John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know we are all anxious to proceed. No one is more anxious than I to proceed with the hearing of amendments and debate. I think colleagues will, when they hear what this amendment is about--and I apologize that, due to the legislative counsel being backed up drafting amendments, we have only recently been able to distribute the amendment text, but I think as I describe this amendment, my colleagues will share my concern with two problems that are in the underlying bill. First, this amendment would do two things: The amendment would provide technical corrections to what I can only assume are drafting oversights in the underlying bill as well as close loopholes in the current law. These technical corrections include closing loopholes that fail to permanently bar from the United States and prohibit awarding of any immigration benefits to the following categories of individuals: No. 1, persons associated with terrorist organizations; No. 2, violent gang members; No. 3, sex offenders; No. 4, alien smugglers who use firearms; and, No. 5, repeat drunk drivers. The question I put to my colleagues is whether Congress should permanently bar from the United States and from receiving any immigration benefit the persons in the categories I have just described and others who are dangerous to our society. I sincerely hope none of my colleagues would answer this question in the negative. Let me point out a couple of examples of what I will call the technical fixes that are sorely needed. Current law prohibits U.S. citizens convicted of sex crimes against minors from bringing a relative into the country. This bill, however, does not specifically prohibit aliens who would be removed from the country because they are sex offenders and fail to register as such from entering the United States and getting legal status, such as lawful permanent residence status. This, as I say, is what I believe to be an oversight. Perhaps in the haste in which the bill was drafted it has been left out, but it needs to be fixed, obviously. The bill also retains a loophole under current law that would allow an alien who has been repeatedly convicted of driving while intoxicated to remain in the United States and get legal status, such as a Z status or a green card. The bill also retains the loophole in current law that allows an alien who belongs to a terrorist organization, or perhaps even committed terrorist acts and has not yet been removed from the United States, to get legal status. Now, lest my colleagues think I am exaggerating, let me provide a real-world example of this loophole. Last year, Mohammed El Shorbagi pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hamas. His act of providing material support to Hamas would not have barred him from establishing good moral character under current law because it is not one of those grounds specifically included in the list of acts that prevent an alien from establishing ``good moral character'' under our immigration laws. Now, I would hope these what I would call technical fixes are the kinds of commonsense solutions my colleagues would support. We have to ensure those aliens who have committed crimes, such as failure to register as a sex offender, or alien smuggling while using a firearm, are permanently barred and ineligible for benefits. We must also ensure those aliens who have committed acts or who engage in conduct in association with a terrorist organization, or perhaps have even committed terrorist acts themselves, are rendered permanently ineligible for any legal status and are barred from our country. Finally--and this is not a technical fix; this, I believe, is a conscious decision on the part of the bill drafters to omit this category of individuals--my amendment would close the loophole in this bill that allows legalization of those illegal aliens who have already had their day in court and violated court-ordered deportations. These are known as absconders and, in fact, have committed a felony, if found guilty of their failure to deport once ordered deported, or if they have been deported and simply reentered the country. Unlike the first half of my amendment, this is not a technical correction. In other words, the decision to legalize this population of illegal aliens was no drafting oversight.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for one more question.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I inquire whether we are going to bring up an amendment one at a time and that has to be voted on and disposed of or whether there will be an opportunity to offer multiple amendments and then work with the managers of the bill to try to queue those up for a vote at the appropriate time?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the response, and certainly we want to do this in an orderly fashion. But I think the majority leader and the Republican leader were very farsighted in extending the time beyond this week where we could actually consider amendments on the bill because I think there is a real need to have a full and fair debate and a free opportunity to offer amendments because, frankly, there are a lot of people who do not know what is in this bill yet. The final bill text was, I guess, filed last night, laid down at 9 o'clock. So it is very hard to fashion those amendments until we have bill text back from legislative counsel and the opportunity to craft those amendments. So my only point is I hope we are going to continue to have the opportunity to offer those amendments, to have the debate, to have those votes, and not get into a time crunch. Two weeks seems like a long time, but with the kind of amendments, the number of amendments I know are going to be offered, I think we need to have this opportunity for a full airing of the issues and an opportunity to vote on those amendments.