[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4562-S4564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      APPROVAL RATING OF CONGRESS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we reached a milestone in 
Congress, because on Monday it was the 500th day since our friends on 
the other side of the aisle took control of both the Senate and House 
following the 2006 election. In those 500 days, we have seen 
congressional approval rating, according to Rasmussen Surveys, drop to 
13 percent of the respondents who believe that Congress has performed 
in a good or excellent fashion. I believe one reason why we have seen 
this drop in Congress's public approval rating is because we have 
failed to address some of the biggest concerns that confront the 
American people.
  Here is a chart. Four of the concerns are depicted here. The first 
number I mention here is the 96 days that Congress--specifically the 
House of Representatives--has failed to act to modernize the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, of course, is the law that allows our intelligence community to 
listen to telephone conversations between foreign terrorists to learn 
of attacks being planned, so as to not only detect them but also to 
deter them and defeat our enemies. Why Congress would fail to act to 
reauthorize this important piece of legislation for 96 days, I think, 
can only cause us to scratch our heads and wonder what could possibly 
justify that effective blinding of our intelligence community to new 
threats and the kinds of threats that could make us safer, if detected, 
deterred, and defeated, and could make us safer here at home and make 
our troops safer in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
  At the same time, we have been waiting 547 days for Congress to take 
up and pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This is important to our 
Nation and it is important to my State. Last year alone, Texas sold 
$2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to Colombia, a large nation in 
South America. Because of tariffs that are currently imposed on those 
goods that are sold from Texas to Colombia, or from the United States 
to Colombia, it actually discriminates against my small business man 
and woman, against the manufacturer, against the producer of farm 
goods; whereas, Colombian goods coming into the United States because 
of another agreement have no similar tariff or financial 
discrimination.
  If the Speaker of the House would take up the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement, we could restore a level playing field and create more jobs 
in the United States because we would be creating more goods here in 
America to sell in Colombia.
  Free trade is something that, amazingly, this Congress seems more and 
more afraid of, when, in fact, I think it is one of the ways out of our 
current economic doldrums. If we continue to create new markets for our 
goods and services across the world, that creates jobs at home. If 
there is anything like a stimulus package Congress could pass, free-
trade agreements, such as the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is one of 
them.
  It is more important than that because Colombia, of course, is one of 
our very best allies in Latin America, sitting right next door to Hugo 
Chavez in Venezuela, someone who is not our friend and has declared us 
his enemy.
  I have to think that Raul Castro and Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo 
Chavez in Venezuela are sort of chuckling to themselves, seeing how 
America is treating one of our very best allies in Latin America. In 
fact, it is President Uribe in Colombia who has been heroic in his 
fight against the narcoterrorists, known as the FARC, who recently, we 
found out, were not only in cahoots with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez but 
planning a lot of no good--buying arms, buying military materiel from 
Russia and other places right in our backyard, in Latin America. Why we 
would stiff-arm President Uribe in Colombia, one of our very best 
allies in Latin America, when it is in our self-interest to create more 
markets to sell American goods and services, frankly, is beyond me.
  The next number is 692 days. This is how long some judicial nominees, 
nominated by President Bush, have been waiting for Senate confirmation.
  We know the majority leader pledged to confirm at least three circuit 
court nominees before the Memorial Day break. We only have 2 more days 
left to go. Obviously, we are not going to meet that pledged goal. So 
692 days with nominees waiting for a vote with no real end in sight. It 
is clear what is happening. It is an attempt to drag this out until the 
election is nigh upon us and then the majority leader can say: We can't 
get any more judges confirmed because we are going to have to wait for 
the Presidential election to see who will fill those vacancies. But to 
wait 692 days without even giving these nominees simply the courtesy of 
a hearing or an up-or-down vote is inexcusable. There is just no reason 
for it.

