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qa'ida terrorists. As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and turn this understanding to advantage as we move into the future. It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qa'ida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal, and that senior policymakers authorized their use. High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country. As the OLC memos demonstrate, from 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques. Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given. Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence services must stop them. One of our most effective tools in discovering groups planning to attack us are their communications, and it is the job of the NSA to intercept them. The NSA does this vital work under legislation that was passed by the Congress. The NSA actions are subject to oversight by my office and by the Justice Department under court-approved safeguards; when the intercepts are conducted against Americans, it is with individual court orders. Under these authorities the officers of the National Security Agency collect large amounts of international telecommunications, and under strict rules review and analyze some of them. These intercepts have played a vital role in many successes we have had in thwarting terrorist attacks since 9/11. On occasion. NSA has made mistakes and intercepted the wrong communications. The numbers of these mistakes are very small in terms of our overall collection efforts, but each one is investigated, Congress and the courts are notified, corrective measures are taken, and improvements are put in place to prevent reoccurrences. As a young Navy officer during the Vietnam years, I experienced public scorn for those of us who served in the Armed Forces during an unpopular war. Challenging and debating the wisdom and policies linked to wars and warfighting is important and legitimate; however, disrespect for those who serve honorably within legal guidelines is not. I remember well the pain of those of us who served our country even when the policies we were carrying out were unpopular or could be second-guessed. We in the Intelligence Community should not be subjected to similar pain. Let the debate focus on the law and our national security. Let us be thankful that we have public servants who seek to do the difficult work of protecting our country under the explicit assurance that their actions are both necessary and legal. There will almost certainly be more media articles about the actions of intelligence agencies in the past, and as we do our vital work of protecting the country we will make mistakes that will also be reported. What we must do is make it absolutely clear to the American people that our ethos is to act legally, in as transparent a manner as we can, and in a way that they would be proud of if we could tell them the full story, It is my job, and the job of our national leaders, to ensure that the work done by the Intelligence Community is appreciated and supported. You can be assured the President knows this and is supporting us. It is your responsibility to continue the difficult, often dangerous and vital work you are doing every day. Sincerely, Dennis C. Blair.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am going to turn to another subject, but may I inquire how much time is remaining under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand there is a previous--let me ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 40 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. I assure the Chair I will not use all that time. Health Care Reform Mr. President, I wish to discuss another very serious challenge in our country and that is how to reform our broken health care system to serve the needs of the American people and to help bring down the costs of health care, which now prices many people out of the market and contributes to the too large number of Americans who don't have health insurance. I am a relatively new member of the Senate Finance Committee, and under the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, we have been discussing our various policy options for some time. There has been some discussion on the floor about the subject. Indeed, my colleagues from Oklahoma and North Carolina, Senator Burr and Dr. Coburn, have introduced a bill which they believe addresses the need for health care reform in a significant way. On Monday, I am going to return to my State of Texas and travel around the State to basically talk about commonsense solutions to this health care crisis. Last Monday, I spent some time in Houston, TX, with the Houston Wellness Association and others concerned about how we can spend more of our energy and effort on keeping people healthy and preventing disease which will, of course, avoid unnecessary human suffering but also help us contain the too high price of health care. We know what is at stake in the health care reform debate. I believe my constituents in Texas--and I believe the American people, generally--don't want to be served up a fait accompli in Washington. They don't want to wake in July or August and find that Congress has taken a blank sheet of paper and basically deprived them of the opportunity to keep the health care they presently have and instead present them with something else which they don't want and which does not promise to make health care more accessible but, rather, will make it more expensive and less accessible. I know my constituents in Texas don't want elites in Washington to make decisions for them. They want to be informed about the debate, and they want to then discuss with me and their other elected representatives what they want--not what is dictated to them from Washington