John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes on the pending nomination.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Governor Sebelius, who has been nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that she would not refuse to use certain comparative effectiveness research as a tool to deny or delay American citizens' access to health care. Said another way, a concern about comparative effectiveness research, $1.1 billion of which was funded in the stimulus program, can be used both for benign purposes, purposes that are completely understandable, as well as those most Americans would find repugnant; that is, for rationing of access to health care. Comparative effectiveness research is the comparison of various treatments or approaches to garner better data on what works best and/ or what costs the least. Comparative effectiveness research can be helpful and beneficial if it is used to inform health care decisions and individual health care decisionmaking and as a guide to evidence- based medicine. Without appropriate safeguards--and these were the safeguards Governor Sebelius refused to embrace--the Government could actually use comparative effectiveness research to delay treatment and to deny care based on a one-size-fits-all approach to health care. The economic stimulus package included $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. This research should only be used to better inform individualized decisionmaking; that is, a patient talking to their doctor and deciding what is in that patient's best interests. It should not be used for the Government to say: Patient, we will not pay your doctor for that procedure unless it meets our cookbook medicine model that is generated by comparative effectiveness research. Despite assurances that the stimulus money would not be used to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of various medical treatments, the National Institutes of Health is already undertaking steps to use the stimulus money to conduct that kind of cost-based research. As I indicated, Governor Sebelius was asked before the Finance Committee how she plans to use comparative effectiveness research. As Secretary of HHS, she will be in the driver's seat in large part to determine how the policies of this administration and of this Congress will be implemented. My colleague Senator Kyl from Arizona expressed his concern before the Finance Committee vote in these words, with which I agree: Unfortunately, Governor Sebelius' answers made it clear that the Administration is unwilling to support pro-patient safeguards. She left me with no assurance that HHS, federal health care programs, or any new entity--such as the Federal Coordinating Council--will not use comparative effectiveness research as a tool to deny care. And this should be of concern to all of us. Instead of allowing the Federal Government to intrude further into personal decisionmaking and medical care, I believe that health care reform should enhance the individual relationships between doctors and their patients. I am concerned that using comparative effectiveness research to justify treatment denials based on cost will significantly limit patients' ability to choose health care services for individual needs. It will also reduce--and this is important--medical innovation and quality of care. When asked, Governor Sebelius did not have any convincing answers to what is one of the most important questions in the health care debate, and that is, how do we contain rising health care costs, something that is going to render the Medicare Program insolvent in the next decade? As any employer will tell us, it makes it increasingly more difficult for employers to provide health care to their employees. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending on health care will account for nearly 17 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. In 2009, that will be as much as $2.6 trillion. America spends more than twice what other industrialized nations spend per capita on health care. Can we claim our health care product is twice as good as anywhere else in the world based on this increased spending? I doubt it, even though American health care is very good. But I don't think we could say we get our money's worth by spending twice as much as any other industrialized nation per capita on health care. Health care insurance premiums have risen much faster than workers' wages in recent years which means lower take-home pay for American workers. Health care reforms must ensure that this trend is reversed or we will have failed in one of the most important missions of health care reform. In the Finance Committee, I asked Governor Sebelius her specific ideas, other than delaying treatment and denying care, on how to contain costs. In my office I asked her, what about health care liability reform which, in my State of Texas, has made health care much more accessible by moderating the growth of medical malpractice insurance premiums, providing a more level playing field when it comes to doctors and hospitals being sued. She basically did not have much of an answer for whether that should be included. I happen to believe it is one of the cost drivers in health care cost and has to be addressed. I submit, with no little modesty, that the State of Texas has experience in this regard that the Federal Government could learn from. While I don't doubt some of the cost containment proposals in her answers could be worthy of pursuing, Governor Sebelius failed to prove that they will provide substantial savings in a $2.4 trillion health care system. The Congressional Budget Office is also skeptical that the proposals she mentioned will result in any substantial savings. Finally--and this should cause all of us to be concerned about whether there actually will be cost containment or cost savings in health care reform--I am puzzled by the fact that President Obama's budget actually asks for more money, $634 billion. That is not the total price; that is for a downpayment. In my State, as well as the State of the Presiding Officer, before people are accustomed to making a downpayment, they usually want to know what they are buying. But the budget proposal by the President called for $634 billion of additional spending as a