[[Page S4563]]

  The last number on this chart is 758 days. That is the period of time 
since Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House, pledged to come up 
with a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline. Mr. President, 
758 days later, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, with 
no end in sight, and the price of oil, which makes up 70 percent of the 
cost of gasoline, is going through the roof, with no end in sight.
  We have on this side of the aisle offered what I believe to be a very 
constructive plan to produce more American energy and rely less on 
imported energy from other parts of the world, and that was rebuffed by 
the majority. I am left to wonder, if the majority refuses to take 
advantage of American natural resources and reduce our dependency on 
imported oil from our enemies at the price of $3.75 a gallon, I wonder 
if they would reconsider when the price hits $4.75 a gallon or $5.75 a 
gallon? At what price will we finally wake up in Congress and recognize 
that the moratorium we passed some 30 years ago which banned the 
exploration for oil and gas on our Outer Continental Shelf, when oil 
was $7 a barrel and now is $127 a barrel, when will we reconsider that 
policy and decide it is in our national interest--our national security 
interest and our economic interest--to depend more on what God gave us 
in America, our natural resources, which can be developed in a way that 
is consistent with a good environment and in a way that is responsible?
  It is irresponsible to simply ignore reality or to imagine that we in 
Congress can suspend the economic laws of supply and demand. As we have 
seen oil consumption worldwide go to about 85 million barrels a day, we 
know that countries such as China and India, with growing economies, 
are using more and more of that oil. So we are competing for a fixed 
supply of oil, and the law of supply and demand says: If you have a 
fixed supply but increasing demand, the price is going to continue to 
go up. But somehow Congress feels as if we can ignore that law or we 
can defy that law. We can no more defy the law of supply and demand 
than we can the law of gravity. I think the American people understand 
that, and I think they are bewildered, as I am, why Congress continues 
to defy this basic law of economics.
  The bill that will be before the Senate today is a very important 
piece of legislation which bears further witness to why Congress is 
held in such low regard by the American people. It is because this bill 
which was designed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations to 
help fund our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq has become a 
political football and a lot of unrelated projects have been added to 
this bill, which has caused the President to threaten to veto it, which 
the majority understands will simply slow down the process of getting 
these necessary funds, getting this necessary equipment that these 
funds would pay for, to our troops in harm's way.
  Twenty-five days from now--Deputy Secretary Gordon England said that 
absent additional congressional action, ``the Army will run out of 
military personnel funds by mid-June and operation and maintenance 
funds by early July.'' In 25 days, unless Congress acts, the military 
will run out of personnel funds--that means money used to pay the 
military their paychecks each month--and will run out of operation and 
maintenance funds by early July.
  I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that as we approach Memorial 
Day, the men and women of our military are left to wonder whether we 
will meet our obligation to make sure there is enough money available 
to pay their paychecks so their families can be provided for after 
June. While we all have talked about supporting our troops--and that is 
very important--how much more basic a way is there to support our 
troops than to make sure they are paid the money they are entitled to 
on a timely basis and not left to wonder whether Congress will meet 
that simple obligation? Talk is one thing; action, which would send a 
different message altogether, is another.
  It is indisputable that these men and women in our U.S. military have 
made tremendous sacrifices for all of us. They have given not only 
their precious time, some have even given their lives to protect our 
way of life. Many of them have spent months, if not years, away from 
their families, missed birthdays, missed births, all in fulfillment of 
this noble duty to help keep the oppressed free and to protect our 
national security. Now they are left to scratch their heads and wonder 
what is going on again in Washington and whether politics is 
interfering with Congress's willingness to simply do its duty while 
they discharge their duties abroad.