inside the beltway. Whether you are putting together a family budget or a business plan, we all see the same problem, and that is the rising cost of health care. We know health care costs have risen faster than inflation in both good times and bad times. Health care costs, we know, force many self-employed workers and small businesses into the ranks of the uninsured. We also know that health care costs in America are twice as much per capita than they are in most of the developed world. In fact, we spend roughly 17 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. I believe the next highest country to us is Japan, an industrialized country, which spends roughly 9 percent of GDP. But we also know there are a lot of hidden costs--there are not just the obvious costs--on families and businesses. These hidden costs show up in smaller paychecks for working men and women all across this country. All things being equal, one would think that rising productivity of the American worker would lead to higher wages, but instead, for many workers, more compensation takes the form of higher health care premiums, when they could be receiving greater compensation in terms of wages that they could then spend on other purposes. But because of rising deductibles, copays, and the rising costs, we see rising health care costs actually squeeze worker pay in America such that, in many instances, that pay is stagnant, if not declining. Hidden costs also show up in the $36 trillion of unfunded liabilities in the Medicare Program, as well as other entitlements. Our people are concerned about the hidden costs of all the borrowing we are doing in Washington and the unprecedented spending. Nearly 50 cents on every dollar spent in Washington is borrowed, leaving the fiscal responsibility for our children and grandchildren and not taking it upon ourselves. In fact, as we know, the Federal deficit in 2009 will be nearly as large as the entire Federal budget was in 2001. Let me say that again. This is staggering. The Federal deficit in 2009 will be nearly as large as the entire Federal budget in 2001. As the distinguished occupant of the chair, who is the former chief executive of his State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, knows, that kind of growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. Indeed, we are cruising for a disaster when it comes to unrestrained health care costs, both for individuals and for small businesses but also for the Government when it comes to entitlement spending. I agree with what President Obama said last week. He said our current deficit spending is unsustainable. I agree with that. He said we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt. I think all Americans agree with what President Obama said, but we have yet to see the hard decisions that would lead us back to a path of fiscal discipline. It is the contrary: more spending, more borrowing, with no fiscal discipline. As we look at health care reform, our people want solutions that will lower the costs of health care, without increasing the debt, without raising taxes, and without reducing quality or access to care. I have heard a lot of discussions in the context of the Finance Committee, talking about what options are available to the Congress in dealing with this health care crisis and, honestly, most of them deal with how we can empower the Government to make more and more decisions on behalf of patients. I think that is the opposite direction from which we ought to go to approach this problem. We ought to look at what puts patients back in charge; what gives individuals the power to consult with their own private physician and make a decision; what is in the best interests of themselves and their family when it comes to health care. Let's not put barriers in the way of that sacred relationship between a patient and a doctor, and for sure let's not use rationing--denying and delaying access to care--as government-run programs abroad use in order to control costs. Let's put patients back in charge. That ought to be our battle cry as we approach this current crisis. Patients should have more control, not less control, over their own health care. One way we can do that is giving them more and better information on cost and quality of their care. How in the world can we have an effective market for health care, which will provide lower costs, if, in fact, patients are denied access to information about cost and outcomes? They not only want to know how much it is going to cost them; they want to make sure it is a good, quality service, and we ought to be in the business of providing them that information. We ought to be insisting, as their elected representatives, that we have access to that information in deciding how to spend their money in entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Patients should also, I believe, have a choice of providers who compete for their business. We know that competition produces higher quality, better service, and a lower price. We can see that across the board. When the market helps discipline spending, it improves quality and lowers price. We can do that in health care by empowering individuals and giving them more access to information, greater transparency, quality, and price, making them better informed consumers. We also know our tax and our legal system need reform so all Americans are treated fairly. We have to end the cost shifting that now goes with too low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, which means it is harder and harder for an individual to find a doctor who will actually accept those submarket rates to care for them. I was in Dallas a couple years ago. I was in an emergency room at a hospital, while touring the hospital, and there was this wonderful woman who came into the