downpayment in order to control costs in the long run, which is based on nothing more than hope, and that is hardly a strategy. We know we are already facing an unprecedented level of national debt. Unfortunately, Congress, under the new administration, has contributed greatly to the fact that we have seen more spending in the last 90 days than we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in Hurricane Katrina recovery. We know we have $36 trillion more in unfunded liabilities in the Medicare Program alone. So at a time when we need to figure out how we deal with unfunded obligations of the Federal Government, how do we more efficiently spend the 17 percent of gross domestic product that makes us spend twice as much as any other country in the world per capita, we are ignoring some of the huge unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government, and we are asked to take as a matter of faith that these proposals will result in savings without any concrete plan which can be analyzed and evaluated in the light of day. I firmly believe this country is spending enough money on health care today. What we need are innovative ideas about how to spend it more wisely. I have not heard any innovative ideas from Governor Sebelius or the current administration. What causes me even more concern is Governor Sebelius has made it clear that she supports a new government-run ``public plan'' for health care that is unequivocally a gateway to a single payer system. A new government-run public plan option will devastate private insurance markets by acting as a competitor, regulator, and funder. How in the world can the private market compete when the Federal Government comes in and sets prices which will cause employers to give up their employer-provided health insurance coverage to allow their employees to get coverage under the public plan? Indeed, the public plan, much like Medicare today, can be relied upon to use denial or delay or treatment rationing of health care in order to contain costs. The independent Lewin Group analysis found that a new public plan could mean that 118 million Americans will lose their current health care coverage, and 130 million Americans could end up on a government- run health care plan. That is what I mean as a ``gateway'' to a single payer system through this so-called innocuous sounding public plan which will run competition out, will undercut it, and make it impossible to have the benefits of a competitive market, as we have seen on Medicare Part D, the prescription drug coverage plan, which actually, in an amazing feat, has a high public satisfaction and came in under proposed cost, mainly through a market-based mechanism that creates a market for insurance companies to provide prescription drug coverage. That is the kind of model we should be looking at to learn from in order to contain cost, not by Government delaying or denying access to health care under the guise of a ``public plan.'' The Wall Street Journal recently wrote: Because federal officials will run not only the new plan but also the ``market'' in which it ``competes'' with private programs--like playing both umpire and one of the teams on the field--they will crowd out private alternatives and gradually assume a health-care monopoly. A public plan will also increase the cost of private health care. A report by the actuary Milliman estimated the ``hidden tax'' commercial payers pay to subsidize the costs of Medicare and Medicaid equals roughly $88.8 billion per year. This means that the average health care premium is $1,512, or 10.6 percent, more annually per family than it would be without the cost shift. A new so-called public plan option, which is a government-run program, would exacerbate the cost shift and drive up the cost of private health care at a time when we must seek to lower health care costs. Then there is the Washington Post that wrote on April 27: [President Obama's] nominee for secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, said that she wants a public plan to ``challenge private insurers to compete on cost and quality'' but ``recognizes the importance of a level playing field between plans and ensuring that private insurance plans are not disadvantaged.'' The Washington Post said: We disagree. It is difficult to imagine a truly level playing field that would simultaneously produce benefits from a government-run system. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from the Washington Post be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. Throughout the campaign last year, the President promised Americans care such as Members of Congress receive. The irony is that Members of Congress do not have access to a public plan. As a matter of fact, we don't need one because there are private plans that provide the coverage we receive. I am concerned that Governor Sebelius is not up to the challenge of finding--and this is my final point--more than $90 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare-Medicaid Program each year. There are some who have said that what we need is Medicare for all. Well, right now Medicare, as I indicated, and Medicaid have roughly $90 billion in fraud, abuse, and waste. I hope that is not what they mean-- that we need to carry over that kind of waste, fraud, and abuse into a Medicare or a single-payer system. According to an article in the Washington Post last year, more than $60 billion is lost each year to Medicare fraud alone. That is just Medicare--$60 billion of money that could go to provide services to Medicare recipients that is lost to people who cheat and steal the Federal taxpayer. Medicaid services last year were estimated to be about $32.7 billion similarly lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. Medicare and Medicaid fraud drive up the cost of health care and, I believe, represent an unacceptable mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. When I asked Governor Sebelius about how she planned to fight fraud in our public programs, she only gave the vaguest of answers to my questions. Additionally, her record as Governor tells me that she is not yet ready to tackle that kind of fraud, waste, and abuse as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Kansas State Legislature is planning to have hearings on