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, for over 3 months, I have engaged with a number of my colleagues and administration officials in an extraordinary series of meetings and discussions designed to reach bipartisan consensus for solutions to the many problems we face regarding our immigration system. I have done so in good faith and in keeping with my long held belief that we must have a comprehensive approach to immigration reform. I believe we should continue to try to move forward, generally, and that this problem is too important not to come up with an appropriate solution. That having been said--I am very concerned about the process that led to today. First, we have not undertaken the normal legislative pocess-- bypassing the Senate Judiciary Committee--leading to a public perception of nontransparency and distrust. Second, most of the Members of the Senate and their staff did not receive even a draft of the ``final'' language until 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, just a little over 48 hours ago. Third, I am told that the bill will not go to Senate legislative counsel--a significant departure from the normal course and a departure that makes it more difficult for legislative counsel to draft amendments due to lack of familiarity with the text. Finally, I am told the CBO cost estimate for the bill will not come out until Wednesday--only 2 days before the legislation may well receive a final vote depending on leadership decisions in the coming days. Moreover, I remain very concerned about the substance of the bill. For instance, my staff's preliminary review indicates that there are potentially some very problematic provisions in the language. In addition, because of the ``rush'' to produce language to meet the Monday deadline for a cloture vote, there are a number of technical drafting errors which also have a substantive effect and were being worked on as late as this afternoon. I have been open about my concerns with respect to interior enforcement--concerns that I still hold today. For example, the draft bill does not, to my knowledge, do enough to curb one of the core flaws that undermined the 1986 amnesty bill--that of unlimited judicial review. Indeed, just 2 weeks ago a judge ordered DHS to revisit whether a class of aliens should get the 1986 amnesty. It appears that if this bill passes, these aliens whose only real claim to participate in our system, will be able to take advantage of the new visa holder because they were able to delay through litigation. There are no limits on the number of motions to reopen the administrative process or times an alien can appeal to an article III court. If the American public is going to have confidence in this system, they need/to be assured there will be limits. In addition, I would note that the New York Times wrote that the 1986 amnesty bill produced the largest immigration fraud in the history of the United States. President Clinton's INS general counsel testified that statutory restrictions on law enforcement's ability to use the information contained in amnesty applications impeded their ability to detect the fraud. To my knowledge, this bill continues to require confidentiality in certain cases where the application is denied. In the end, as much as I believe we should continue to work together to reach consensus on the critical issue of immigration reform--a matter of national import but that is particularly important to my home State of Texas--I cannot in good conscience agree to proceed to legislation which we anticipate replacing with language we received at 2 a.m. on Saturday--without appropriate committee review--the text of which is hundreds of pages in length, the provisions of which are as complicated as any legislation we will take up and the impact of which will be felt, for better or worse, for generations to come.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the permission of the bill managers, I would like to yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Since I didn't hear any objection, I was assuming we were proceeding.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate that. Listening to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, just trying to summarize it, reminds me of a saying in my part of the country--and I will bet it is the same in his part of the country--the most feared words in the English language are ``I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to help.'' That is basically how he summarizes this budget: We are just here to help the American people. The problem is that this budget puts us on a tax-and-spend budget, which is really the worst of both worlds. It dramatically grows the size of Government over the next 5 years. This is not just 1 year, this is a 5-year budget, and it contemplates a record increase in taxes and explodes the debt. It contemplates the largest tax hike on the middle- class families and farmers and entrepreneurs in our Nation's history-- about $736 billion over the next 5 years. Unfortunately, this tax increase will take place without a vote of the Congress because what it will do is take advantage of expiring temporary tax relief we passed back in 2003 which has produced an economic explosion in this country and the creation of about 7.8 million new jobs just over the last 4 years. We all know this tax relief has helped the economy grow and create jobs. On this point, I am