emergency room and someone asked her what she wanted. She said: I need my prescriptions refilled--in the emergency room at a hospital in Dallas. She couldn't find a doctor who would accept her as a new Medicare patient, so the only place she knew where to go was to the emergency room to get a prescription, to refill her medications. That is incredibly inefficient and an incredibly costly way to deliver health care. We have to find a way to do it better. Right now we know that for private health insurance, the costs are shifted in order for health care providers to provide care to everybody. That cost shifting results in higher premiums, smaller paychecks, tax increases, and more public debt, and we ought to attack it head-on. We also know from experience that putting patients in charge can lower health care costs. At the Federal level, believe it or not, we actually have a Federal program that, contrary to intuition and some people's skepticism, actually demonstrates this. This is a success of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program. Medicare Part D gives seniors choices among entirely private plans, with no government-run plan at all, no ``public option'' at all. As a result of the successes of Medicare Part D, seniors have seen program costs that are 37 percent less than anticipated, and more than 80 percent of seniors are satisfied with the program. I think this example proves the point I was making earlier--that greater access to information about quality and cost gives people more choices, creates competition in a market that disciplines cost, and ultimately brings down those costs and increases satisfaction. At the State level, good ideas for Medicaid reform have come from Florida, South Carolina, Indiana, and other States. These programs have given some of the lowest income Americans more choices and more control over the dollars spent on their behalf. Again, costs are lower and participants are generally satisfied with these programs. The private sector has some very good ideas as well. Steve Burd, of Safeway, has talked to many of us on both sides of the aisle about their successful experimenting with health care costs at their company by providing financial incentives to quit smoking, lose weight, exercise, control blood pressure and cholesterol, and get the appropriate diagnostic tests at a reasonable price. There is also another successful program, and I am going to meet with executives and employees at Whole Foods, which is located in Austin, TX, where I live. Whole Foods has conducted a successful experiment with high-deductible insurance plans with personal wellness accounts that each employee controls. Whole Foods has seen fewer medical claims, lower prescription drug claims, and fewer hospital admissions through this program. So why in the world would we want to dictate a single-payer system out of Washington for 300 million people when we have seen successful experiments and innovation across the country that we can learn from and adopt to empower patients and consumers, not Washington bureaucrats? Some, though, in Washington have simply given up on the private sector when it comes to delivering health care needs. They want to shift more power and control to the Federal Government. I think that is a terrible mistake. We have heard ideas about how to increase spending to pay for more Government control, at a time when we already spend 17 percent of the GDP on health care--again, nearly twice as much as our next closest competitor in an industrialized nation, Japan--17 percent in the United States compared to 9 percent in Japan, and other countries are far lower. Raising taxes is simply a terrible idea, especially during a recession. Raising taxes would also break the President's pledge he made in the campaign last year when he assured Americans that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase--not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. But we can help the President keep his pledge-- not help him break it--by empowering patients and consumers, ordinary Americans, to make their decisions and not empower bigger and bigger government to take those decisions away from them and dictate them. In the Finance Committee, we have heard a number of proposals that may improve care but are not going to contain costs--at least according to the CBO. These proposals include what I would consider to be commonsense approaches that I think are good, such as more health care technology and prevention initiatives. We have even seen a number of interest groups, provider groups, appear with the President last week, pledging they would cut the growth of health care costs, over the next 10 years, $2 trillion. That all sounds good until you start looking at it and realize there is actually no enforcement mechanism at all. It is a meaningless pledge, and there is going to continue to be upward pressure on health care costs across the board unless we do something about it. Only in Washington, DC, would people embrace the notion that to save money, you have to spend more money. It is not just counterintuitive, it is unproven. I don't think there is any justification for that suspicion. If there is, I would just love to see it. I don't think we ought to take as a matter of blind faith that by spending over a trillion dollars more of tax money on top of the 17 percent of GDP we are already spending now, that somehow miraculously, with the wave of a wand, by suspending our powers of disbelief, we are going to bend the curve on the growth of health care costs, which are bankrupting the country when it comes to Medicare and putting health insurance and health care out of the reach of many hard-working Americans. We have heard about some interesting ideas, such as comparative effectiveness research, which sounds