whether Governor Sebelius was involved in a decision to provide more than $700,000 in ``extraordinary'' Medicaid funds to an organization linked to a number of her supporters. An article by the Kansas Health Institute said that: Regardless of the Medicaid question, which isn't likely to be answered any time soon, many believe [the Medicaid Director's] decision was based on the political connections of those most closely involved. The article goes on to say: Some Kansas officials are debating whether State oversight of [Kansas'] Medicaid program was strong enough. The debate focuses on the inspector general's office, created in 2007 within the Kansas Health Policy Authority to ferret out potential problems in Medicaid. The first inspector general left in October and has told legislators the authority hindered her work . . . The scrutiny came after a legislative audit described $13 million in ``suspicious claims'' paid by Medicaid in 2005 and 2006, before the authority took over the bulk of the program. In one case, auditors said the program paid a doctor $941 for a Cesarean section when the patient was an 8-year-old boy. Republicans and, indeed, all of us, I believe, want a new HHS Secretary to be someone committed to work with them to reform the health care system in a bipartisan process that will reach the best result for the American public. Unfortunately, with a sense of foreboding, I read accounts that Democratic leadership wants to use the budget reconciliation process to jam a partisan health care reform bill through on an expedited basis without adequate debate or deliberation. I think that would be the worst of all possible outcomes. This is a serious enough issue that we need true bipartisan buy-in and contribution to workable health care reform. Unfortunately, Governor Sebelius backed a highly partisan process for health care reform that excludes representatives of 50 percent of the American people: the use of budget reconciliation that I mentioned. Governor Sebelius refused to say that she would not support the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform. In her response to committee questions, she wrote: There are many tools available and none of those tools, including reconciliation, should be taken off the table. I am very concerned that using a partisan procedural trick to reform a system that comprises 17 percent of our gross domestic product is not in the best interests of the American people. The American people deserve open and full and honest debate about how to improve our health care system, not this kind of partisanship. Then, finally--and this is my final point--Governor Sebelius failed to disclose relevant information to the Finance Committee during the consideration of her nomination. Not only was there the matter of her tax returns--something that, unfortunately, has become a trend, it seems, in this administration's nominees--she also failed to disclose contributions from a controversial abortion provider until pressed by the media. The Associated Press wrote that: When the discrepancy became public Sebelius acknowledged getting an additional $23,000 from Tiller and his abortion clinic beyond the $12,450 she initially reported. While I appreciate her apology and her mention that it was only an inadvertent error, I am concerned that a Cabinet Secretary should be held to a much higher and more transparent standard. So I am sad to say I will not be able to support Governor Sebelius's nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Apr. 27, 2009] Reforming Health Care Of the many possible issues that could snarl health-care reform, one of the biggest is whether the measure should include a government-run health plan to compete with private insurers. The public plan has become an unfortunate litmus test for both sides. The opposition to a public plan option is understandable; conservatives, health insurers, health- care providers and others see it as a slippery step down the slope to a single-payer system because, they contend, the government's built-in advantages will allow it to unfairly squash competitors. For liberals, labor unions and others pushing to make health care available to all Americans, however, the fixation on a public plan is bizarre and counterproductive. Their position elevates the public plan way out of proportion to its importance in fixing health care. It is entirely possible to imagine effective health-care reform--changes that would expand coverage and help control costs--without a public option. President Obama has said that he favors a public option but has been sketchy on details. His nominee for secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, said that she wants a public plan to ``challenge private insurers to compete on cost and quality'' but ``recognizes the importance of a level playing field between plans and ensuring that private insurance plans are not disadvantaged.'' The argument for a public plan is that, without the need to extensively market itself or make a profit, it would do a better job of providing good health care at a reasonable cost, setting an important benchmark against which private insurers would be forced to compete. Even in a system where insurers are required to take all applicants, public plan advocates argue, incentives will remain for private plans to discourage the less healthy from signing up; a public plan is a necessary backstop. Moreover, if the playing field is level, public plan advocates argue, private insurers--and those who extol the virtues of a competitive marketplace-- should have nothing to fear. We disagree. It is difficult to imagine a truly level playing field that would simultaneously produce benefits from a government-run system. While prescription drugs are not a perfect comparison, the experience of competing plans in the Medicare prescription drug arena suggests that a government- run option is not essential to energize a competitive system that has turned out to cost less than expected. Insurers and private companies have been at least as innovative as the federal government in recent years in finding ways to provide quality care at lower costs. Medicare keeps costs under control in part because of its 800-pound-gorilla capacity to dictate prices--in effect, to force the private sector to subsidize it. Such power, if exercised in a public health option, eventually would produce a single-payer system; if that's where the country wants to go, it should do so explicitly, not by default. If the chief advantage of a public option is to set a benchmark for private competitors, that could be achieved in other ways, for example, by providing for the entry of a public plan in case the private marketplace did not perform as expected. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe it's possible to design a public option that aids consumers without undermining competition. If so, we certainly wouldn't oppose a program that included a public component. But it would be a huge mistake for the left to torpedo reform over this question.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2009, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. This bipartisan bill I introduce today is the same legislation I introduced in the 110th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more than $15 billion. Additionally, the CDC estimates that more than \1/3\ of all US adults fail to meet minimum recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving. With this in mind, I am introducing the WHIP Act. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees--creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees. The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our Nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Additionally, it will help relieve pressure on a strained health care system and correct an inequity in the current tax code. 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 Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2009, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. This bipartisan bill I introduce today is the same legislation I introduced in the 110th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more than $15 billion. Additionally, the CDC estimates that more than \1/3\ of all US adults fail to meet minimum recommendations for aerobic physical activity based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise. Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving. With this in mind, I am introducing the WHIP Act. Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules. The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees--creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees. The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our Nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Additionally, it will help relieve pressure on a strained health care system and correct an inequity in the current tax code. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my motion instructs Senate conferees to include section 307, which is included in the Senate-passed budget resolution, in the final conference report. As the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee knows, this creates a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that raises income taxes on small businesses. The Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 82 to 16--a rarity these days, when we see that kind of overwhelming bipartisan support on anything--approved this point of order which I offered as an amendment to the budget. The Senate voted so overwhelmingly for this amendment-- and I suggest it would be appropriate to vote for this motion to instruct in at least the same numbers--because the Senate should not pass a budget that increases income taxes on small businesses in Texas or Alaska or anywhere else, especially during a time when the economy is struggling and when our No. 1 priority is to help employers retain employment for their current employees and, hopefully, at some point begin to increase the number of jobs available to Americans. Almost 400,000 businesses in Texas that employ around 4 million people would be especially hit by a failure to pass this motion to instruct and by any increase in income taxes on small businesses. For example, earlier when I spoke on the budget resolution, I mentioned Don Thedford, a small businessman in Tyler, in east Texas, and how he told me he has been able to grow his small business in part because of the tax relief we provided in 2001 and 2003. It is common sense and certainly intuitive that taxes can have an impact on the ability of a business to expand or, when taxes are unnecessarily high, cause it to contract. Another businessman in east Texas, Cory Miller from Winnesboro, tells a similar story. Through one business that Cory has, he drills and services water wells. Of course, in the process, he gives families and communities access to fresh water. In his business, he manufactures a type of pump he invented, one which he now sells to other well drillers and drilling rig manufacturers. He has been in this business for 25 years and now employs 35 people. Cory, like Don, believes the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 created the kind of positive, progrowth environment which allowed him to grow his business and that higher taxes in the middle of a recession will force him to make tough decisions and possibly lay off employees. Higher taxes for people such as Don and Cory will mean they will not be able to reinvest more money in their businesses to purchase equipment or to hire more people because they will have to pay Uncle Sam higher taxes instead. As Cory put it: Every dollar taken from an aggressive, growth-oriented small businessman like myself is a dollar that will not be used to expand my business or hire new employees. We all know if small businesses are hit by higher taxes such as those proposed in the administration's budget, it will cause them to contract. We also know that small businesses are the vehicle that has produced most of the new jobs over the last decade. Given that President Obama and his administration have said their primary objective in dealing with the economy is job creation and retention, I don't understand why they would propose in their budget to increase taxes on the engine of job creation known as small business. The Senate made its voice clear when a bipartisan majority supported my point of order as an amendment to the budget in the Senate. I ask my colleagues once again to reaffirm their support in the same bipartisan fashion by joining with me in supporting this motion to instruct conferees not to raise taxes on small businesses, the primary job engine in the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my motion instructs conferees to retain my amendment, which passed by a strong bipartisan majority of 82 Senators who voted in favor, which says don't raise taxes on small businesses. We all know that is the principal job creator in the economy. It passed 82 to 16. My hope is we have a similar if not better vote on this motion to instruct. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside, and I send to the desk another motion for which I ask its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Well, we have had this proposition tendered before. I realize that in all likelihood this amendment would be stripped out in conference behind closed doors. I do not think that is particularly an honest way to deal with these important issues--to say yes on the floor and then to strip them out behind closed doors and to act like we are being consistent and not hypocritical. I understand what the chairman has to do. He will do what he has to do. But I would like a record vote.

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, I have three amendments which I have on the dock. This is the only one of those three that I would like to have a record vote on.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment would pose a 60-vote point of order against a bill that had not been made available for public review along with the score of the Congressional Budget Office on a congressional Web site for at least 5 days. As everyone will recall, the President himself said this was his goal, to offer greater transparency, hence greater accountability, and thus instill greater confidence in the people and their Government. Unfortunately, that pledge has been violated more times than it has been honored, and in our rush to pass the stimulus bill that was circulated--the conference report--at 11 o'clock on a Thursday night, we were required to vote on it less than 24 hours later and thus the uproar over the AIG bonuses ensued because, frankly, Members of the Senate did not know what they were voting on and could not know what they were voting on without this kind of transparency. I commend this to my colleagues. It is consistent with what the President has advocated and I think it is a good way to do business.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 934 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the U.S.- Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009. I introduced this legislation earlier today along with my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. This legislation will do two things; it will reduce trade barriers between the U.S., and Paraguay and it will encourage continued bi- national security cooperation. Paraguay is a friendly ally in Latin America, and it is beneficial to support and empower our allies in this sometimes-hostile region of the Americas. The U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act will add Paraguay to our Nation's existing trade pact with four countries in the Andean region of Latin America. The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Enforcement Act, ATPDEA, enacted in 2002, is an economic tool that provides incentives for Andean nations to grow and manufacture legitimate products in order to reduce the grip of illegal drug cultivation and trafficking. The ATPDEA has helped reduce the flow of narcotics from Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador since its enactment. In addition to the illegal drug eradication function, the accord also fostered much greater economic cooperation between the Andean region and the U.S. Moreover, the two free trade agreements President George W. Bush negotiated and signed with Peru and Colombia were borne out of the cooperation developed by the Andean trade accord. Paraguay is an important ally in U.S. counternarcotics efforts and is helping crackdown on terrorist financing activities in its region. The government of Paraguay recognizes the value in developing its economy by promoting legitimate alternatives to narcotics cultivation and trade. Our bi-national eradication strategy is working, and this bill will provide economic incentives to continue the fight against narco- terrorism from the ground up. The ATPDEA is a temporary trade preferences law and is due for reconsideration later this year. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider the merits of adding Paraguay as a beneficiary country when the ATPDEA is reauthorized. It is time to extend the benefits of the ATPDEA to the nation of Paraguay.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the U.S.- Paraguay Partnership Act of 2009. I introduced this legislation earlier today along with my colleague from the Finance Committee, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. This legislation will do two things; it will reduce trade barriers between the U.S., and Paraguay and it will encourage continued bi- national security cooperation. Paraguay is a friendly ally in Latin America, and it is beneficial to support and empower our allies in this sometimes-hostile region of the Americas. The U.S.-Paraguay Partnership Act will add Paraguay to our Nation's existing trade pact with four countries in the Andean region of Latin America. The Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Enforcement Act, ATPDEA, enacted in 2002, is an economic tool that provides incentives for Andean nations to grow and manufacture legitimate products in order to reduce the grip of illegal drug cultivation and trafficking. The ATPDEA has helped reduce the flow of narcotics from Peru, Colombia, and Ecuador since its enactment. In addition to the illegal drug eradication function, the accord also fostered much greater economic cooperation between the Andean region and the U.S. Moreover, the two free trade agreements President George W. Bush negotiated and signed with Peru and Colombia were borne out of the cooperation developed by the Andean trade accord. Paraguay is an important ally in U.S. counternarcotics efforts and is helping crackdown on terrorist financing activities in its region. The government of Paraguay recognizes the value in developing its economy by promoting legitimate alternatives to narcotics cultivation and trade. Our bi-national eradication strategy is working, and this bill will provide economic incentives to continue the fight against narco- terrorism from the ground up. The ATPDEA is a temporary trade preferences law and is due for reconsideration later this year. I encourage my colleagues to seriously consider the merits of adding Paraguay as a beneficiary country when the ATPDEA is reauthorized. It is time to extend the benefits of the ATPDEA to the nation of Paraguay.