especially disappointed that this conference report does not include an amendment I authored which passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote by 63 to 35. That amendment, which is not included in this conference report, created a 60-vote budget point of order against any legislation that raised income tax rates on taxpayers, including middle-class families, college students, and entrepreneurs. In addition, the Senate unanimously voted to instruct its conferees to include the point of order in the conference report. But, once again, I guess we are asked to suspend our disbelief because here in Washington, inside the beltway, things happen differently. We pass amendments by a vote of 63 Senators, we unanimously vote to instruct conferees to include that point of order in the conference report, and that prohibits an increase in tax rates unless at least 60 Senators agree; and, miraculously, it doesn't appear in the conference report. While I am aware of the procedural ramifications, I think it would have been a powerful message for the Senate to make taxpayers across the country, to make this point to them that, as the chairman of the Budget Committee has said, there will not be an increase in taxes, to reassure them that there won't be. But, frankly, I think the numbers belie some of the statements being made, to the extent that we are not contemplating tax increases over the next 5 years, when in fact this budget contemplates a historic increase in taxes, just to be able to keep up. The fact is this amendment highlights an essential point--that 63 Members of the Senate, a bipartisan majority, believe tax rates should not be raised. Unfortunately, the way I read this budget, it does contemplate dramatic increases in taxes, and I don't see anything else at the end of the day happening. Finally, a few comments on the spending side of the ledger. While the chairman said there will not be higher rates next year under this budget, there will be, with no question, higher Government spending-- approximately $23 billion above what the President requested, which I may add is not paid for, which goes directly to the debt. In other words, it is an IOU we hand down to our children and grandchildren. In fact, this budget contains billions of dollars in new spending on Washington programs--$205 billion over the President's request over the next 5 years. When it comes to entitlement reform, this budget does absolutely nothing to address the $69 trillion long-term entitlement crisis we are facing. I wonder when things are going to change around here, when our rhetoric is matched by action. We on this side of the aisle have said we are determined to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to deal with this growing mountain of entitlement spending and debt. Yet we are told, no, not this year, maybe some time in the future. My question is: If not now, then when? We need the answer to that question. The American people need an answer to that question because the debt continues to pile up through uncontrolled spending on entitlement programs that are on auto pilot, and the bill is being sent to our children and grandchildren. That is wrong and we need to fix it. If not now, I wish to know when. In fact, if we do nothing over the next 30 years, we won't have a dime to pay for anything else, except four things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a part of the interest on the debt. We will not have the resources necessary for other important priorities such as national security, fighting the global war on terror, securing our borders, veterans health care, or education. For these reasons, I cannot support this budget, which would dramatically increase spending and return us to an era of big Government, known as tax and spend. It passes the IOU down to our children and grandchildren and, at the same time, increases the debt by $2.5 trillion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to join the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, who gives, to my mind, one of the most cogent and understandable explanations for the economy given around here, and I wish to add a few comments about the fourth anniversary of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. While we have a lot of people trained in a lot of disciplines who make their way to the Senate, I daresay there are not very many of us who have a background in economics or accounting or the type of disciplines that would help them make good economic decisions. The good news is that I think the fundamentals are pretty clear when it comes to what provides people an incentive to work hard and save, and what Government policies--particularly tax increases--make it harder for people to save their hard-earned money and invest it as they see fit-- whether it is spending it on their family, investing in their children's college education or perhaps buying things that they would prefer--rather than having Uncle Sam stick his hand in their pocket and spend it on things the Federal Government wants. It is important to go back and highlight some of the challenges our economy was facing when the Senate first passed this protaxpayer legislation 4 years ago. The economy was hit with not just a one-two punch but with a one-two-three punch. We were dealing with the fallout from the corporate accounting scandals of the late 1990s, the bursting tech bubble and, of course, the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. All these events combined would have knocked out any other economy in the world. But because we acted with well-timed tax relief that put money back in the pockets of working men and