good at first blush. In the stimulus plan, the Federal Government spent, or pledged, more than a million dollars on that. It sounds pretty good. Let's finds out what works. Well, I am concerned that the Government will use this research to delay treatment and deny care. The way the Government contains health care costs is by rationing, pure and simple. That is what happens in Medicare. I mentioned the woman in Dallas who couldn't find a doctor to accept her as a new Medicare patient. It is because the Government reimburses at such a low rate. So we have a promise of coverage, which everybody applauds, but it denies people access because the Government denies and delays care by using rationing as a way to control costs. We don't need that. Certainly, we don't need that, based on the ``cookbook'' medicine prescribed by Government bureaucrats, who will say: We will pay for this procedure but not that other procedure because it is not in our ``cookbook.'' Last week, Medicare refused to pay for less-invasive colonoscopy procedures. I don't think the American people are crying out for more Government control of their health care decisions based on cost-based decisions. That is what they would get if the proponents of the so-called public plan get their way. Again, I don't know who it is in Washington, DC--there must be a little group, a cabal of individuals sitting behind closed doors, that tries to think up innocuous names, such as ``public plan,'' for some really scary stuff. A ``public plan'' is simply a Washington takeover of health care; it is plain and simple. It is not an option. In the end, it will be the only place you can go under a single-payer system. We should take this pledge, too, Mr. President. We should guarantee that Americans who currently have health insurance that they like ought to be able to keep it--that is about 85 percent--as we look for ways to increase access for people who don't have health insurance. One think tank that looked at this so-called public plan--or Washington takeover of health care, which would drive all private competitors out of the market by undercutting them--estimated that 119 million Americans will lose their private health insurance if this Washington takeover, under the title of ``public plan,'' is embraced. We know the Federal Government is not a fair competitor. While it serves also as a regulator and a funder, the Federal Government says: Take it or leave it. It is price fixing. Nobody else can compete with the Federal Government. The public plan, so-called, would simply shift cost to taxpayers and subsidize inefficiency, as Medicare and Medicaid do today. They are broken systems that we don't need to emulate by making Medicare for all. Why would we emulate Medicare when it is broken and on an unsustainable financial path? We need new ideas and innovations that put the people in charge and will help bring down costs. Greater transparency, more choices, and market forces will increase satisfaction while bringing down costs. There is another scary concept out there that is called a ``pay or play'' mandate for employers. When I talk to small businesses in Texas, they tell me one of their most difficult decisions is how do they provide health care for their employees in small businesses? It is hard to get affordable health insurance. Some in Washington are proposing taking this to what I would call a ``mandate on steroids.'' Basically, it would say that if a small business doesn't provide health insurance coverage for its employees, it is going to have to pay a punitive tax. That is why they call it ``pay or play.'' New mandates on job creators would do nothing but head us in the wrong direction during a recession, where we are fighting the best we can in the private sector to create new jobs and retain the ones we have. We know the costs of this ``pay or play'' mandate are going to ultimately be passed down to the workers in the form of lower wages, just as they are today under a broken system. I have heard good ideas about health care reform. I hope we will have a robust debate about the options available to the American people to fix this broken system. I have to tell you that many proposals out there that seem to be gathering momentum are deeply troubling. As I have said, I believe the best way to approach health care reform--indeed, governance generally-- is from the bottom up, not the top down. We need to take our time and get this right and not, in our haste, produce a bad bill that will even deny people the choices and coverage they have now. We need to listen to the people who are running small businesses and raising families across this country. That is what I plan to do in Texas next week. I hope my colleagues will take advantage of the next week's recess to do likewise. This is too important to get done wrong. Let's take our time and listen to the stakeholders and people who will suffer the negative consequences if we get it wrong, and let's work together with President Obama and the administration to try to get it right. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Norval Pohl, former president of the University of North Texas, who passed away last week after a courageous battle against pancreatic cancer. Dr. Pohl joined the UNT com unity in 1999 as the executive vice president and provost and became the university's 13th president in October 2000. Under Dr. Pohl's leadership at UNT, enrollment grew from 27,000 to over 32,000 students. During the same period, the university's Latino enrollment increased by 48 percent and African-American enrollment increased by 43 percent. Financial aid awards increased from $57.8 million to $172.2 million, and annual giving to UNT increased from $4.7 million to $13.4 million. Dr. Pohl is also recognized for addressing title IX issues with the acquisition of the Liberty Christian School property, which increased both academic and athletic space for the university. Among his other accomplishments, he worked to advance UNT as a public research institution. He fulfilled a long held desire at UNT for an engineering school by establishing the College of Engineering and creating a permanent home for engineering at the UNT Research Park. After leaving UNT, he joined the faculty at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's Prescott campus and was named chief academic officer in January of this year. Dr. Pohl spent the better part of his career in higher education serving as both an administrator and a professor at several universities across the southwest. Dr. Norval Pohl was a great asset to the academic communities he served and he will be missed at the universities he leaves behind. I would like to express my condolences to Dr. Pohl's family and friends and my admiration for his devotion to higher education.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. May I inquire, my amendment is currently the pending amendment?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have conferred with the bill managers, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the distinguished ranking member. I have an amendment I would like to call up. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my amendment calls for an end to the poisonous environment of recriminations and second-guessing and even threats of prosecution that have overtaken the debate about detention and interrogation policy in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that neither the lawyers who offered good-faith legal advice regarding the legality of interrogation techniques, nor any person who relied in good faith on that legal advice, nor any Member of Congress who was briefed beforehand on these enhanced interrogation techniques and who did not object should be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned. This is, obviously, a sense of the Senate, but I think it is important that the Senate's will be determined and recognized on such a sensitive and important topic. I know it is hard for us to remember now what it was like in the days following 9/11. Believe it or not, there was a broad bipartisan consensus that America and all Americans, including Congress, should work aggressively within the law to detect, deter, and indeed to defeat further terrorist attacks. Responding to this consensus, patriotic Americans in our intelligence service; namely, the Central Intelligence Agency, the administration, and Congress did everything within our legal power to protect the country from a follow-on terrorist attack. We recall the horrible day when we saw two airplanes fly into the World Trade Center in New York. But it is not beyond the realm of concern that, indeed, the same terrorists who effected those horrible attacks, killing 3,000 Americans, roughly, on that day, would use some more effective weapon of perhaps a nuclear, biological, or chemical nature. So we know our intelligence officials and the administration and Congress were acutely aware of the environment in which they were acting. Our intelligence officials believed they could produce actionable intelligence by using some enhanced interrogation techniques, including one that is performed as part of training on some of our own U.S. military personnel; that if the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice determined this was a legal way for them to gain actual intelligence, perhaps, just perhaps, it could generate intelligence which would allow the Central Intelligence Agency and our military forces to defeat any follow-on terrorist attacks. It is worthwhile to remember, as my sense-of-the-Senate resolution does, that after the Central Intelligence Agency asked whether these enhanced interrogation techniques were, in fact, lawful, the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the authoritative branch that provides legal advice to the executive branch and the U.S. Government, was asked to render an opinion on whether use of these enhanced techniques, including waterboarding, was, in fact, legal. In fact, after much input and consultation within the executive branch and the lawyers for various parts of the executive branch discussed and interpreted what the constraints of the law were under both international as well as domestic laws, they concluded that under specific guidelines and limitations, it would be lawful for the Central Intelligence Agency, in questioning known al-Qaida leaders, to use this technique in order to gain intelligence that would perhaps save many more lives in the future. We know how controversial this turned out to be, but it is important to remember that at the time, it did not prove to be so controversial. In fact, after the CIA asked for permission to use these enhanced techniques, we know the Office of Legal Counsel rendered legal opinions authorizing the use of these techniques under certain limitations. And then, in fact, leadership here in Congress was briefed on those techniques. Specifically, under these circumstances, as the sense-of- the-Senate resolution points out, not only would the Speaker of the House of Representatives be briefed but also the majority and the minority leaders in both Houses of Congress, as well as the chairman and ranking member of both the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. That would have been back in 2002--of course, much closer in proximity to the horrible events of 2001--when, no doubt, Members of Congress and members of the executive branch were thinking: What can we do to prevent further terrorist attacks against the United States? One of the things that we have heard in the days since these opinions out of the Office of Legal