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation that will raise income taxes on small businesses. This is the third year in a row that I have offered this amendment. Previously, it has received as many as 63 votes. Last year, it got 58 votes, but it nevertheless was a strong bipartisan showing. For my colleagues' information, the National Federation of Independent Business supports this because they recognize what we all know, and that is that small businesses are the economic engine that creates jobs. Particularly in a tough economy, exactly the wrong thing to do is to raise taxes on the job creators, our small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my colleagues, when they listen to what my amendment does, are going to experience a sense of deja vu. As the chairman says, we have been here before. As a matter of fact, 2 years ago, when I offered this amendment, which would create a budget point of order requiring 60 votes for any legislation that would raise taxes on small businesses--a couple years ago--we got 63 votes for that amendment, including these Democrats, as shown on this chart, folks on the other side of the aisle, making this a truly bipartisan proposal. Two years ago, when we had the same amendment offered, we had a little bit different group, but 58 Senators, representing a bipartisan majority of the Senate, believed it was a correct move to limit this Congress's ability to raise taxes on small businesses. I know the chairman has raised this issue of corrosive but not fatal to the privileged status of the budget resolution, and I have some answers. We have corresponded with the Parliamentarian, and he has been good to give us some guidance, and I think there is a pathway for us to move forward for the conference committee to consider this amendment and to perhaps modify it in the conference and yet sustain its viability as a budget point of order for a tax increase on small businesses. Why are we focusing on small businesses? Well, almost 400,000 small businesses in Texas, my State, employ about 4 million people. Frankly, as the chief job-creation engine of our country, small businesses disproportionately add to the job creation in our country, and I think it would do nothing but destroy or certainly impair their ability to continue to create jobs in this country by raising taxes on small businesses. So I think it is appropriate, before we do, that we have an extra hurdle--at least 60 votes--to waive any budget point of order to make us consider the seriousness of our decision and also the ramifications of any tax increase on small businesses. Last month, I visited Tyler, TX. That is in East Texas, a midsized city of over 100,000 people, where I had the chance to sit down and visit with local business leaders, community leaders, about how the economy is going, unemployment rates--the things we could do here in Washington to perhaps make those businesses' job-creation capability a little easier. I met with Don Thedford, who 30 years ago opened a business called Don's TV and Appliance. He did that 30 years ago with just one other employee; in other words, there were just two of them. Today, Don's business has 50 employees who sell and service appliances and electronics. Don was able to grow his business early in this decade in part because of the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003. Since 2000, Don has hired eight additional workers to install and deliver appliances, seven more service technicians, six more clerical workers, four more sales people, and two more in management. So this is the kind of job creation we love to see: 30 years ago, two people; now 50 people working productively in this small business. Don has also added a new retirement plan for all of his employees, in addition to the health benefits he has offered to his employees for years. As have many small businesses in this recession, he has seen his sales fall off. Of course, when families aren't buying and selling as many homes, there is less demand for appliances and electronics. Higher taxes would force Don, as well as other small businesses, to lay off some employees he has hired and scale back on some of the benefits he has offered, including health care. We know more than half of the small businesses with 20 or more employees will get hit with a tax increase under President Obama's budget proposal. We also know, as I indicated earlier, small businesses create a majority of the net new jobs we have seen over the past decade, and two-thirds of those jobs were created by businesses similar to those that are now threatened by a proposed tax increase. Given the administration's stated goal and, indeed, our stated goal--I don't know any Member of the Senate who doesn't come to the floor and say we need to help our employers create and certainly, at least, retain the jobs they have in this down cycle--I am left wondering why anyone would oppose this budget point of order that would make it harder to raise taxes on small businesses because I know we all appreciate, intuitively and otherwise, that raising taxes on small businesses would be counterproductive to our ultimate goal of job creation. I have said this every time I have offered this amendment--and now it is the third time--that this point of order is an insurance policy when Congress decides to look at the pocketbook of small business owners such as Don for more money instead of looking for ways to eliminate waste and fraud and abuse in Government programs. We know the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed more than 1,000 Government programs and found 20 percent of them to be nonperforming. Why don't we look for ways to save money by eliminating that waste and nonperforming programs as opposed to