women, small businesses and entrepreneurs, our economy bounced back. Indeed, our economy has roared back. The 2003 act accelerated a number of individual and small business tax relief provisions Congress passed 2 years earlier. We allowed parents to take the $1,000 tax credit sooner. We accelerated relief from higher marginal tax rates--the marriage tax penalty and the alternative minimum tax. This legislation, passed 4 years ago, provided capital gains and dividends tax relief, which has helped increase economic activity and fill the Federal Government's coffers. How could it be that Federal revenue has seen historic highs even as we cut taxes 4 years ago? Well, it is for all the obvious reasons: People respond to financial incentives when they know they are going to be able to keep more of what they earn. They work harder, risk takers and entrepreneurs invest in ventures that generate revenue not only for them--and create new jobs--but generate a lot more revenue for Uncle Sam as well. That is exactly what happened here. Since 2004, Government revenues have outpaced projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and the deficit this year could tumble to $150 billion, or about 1 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. Things such as bonus depreciation and the $100,000 expensing provision have allowed entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow and create jobs. This tax relief has helped produce 22 straight quarters of growth, with 7.8 million new jobs over the past 44 consecutive months. That is an outstanding accomplishment, which makes America the envy of the world, and it is a trend we must continue as we face significant fiscal challenges ahead. We can and we should take great pride in the economy's performance and look with optimism toward the future. As we move forward, the last thing we should consider is reversing the policies that have generated this kind of beneficial economic activity and created so many jobs in America. Unfortunately, this tax relief will soon expire, resulting in a tax increase for all taxpayers without a single vote on the floor of the Senate. The other side is now pushing a budget that will result in a $736 billion tax hike for taxpayers over the next 5 years. This, unless it is reversed, will not only jeopardize future economic growth but also the financial well-being of millions of Americans--families, small businesses, and seniors. If Congress fails to make this tax relief permanent, the fourth anniversary of which we are celebrating today, every American taxpayer will see their taxes go up. For instance, a family of four with two children, making $50,000 in annual income, would see an increase of $2,092 a year in their tax bill, or a 132- percent hike. Four years ago, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 would not only not benefit our economy, they actually said it would endanger the economy. For example, the now-majority whip said: The Republicans who push this tax plan have to face stubborn facts, and facts can be stubborn. The last time they got a tax cut through, the American economy fell backwards. We did not make progress. We lost jobs. We lost opportunity. We lost a lot of hope in this country. There is one thing I agree with the distinguished majority whip about, and that is facts are, indeed, stubborn things. Four years ago, the Senate voted for hope and against fear. It voted for progress and against stagnation. It voted for the entrepreneurial spirit and against command and control out of Washington, DC. I think 4 years later we all have seen and can celebrate tremendous results as an outcome of this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I said it once and I will say it again. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, I am confident, is shooting as straight as he could possibly do with me. I do not question his motive or his actions. I express my profound regret that an amendment that reflects the will of 63 Senators, that is bipartisan, and one that is so important to maintaining the prosperity of this Nation and relieving the burden on hard-working American taxpayers will not see the light of day in this budget resolution. I am expressing my regret to him. But he has been nothing but straight to me.

Mr. CORNYN. We likewise yield back our time on this motion.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this motion to instruct conferees should sound familiar to my colleagues. This actually was an amendment to the budget resolution that received 63 affirmative votes in a bipartisan show of support for what I believe is a commonsense provision. This provision says that before we raise income taxes, we need to have a 60- vote point of order to do that. This made so much sense that my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, said he would be willing to accept the amendment by voice vote, although we went ahead and had a vote. I thought the vote was necessary to demonstrate, and did demonstrate, the broad bipartisan support for this amendment. This amendment, which was section 210 of the Senate-passed budget, creates a 60-vote budget point of order against any legislation that raises income taxes on taxpayers, including, of course, hard-working, middle-class families, college students, entrepreneurs, and you name it. As I pointed out, this was a bipartisan vote, which is an insurance policy of sorts so that Congress can look and make sure any increase in income taxes is justified and that it would require a vote of 60 Senators to overcome the budget point of order before proceeding. The reason I thought this was a good idea in the first