Counsel have been controversial is that some lawyers have different opinions from those rendered by the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel. I can tell my colleagues, as a lawyer myself for 30 years, what lawyers do best is disagree with one another. There is nothing unexpected about that. But we should not turn disagreements between lawyers into witch hunts and into pursuing good- faith rendition of legal opinions as well as intelligence officials relying on those opinions in order to try to protect our country. One distinguished law professor testified to the Judiciary Committee last week: To ratchet-up simple disagreement with the legal analysis of a prior administration into the claim that such analysis was beyond the pale of legitimate legal analysis, and therefore should be investigated and punished, is to be engaged in a mild form of legal neo-McCarthyism. Mr. President, I was not in Washington, DC, on September 11, 2001. I was in my home in Austin, TX, when I saw these terrible images of these planes flying into the World Trade Center. But one of the images I remember in the aftermath of those attacks was of the Members of Congress, of both parties, joined together on the Capitol steps singing ``God Bless America.'' In the aftermath of that day, Americans, at least for a time, were united in our determination that it would not happen again. That is why it is particularly sad to see the bitter political divisions of the present being invoked to condemn the good-faith actions of the past and to hear calls to prosecute not only the intelligence officials in the CIA but also prior administration officials and, indeed, the Congress who answered the call when the American people demanded with one voice that we keep them safe. If we want to be able to look back at our detention and interrogation policies, and learn what worked and what did not, we need to try to maintain our sense of perspective and objectivity and fairness and be respectful of both the circumstances under which these officials reached these opinions and the reliance the intelligence officials and other high Government officials had upon those legal opinions in deciding what they could and could not do. Indeed, who would question their use of all legitimate means to gain actual intelligence that may indeed have saved American lives? We cannot learn together from our past successes or failures while recklessly accusing one another of crimes while criminalizing policy differences. In the end, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is an appeal to a sense of decency. We should be united in our commitment to liberty, justice, and security under the law. The American people want unity and not partisan prosecutions or sanctions imposed against those officials who were simply trying, to the very best of their ability, to do their job and to keep the American people safe. This amendment says, in the end, that the Senate agrees with that proposition. I would ask for the support of all my colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Military Voting Protection Act--a bipartisan bill to support our troops and protect their right to vote. In every Federal election in recent memory, American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have encountered substantial roadblocks in the voting process, especially those who are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a national disgrace. Our military service members put their lives on the line to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. In return, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to support them. The nature of the Global War on Terror and the high tempo of U.S. military operations--including our surge into Afghanistan--will necessitate overseas service by our troops for the foreseeable future. It is imperative that we put in place a system to ensure that American service members serving abroad can participate in the democratic process even as they simultaneously fight to defend our democracy, its institutions, and the American way of life. Surely, these brave men and women have earned at least that much through their blood, sweat, and tears. Yet the country they defend has repeatedly denied our troops one of our most sacred rights--the right to vote. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in studying the 2006 election, found that only 47.6 percent of the military voters who requested absentee ballots were actually successful in casting those ballots. That means that less than half of those troops who wanted to vote were able to do so, which is appalling. Overall participation rates among military and overseas voters in the November 2006 election were also extremely low. Looking at the big picture, there were roughly 6 million eligible military and overseas U.S. voters at that time, but only 16.5 percent of them were able to request an absentee ballot for the election. According to a 2006 DoD Inspector General report, only 59 percent of surveyed service members even knew where to obtain voting information on their installation, and only 40 percent had actually received assistance from their designated Voting Assistance Officer. Though the official data from the 2008 election is not yet available, the preliminary evidence indicates that our military voters faced the same array of problems in trying to cast their ballots as in previous elections. Our troops report many procedural hurdles when trying to participate in federal, state, and local elections. States have inadequate processes and unreasonable timelines in place for transmitting blank absentee ballots to our troops, and the methods available to these service members for returning completed ballots to local election officials are both slow and antiquated. Moreover, there are a myriad