raising taxes on the chief job creators in our economy? Raising taxes before we eliminate wasteful spending or fix the ones that are broken is the wrong signal to our No. 1 job creators. I share the chairman's concern, of course, about the debt. In fact, I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that would have reduced it by more than $55 billion but, unfortunately, it was defeated by a party-line vote. But with concerns that families and small businesses have about the economy, now is not the time to increase taxes. As former Chief Justice John Marshall noted, ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' We should not use this power to destroy small businesses such as Don's. For this reason, I ask my colleagues once again to sign on to this amendment and to join me in voting with the same sort of bipartisan support that we have enjoyed the past two times this amendment has been offered and pass it as a statement of this body that we are going to be extra careful and take extra precautions and look for alternatives before we end up raising taxes on small businesses because that would be exactly the wrong prescription for what ails this economy. Finally, let me say I know the concerns the Budget chairman, the bill manager, has on the privileged nature of this budget resolution. But I suggest to him that this is something that if the amendment is passed, he can take up, and the conference committee can take up and modify the amendment while retaining its essential core principles and eliminate the concerns the Parliamentarian has voiced about this being corrosive, if not fatal, to the privileged nature of the budget resolution. So it is my hope, when we have an opportunity to vote on this, that we will get a strong bipartisan statement out of the Senate that we are not going to raise taxes on small businesses without at least the deliberation required and the overwhelming vote of 60 Senators to do so because it would be exactly the wrong thing to do in this economic downturn. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the new moniker the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is trying to confer on me, but I would say it is not warranted for a number of reasons. The chairman has a great sense of humor, which I appreciate sometimes and not as much on other occasions. Amendment No. 806 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment No. 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand what the chairman, Senator Conrad, has said. My hope is that the conference committee would not reflexively strip this amendment, if it passes by a large bipartisan majority, from the conference report but perhaps modify it in a way that it not render the budget resolution unprivileged.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two law clerks from my staff, Matthew Welling and Andrew Warthen, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed from Rhode Island be recognized first, for up to 5 minutes, and then I be recognized, following him, for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am a member of the Budget Committee. Senator Conrad is our chairman. Senator Gregg is our ranking member. As the Senate knows, this week we will be taking up the President's proposed budget, and I want to speak for a few minutes about that subject. Yesterday I had the opportunity to speak to a number of students who were here because they want to make sure Congress continues to provide them an opportunity to study at our Nation's community colleges. I am a strong believer in the role of community colleges as a less expensive yet outstanding opportunity to earn a good education, but it being also a part of our workforce development and training, where industry can come in and match up a curriculum to train people to perform jobs for which they can receive well-paying salaries. But yesterday these community college students, of course, were here to talk about the issues that are on their mind. They heard from Dr. Jill Biden and Secretary Duncan, among others. I appreciate how eager they were to learn what is going on here in Washington. Indeed, I bet there are a lot of people who would like to know what is going on here in Washington. I encouraged them to learn about the issues and express their views. I told them that as far as I can tell, their generation will bear the consequences of the reckless spending this Congress is engaged in, in a budget that simply spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Students will ultimately end up--after they finish their education and enter the workforce--paying those higher taxes under this proposed budget. This proposed budget calls for $1.4 trillion in additional net taxes over the next 10 years. Students are trying to figure out how these higher taxes will actually impact the opportunities they will have as they enter the workforce. Some of these taxes will hit these students at the toughest time; that is, right as they enter their first job. We know the engine of job creation in America is our small businesses. In fact, of those small businesses that employ between 10 and 500 employees--which are the principal job creators in our country--50 percent of them will experience higher tax rates because many of them are not incorporated. They are sole proprietorships. They are partnerships. They are subchapter S corporations, where the income actually flows through and is reported on an individual tax return. So it is not true to say these will only affect the rich. Indeed, these taxes will affect the very job engine that creates the jobs we ought to be worried about retaining and indeed creating more of. I also talked to these students about how they will feel the impact of higher energy costs on their electric bill. You may wonder what I am talking about. Well, we all care about the environment. As a matter of fact, I reject the notion of people who actually say: Well, we care about the environment, and you do not care. I think we all care about the quality of the air we breathe, the quality of the water we drink. I cannot imagine someone who does not. These students, though, I think are understandably skeptical of the complex and unproven cap-and-trade scheme the President's budget wants to import from Europe, which will actually