  This critical funding includes not only vital pay and allowances but 
also the tools our troops need to ensure they have safe passage through 
neighborhoods they patrol in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am referring to, 
in part, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, or the CERP. When 
I was in Baghdad and other places in Iraq in January, the commanding 
officers said that these are some of the most useful funds we have made 
available to them. Secretary Gates has called it ``the single most 
effective program to enable commanders to address local populations' 
needs. . . .'' These CERP funds will come to a standstill. Unless 
Congress acts on a timely basis without loading down this bill with a 
lot of pet projects and pork, it will come to a standstill. Why would 
we want to hamstring our commanders in the field in working with local 
populations to try to win their hearts and minds? As Secretary Gates 
pointed out, CERP is the key in the effort to get potential insurgents 
in Iraq and Afghanistan off the streets and into jobs.
  Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged the 
importance of CERP funding. However, despite this acknowledgment, 
Congress has provided less than a third of what has been requested, and 
now providing those funds at all is left in some doubt. According to 
the Department of Defense, unless we provide the remaining $1.2 billion 
in CERP funds, the program will grind to a halt. What more important 
thing could we be doing in Iraq than trying to win the hearts and minds 
of former insurgents and get them deployed so that they lay down their 
guns and their bombs and engage in not only the political process but 
in the economic revitalization of that war-torn country. We all agree 
the Iraqis need to take more responsibility for rebuilding their 
country, and that is what these CERP funds are designed to ensure. Why 
in the world would we slow them down or fail to see that they are 
delivered?
  Beyond CERP funds and troop paychecks, the lack of funding begins to 
also impact other areas. We will see furloughs of civilian employees of 
the Department of Defense if Congress does not act promptly. 
Unfortunately, this includes staff members at facilities such as child 
development centers which many of our troops depend on for daycare for 
their young ones. It would detrimentally impact services provided to 
troops and their families at military installations across America and 
around the world.
  It is sad to note this is not the first time Congress has put our 
troops in this position. Once again, while our troops are waiting for 
critical funding, needed not only for their own well-being but for the 
completion of their mission, some of my colleagues will try to use this 
supplemental funding bill to advance pet projects or to resurrect a 
tired agenda. Once again, we have seen there will be an attempt to 
force yet another vote on the precipitous withdrawal of our troops from 
Iraq; that is, based on a political timetable handed down here in 
Washington rather than conditions on the ground which will lead to the 
likelihood of stability and ultimate success. Despite the countless 
debates we have had on this issue and despite the clear and 
undisputable evidence of both military and political progress in Iraq, 
my colleagues will again refuse to pass a clean supplemental bill to 
support our troops. This debate, of which we know the outcome, will do 
nothing but delay those funds going to our troops.
  It is becoming increasingly evident that American troops and our 
Iraqi allies are making great progress in areas that were formerly 
labeled as hopeless. In the New York Times today, there is a story on 
the front page about how Sadr City, which was basically a no-man's 
zone, has now been stabilized by Iraqi troops themselves. Violence is 
down, and communities are fighting back against extremism. Life is 
slowly returning to normal. Refugees who previously fled that country 
are returning

[[Page S4564]]

home. What better could we hope for than to see these sorts of 
developments? Of course, this is thanks in large part to the sacrifices 
of our military and our military families.
  We also need to acknowledge the great strides being made by the Iraqi 
Government. By reasonable estimates, the Iraqis have now met 12 of the 
18 benchmarks Congress set for them, and they have begun to fight 
against extremism and senseless violence without regard to affiliation 
or sectarian identification.
  The recent initiative that Prime Minister Maliki undertook in Basra 
is a good example of taking the initiative, of doing what we had hoped 
for, and that is taking the training that America and our coalition 
partners have provided and using that training to fight for 
themselves. The more the Iraqis stand and fight for themselves, the 
more American and coalition troops can stand down and ultimately come 
home.

  I think it is important to point out to the American people that what 
was supposed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations bill is not 
limited to war-related measures, and this is designed to slow down this 
important piece of legislation. We know that not only are other pet 
projects and unrelated spending measures included, there are $10 
million in unrelated emergency spending measures that perhaps might be 
justified in some other context, but we need to have this bill passed 
cleanly so we can get the money to the troops and so we can debate the 
merits of these various other programs at a later time. We should not 
use this bill for controversial policy measures.
  Our troops, as well as the American people, deserve more open debate 
about complex issues--and here are four of them we need to act on--but 
we should not use this bill to try to get provisions passed without 
either adequate debate or adequate scrutiny. Things that could not be 
passed in the light of day should not be passed on this vehicle, this 
must-pass vehicle. The men and women who have made tremendous 
sacrifices to serve our country deserve more than to have to be asked 
to carry on their backs the political agendas of a few of their elected 
representatives.
  Despite the looming shortfalls for military paychecks, the Senate 
does not seem all that concerned. Despite warnings by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense that Congress must act before the Memorial Day 
recess, the majority leader recently told people it was no big deal if 
Congress did not. I respectfully beg to differ. Failing to supply a 
paycheck to our brave soldiers is an incredibly big deal. Playing 
politics at a time when our soldiers are being left to wonder whether 
they will be able to pay for their food bill, their gasoline bill, 
their health care or other items while Congress engages in this sort of 
gamesmanship is simply inexcusable.
  So I think we could improve congressional approval ratings above the 
13 percent who think we are doing a good or excellent job if we would 
simply act on this list of items which has been waiting, some for as 
many as 758 days, without a response from the Congress and if we would 
simply quit using something such as an emergency funding bill for our 
troops in harm's way in order to pass other unrelated pet projects or 
to try to impose other political agendas. I think if we acted 
responsibly, in a bipartisan way, to try to solve some of these 
problems, the American people would respond favorably. That would be 
good for them, that would be good for the country, and that would be 
good for the Senate and the Congress, generally.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________