of absentee voting rules and regulations that are extremely confusing and vary widely with each state. The process is clearly broken, and there is no excuse for not stepping up to challenge the status quo and streamline the process. We ask so much of our troops, and in return we have given them a voting system that is perplexing, frustrating, slow, and often dysfunctional. They deserve better. The bill I introduce today can help address some of these procedural hurdles. The Military Voting Protection, MVP, Act will give our troops a louder and clearer voice at the polls by ensuring their absentee ballots are delivered back home in time to be counted and do not get lost on the way. It will reduce delays in the absentee voting process by requiring the Department of Defense to take a more active role in the process. The MVP Act will require the DoD to be responsible for collecting completed absentee ballots from overseas troops and then express-shipping them back to the U.S. in time to be counted, allowing troops to track their ballots while they are in transit and confirm their delivery after they arrive at local election offices. I am pleased that Senators Wyden and Inhofe have joined me in this effort; it is a testament to their unwavering support for the members of our Armed Forces. We should pass this bipartisan bill quickly so that elections officials have time to prepare for the 2010 election cycle. Meaningful reform will not come overnight, but now is the time to take up the cause of military voters. There are 18 months until the next election, which is enough time to implement significant improvements. If we fail, further disenfranchisement of military voters will likely result. We must avoid a repeat of 2004, 2006, and 2008. This bill does not solve all the problems with our current military voting system, but it is an important first step. The Americans who answer the call to serve are a national treasure, and I remain in awe of their selfless sacrifice and commitment to the defense of freedom. In what is now the 8th year of the Global War on Terror, they continue to voluntarily step forward to defend our Nation and our freedom--often requiring immeasurable personal sacrifice by them and their loved ones. The members of this next ``greatest generation'' deserve nothing less than the same constitutional rights and individual liberties that they safeguard for their fellow citizens back home. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that they get them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Military Voting Protection Act--a bipartisan bill to support our troops and protect their right to vote. In every Federal election in recent memory, American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have encountered substantial roadblocks in the voting process, especially those who are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a national disgrace. Our military service members put their lives on the line to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans. In return, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to support them. The nature of the Global War on Terror and the high tempo of U.S. military operations--including our surge into Afghanistan--will necessitate overseas service by our troops for the foreseeable future. It is imperative that we put in place a system to ensure that American service members serving abroad can participate in the democratic process even as they simultaneously fight to defend our democracy, its institutions, and the American way of life. Surely, these brave men and women have earned at least that much through their blood, sweat, and tears. Yet the country they defend has repeatedly denied our troops one of our most sacred rights--the right to vote. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in studying the 2006 election, found that only 47.6 percent of the military voters who requested absentee ballots were actually successful in casting those ballots. That means that less than half of those troops who wanted to vote were able to do so, which is appalling. Overall participation rates among military and overseas voters in the November 2006 election were also extremely low. Looking at the big picture, there were roughly 6 million eligible military and overseas U.S. voters at that time, but only 16.5 percent of them were able to request an absentee ballot for the election. According to a 2006 DoD Inspector General report, only 59 percent of surveyed service members even knew where to obtain voting information on their installation, and only 40 percent had actually received assistance from their designated Voting Assistance Officer. Though the official data from the 2008 election is not yet available, the preliminary evidence indicates that our military voters faced the same array of problems in trying to cast their ballots as in previous elections. Our troops report many procedural hurdles when trying to participate in federal, state, and local elections. States have inadequate processes and unreasonable timelines in place for transmitting blank absentee ballots to our troops, and the methods available to these service members for returning completed ballots to local election officials are both slow and antiquated. Moreover, there are a myriad of absentee voting rules and regulations that are extremely confusing and vary widely with each state. The process is clearly broken, and there is no excuse for not stepping up to challenge the status quo and streamline the process. We ask so much of our troops, and in return we have given them a voting system that is perplexing, frustrating, slow, and often dysfunctional. They deserve better. The bill I introduce today can help address some of these procedural hurdles. The Military Voting Protection, MVP, Act will