place is that before we look at raising taxes on hard-working American taxpayers, we ought to look at ways to eliminate Government waste, fraud, and abuse. We all know the power to tax is the power to destroy, and, indeed, it is a powerful tool at Congress's disposal but one we ought to use advisedly. This point of order puts in place a safeguard that will protect the pocketbooks of all of us. Some, though, are now advocating that we pull the rug out from under our economy and roll back the kind of tax relief and low taxes-- progrowth policies--that have resulted in an incredible blossoming and blooming of the American economy. The last thing we should do would be to throw a wet blanket over this kind of economic growth that has created so much prosperity, so much opportunity, and so many new jobs over the last few years. The progrowth tax relief has helped this economy grow and particularly in the small business sector, which has created a lot of jobs. We should view this as a matter of great pride because it is one of the good things that this Congress has done in the last 4 years. These progrowth tax policies are working. As a matter of fact, we have some charts that demonstrate 22 straight quarters of growth and almost 7.9 million new jobs. That is nothing to be sneezed at. There have been almost 7.9 million new jobs over the past 44 consecutive months, with 22 quarters of growth. As we move forward, the last thing we should consider doing is reversing the policies that have helped bring about America's booming economy, which has reduced the deficit by producing more money for the Federal Treasury and also put more money in the pockets of hard-working American taxpayers. As a matter of fact, I think we ought to take a further step and make these tax relief provisions, which are set to expire unless we fail to act, I think we ought to make them permanent. If we don't, we will not only jeopardize future economic growth but also the financial well- being of millions of Americans, all of whom will face higher tax bills unless we act. Not making this tax relief permanent will result in a tax increase for every American taxpayer. For example, a family of four, with two children, making $50,000 in annual income would see an increase of $2,092 in their tax bill or a 132-percent increase. This point of order will not hinder our efforts to close down illegal tax shelters or close perceived loopholes in the IRS Code, a concern that I know the chairman expressed. In the colloquy we had when the amendment was passed, I think I was able to satisfy him that we would still be able to do what we both agree needs to be done but not see a tax increase on American taxpayers virtually assured. The point of order covers the tax tables contained in the 1040 form the IRS sends to taxpayers every year. It will not hinder efforts to overhaul the IRS Code. I support efforts to overhaul the IRS Code by making it fairer, flatter, and simpler. Any tax simplification and reform efforts will need bipartisan support in the Senate, so I ask my colleagues to support my motion to instruct the conferees to include the point of order against raising income taxes on hard-working taxpayers through the budget conference committee. I might add, in closing, I have had conversations with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I know he has concerns as a result of conversations he has had with the Parliamentarian. There has been some suggestion that to include this provision in the conference report would render the conference report unprivileged. I believe there was demonstration of broad bipartisan support for this provision, which enjoyed a 63-to-35 vote on the Senate floor. While I certainly understand the budget chairman's desire to maintain a special privileged status for the budget resolution, I think in this case it would be warranted. Including this provision will act as an insurance policy against undesirable and unnecessary tax increases, especially until such time as we do our dead level best to reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse that, unfortunately, is present in Government today and to try to save money there before we begin raising taxes. It is particularly important because we have this silent tax increase that is, unfortunately, included in this framework that will now occur if we do nothing. This will be the only tax increase I am aware of that will actually happen if we fail to act, but that is what, unfortunately, we are on course to do with this budget resolution. So I would respectfully ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees on this matter.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if I can respond briefly to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, I appreciate his willingness to take this motion to instruct because he said it will not survive; it will not see the light of day; it is going to be killed in the dark recesses of the conference committee room.