ultimately increase the cost of energy, including electricity. That is why some people have called it a national sales tax on energy, if, indeed, this complex and unproven cap-and-trade plan is passed as part of the President's budget. Then there is the issue of the caps placed on charitable deductions for taxpayers who take advantage of that tax break when they contribute money to good and worthy purposes. Many community college students receive scholarships from foundations that are funded by charitable contributions. As a matter of fact, charitable giving is one of the things that is part of our Nation's great tradition of voluntarism-- something Alexis de Tocqueville called ``public associations''--things you do not get paid for but things that people do because they think it is the right thing to do and they have the opportunity to do in our great country. This budget would actually cap charitable contributions, which will actually reduce the tax incentive for individuals to contribute money to good causes such as the Tyler Junior College Foundation in Tyler, TX. The foundation is understandably concerned that raising taxes without increasing the charitable tax deduction will limit their ability to offer as many scholarships in future years. So these tax increases will, in effect, limit the opportunities for these community college students, including folks in my State, in east Texas, in Tyler, TX. Then there is the issue of raising taxes generally and spending. These students know Congress is already spending a whole lot of their money because it is all borrowed money. In fact, we have spent more money since this Congress convened this year than has been spent for the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, and in Hurricane Katrina recovery. We have done that already. And this budget calls for doubling the debt in 5 years and tripling the debt in 10 years. These students, understandably--because they are going to be the ones we are going to look to to pay that money back or bear that tax burden--should be concerned and, indeed, they are concerned that so much money is being spent so recklessly. In fact, it is impossible for me to imagine it will be spent without huge sums of money actually being wasted. We have already seen evidence of that. In the stimulus bill--the President said he wanted on his desk in short order, which was rushed through the Senate and through the Congress--$1.1 trillion, including the debt and interest on the debt--we found out, once we passed the next bill, which was a $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill, that, lo and behold, Congress had actually doubly funded 122 different programs in the bill. We acted with such haste, with such little care, with such little deliberation, that we found out we doubly funded 122 programs. Indeed, we found out in recent days that in the conference report on the stimulus bill, there was a provision stuck in the conference report that protected the bailout bonuses for the executives of AIG. Then, of course, there was the understandable uproar over that. That is what happens when a bill is printed and circulated at 11 o'clock at night, on a Thursday night, and we are required to vote on it in less than 24 hours the next day. That is not the kind of transparency, that is not the kind of accountability, that is not what will actually give people more confidence in their Government-elected officials. To the contrary. There is another provision in this omnibus bill that has essentially started a trade war with Mexico, something that causes me grave concern. So as we consider the President's $3.6 trillion budget proposal, we should remember the lessons of the past 2 weeks: spending so much money, so quickly, can lead to unintended consequences, to say the very least, but the biggest consequence of this budget is the amount of debt we are accumulating. I have already talked about it a minute. But, of course, we were shocked, and I think even the President and the administration were shocked, by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office which evaluates financial matters for Congress, which said the President's budget will actually create deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade. I mentioned the fact that it would double the debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office said the size of the national debt as a percentage of the economy will become the highest since the years after World War II. So these students who start college this year will see their share of the national debt grow from $19,000 per student to more than $36,000 per student after graduation from a 4-year program. By 2019, their share of the debt will grow to more than $55,000 per person. Can you imagine, with the money they have to borrow to fund their education, with their credit card debt--and I do not know any student who does not have sizable credit card debt--we are going to heap $55,000 in additional debt on these students. That is a tough way to start out your life after school as you start your first job. Today's college students will ultimately have to pay back the debt, as well as the generations that succeed them. All bailouts, one way or another, will come out of their pocket. I urge my colleagues to understand the impact on this younger generation of a budget that taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much. Because of our actions, the next generation will either have to raise more taxes or cut programs that are necessary or lower their standard of living. I know from my parents, members of the ``greatest generation,'' the one thing they aspired to more than anything else was that my brother and my sister and I would have a better life, more opportunities, more freedom, a better standard of living than they did. And they were willing to sacrifice for that, and sacrifice they did. But it seems to me the sacrifices we are calling for today are all on our children and grandchildren, and none upon the present generation. The President says he wants to make hard decisions. But I do not see any hard decisions in this budget. All I see is more borrowing, more taxing, and more spending, and that is exactly the wrong way we ought to be headed. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.