give our troops a louder and clearer voice at the polls by ensuring their absentee ballots are delivered back home in time to be counted and do not get lost on the way. It will reduce delays in the absentee voting process by requiring the Department of Defense to take a more active role in the process. The MVP Act will require the DoD to be responsible for collecting completed absentee ballots from overseas troops and then express-shipping them back to the U.S. in time to be counted, allowing troops to track their ballots while they are in transit and confirm their delivery after they arrive at local election offices. I am pleased that Senators Wyden and Inhofe have joined me in this effort; it is a testament to their unwavering support for the members of our Armed Forces. We should pass this bipartisan bill quickly so that elections officials have time to prepare for the 2010 election cycle. Meaningful reform will not come overnight, but now is the time to take up the cause of military voters. There are 18 months until the next election, which is enough time to implement significant improvements. If we fail, further disenfranchisement of military voters will likely result. We must avoid a repeat of 2004, 2006, and 2008. This bill does not solve all the problems with our current military voting system, but it is an important first step. The Americans who answer the call to serve are a national treasure, and I remain in awe of their selfless sacrifice and commitment to the defense of freedom. In what is now the 8th year of the Global War on Terror, they continue to voluntarily step forward to defend our Nation and our freedom--often requiring immeasurable personal sacrifice by them and their loved ones. The members of this next ``greatest generation'' deserve nothing less than the same constitutional rights and individual liberties that they safeguard for their fellow citizens back home. It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that they get them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senators Voinovich, Chambliss, Ensign and Hutchison, who share my commitment that every dime sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC is spent wisely. The President has said several times that he intends to go through the Federal budget line-by-line--ending programs that we do not need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less. It is in this same spirit that I introduce this legislation. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 creates an 8 member bipartisan Commission, made up of 4 Senators and 4 Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal programs, but will especially focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an agency or program still needed?'' The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's recommendations within 2 years. Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for Congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it is abolished. Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when it appropriates the money for it. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, annually finds that Congress spends billions of taxpayers' money on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had expired. Many of these expired programs and agencies--perhaps most-- deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose. In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance measurement, evaluations and strategic planning, program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored over 1,000 government programs and found that 20 percent were not performing--they were found to be ineffective or their effectiveness could not be determined. The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent. Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote on the Commission's report under expedited procedures. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senators Voinovich, Chambliss, Ensign and Hutchison, who share my commitment that every dime sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC is spent wisely. The President has said several times that he intends to go through the Federal budget line-by-line--ending programs that we do not need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less. It is in this same spirit that I introduce this legislation. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 creates an 8 member bipartisan Commission, made up of 4 Senators and 4 Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal programs, but will especially focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an agency or program still needed?'' The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's recommendations within 2 years. Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for Congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it is abolished. Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when it appropriates the money for it. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, annually finds that Congress spends billions of taxpayers' money on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had expired. Many of these expired programs and agencies--perhaps most-- deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose. In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance measurement, evaluations and strategic planning, program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored over 1,000 government programs and found that 20 percent were not performing--they were found to be ineffective or their effectiveness could not be determined. The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent. Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote on the Commission's report under expedited procedures. The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.