Mr. CORNYN. So it is a very strange process we are engaged in here. I respect the distinguished chairman, but I remind him, at the time we voted on this, to quote him, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee said, ``It certainly will not do any damage to this resolution if it were to pass.'' I understand there was a subsequent conversation with the Parliamentarian that raised this issue. But I suggest in most proceedings that I am familiar with, there is some notion of waiver, that you have a responsibility to speak early, rather than to create a false impression that we are going to do something here to keep taxes low, to create a 60-vote budget point of order, rather than lay low and then raise an issue late in the game that could have been raised and addressed earlier. None of that is to impute any bad faith to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. It is just to say this is a very strange process, one I think the American people, anybody who happens to be listening or watching, would say: This must be a Washington, DC phenomenon where we suspend reality, we accept amendments by a bipartisan vote and now a motion to instruct, only to ignore them even though they represent the will of the Senate. I think that does not enhance the image of the Senate or the Congress in the eyes of the American people. The fact is, if we do raise taxes, it will be like a wet blanket on the American economy. I want to allude briefly to an article that was in the Wall Street Journal today that I think demonstrates my point. It is entitled ``April Revenue Shower.'' It says: Tax receipts for April were $70 billion above the same month in 2006, and April 24 marked the single biggest day of tax collections in U.S. history, at $48.7 billion. It is the low taxes and the progrowth policies that this Federal Government has embraced since roughly August of 2003 which has generated the economic activity which has resulted in a windfall to the Treasury. As a matter of fact, this article goes on to say: The deficit this year could tumble to $150 billion, or an economically trivial 1 percent of GDP. That is the kind of benefit--one of the kinds of benefits--I think low taxes have produced. I think it would be a crying shame to raise taxes and jeopardize job growth and economic development in this country. I understand what the Senator says, that he doesn't intend that there is going to be a tax increase, but we have seen proposals for dramatic increases in spending. The money has to come from somewhere. We have adopted a pay-as-you-go provision which has a built-in bias against tax cuts because it says before you can have a tax cut, you are going to have to have some way to balance it out, a revenue raiser, which means in the end we are going to see a dramatic increase in taxes, whether-- and I take him at his word that is not his intention. But we are on a dangerous course to seeing a huge tax increase, perhaps one of the biggest in our Nation's history. That, I believe, is against the best interests of the American people in this big economy. I accept what the Senator has to say. He is willing to accept my motion to instruct, but it will not be to any effect. It will be ignored. I guess that is the way it is. But I think the American people, and particularly the hard-working taxpayers, are the losers. I think that is a shame.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are into the fifth month of the 110th Congress. Even before this Congress convened in January, observers were predicting that judicial nominations would be one of the most contentious issues that we face. But I think by taking a forward- looking approach, the Senate managed to avoid an unnecessary confrontation. I think, by and large, we have started off on the right foot. Earlier this year, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times both applauded the President for the difficult concessions he made in not choosing to renominate certain previous nominees who generated intense opposition. While I thought some of that opposition was mostly unfair and unwarranted, I respect the President's decision to extend an olive branch to the new Democratic majority in the Senate. Those two newspapers also encouraged the new Democratic majority to reciprocate with cooperation and fairness. In that spirit of cooperation, Senate Republicans received assurances earlier this year from the Democratic majority of a fair and reasonable pace for the confirmation of nominees to the U.S. courts of appeals. I was pleased to hear the majority leader pledge his cooperation and leadership to help this Congress ``at least meet the standards of Congresses similarly situated as ours.'' We saw progress in the first couple of months of this year, with the confirmation of two circuit court nominees. Today, the Senate will vote to confirm a Third Circuit judge. I welcome today's vote and hope it will be an indication of the majority's intent to keep working with us on the pace necessary to meet the historical average that the majority leader has endorsed. Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee commented on how he views this progress. I would like to briefly discuss the historical analogy he cited. First, I should note I am proud to continue to closely work on several significant pieces of legislation with the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy. He and I have found common ground on, among other things, historic changes to the Freedom of Information Act and much needed reforms to the U.S. patent system. I look forward to working with the chairman to help make these important bills become law. The chairman and I tend to part ways on some issues related to judges. I just want to take a moment to comment on the remarks he delivered yesterday on the pace of judicial confirmations. In particular, I am wondering why he chose the year 1996 as the appropriate measuring stick for progress on judges made by this Congress. Of course, there is one obvious parallel between 1996 and the present year, and that parallel is divided government. In 1996, President Clinton, a Democrat, sat in the White House, and the Senate majority was held by Republicans. But I submit we ought to be in the business of comparing apples with apples. We must look at Congresses similarly situated to this Congress. Point in fact: Looking to ``similarly situated'' Congresses is the very comparison cited by the majority leader. Mr. President, you will recall the majority leader's commitment to judicial nominations--in his own words--to ``at least meet the standards of Congresses similarly situated as ours.'' Mr. President, by any reasonable measure, the proper comparison--and the one the majority leader has apparently endorsed--is not with a single year but with an entire Congress; specifically, with a Congress the final 2 years of a Presidency and a Senate majority of the opposing party. In fact, we are fortunate to be able to look to historical parallels during the last three Presidencies, not just one. The landscape we face in the 110th Congress was similarly faced by President Clinton in 1999 and 2000, during the 106th Congress. President Clinton worked with the Republican-controlled Senate during the final 2 years of his Presidency to confirm 15 circuit court judges. In 1991 and 1992, the 102d Congress, President George Herbert Walker Bush worked with a Democrat-controlled Senate during the final 2 years of his Presidency. President Bush and the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed 20 circuit court judges in 1991 and 1992. Finally, in 1987 and 1988, President Reagan finished out his Presidency opposite a Democrat-controlled majority in the Senate. President Reagan and the Democrat-controlled Senate worked together to confirm 17 circuit court judges. Again, I submit we have to compare apples to apples. When we do that, we see somewhere between 15 and 20 circuit court judges were confirmed during each of those final two years of our last three Presidents. That is the standard that is relevant to this discussion. The facts are what they are. This Congress has confirmed two circuit court nominees. We will shortly confirm our third, and that is a good thing. But the fact is, we are not yet back on pace to reach the output of the last 2 years of the Clinton Presidency--when a 55-member Republican majority in the Senate confirmed 15 circuit court nominees. There is no satisfactory reason I have heard as to why no circuit court nominees were confirmed in April, or even reported out of committee. The reasons that have been offered--the vacancy rate is not that bad, the President needs to nominate more circuit court judges, and President Clinton was treated worse--are all irrelevant to the majority leader's representations on the Senate floor that this Senate will ``at least'' hit the historical average. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us, as we must, and work with the President to get back on track. That is our constitutional duty. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor with the Senator from Arizona and the senior Senator from Texas to talk about rising gas prices. The sticker shock at the pump is something all Americans are noticing. We can talk in esoteric sorts of ways about national energy policy, but when people drive up and have to fill up their tank to be able to drive their kids to school or be able to drive to work, that is when they begin to understand the consequences of Congress's failure to act in a number of respects. Last year about this time, our friends on the other side of the aisle held a press conference over on Massachusetts Avenue and were decrying the lack of action on the part of the then majority of Congress to bring down gasoline prices, but since that time, the average retail price of gasoline has gone up by 13 cents. I saw in today's day book for the Associated Press that the new majority, the Democratic majority is now going to have another press conference over at the same gas station talking about high gas prices. I would suggest the responsibilities of being in the majority are to act, not just to hold press conferences. I think our friends haven't quite recognized the fact that they are in charge now. They have a responsibility to act instead of using the same old shop-worn tactics of holding a press conference and launching new investigations. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have held extensive investigations already and basically concluded the problem is we don't have adequate supply, and we don't have adequate refinery capacity to keep up with the demand. As I noted yesterday, Congress can pass a lot of laws. We could even repeal some laws, but we can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. We know that in a booming world economy, where there is competition in India and China, countries with more than a billion people each, as the economies of other countries become more developed, they are going to demand more and more of the same limited supply of oil, and that is why we have seen the price of oil and gasoline go up. Rather than hold press conferences, my hope is our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the new majority who is in charge, would work with us to pass legislation which would actually have an impact and bring down gasoline prices, bring down oil prices, and enhance our national security at the same time. It is no secret to any of us that most--or not most but a lot of the oil that we import comes from troubled regions of the world. It comes from Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, it comes from the Middle East, and I don't need to say more about that and how much that supply is threatened at times by the bellicose actions of countries such as Iran, a rising, they hope, nuclear power. I hope they do not acquire nuclear capacity because they are a State sponsor of international terrorism. But my point is we need to develop more of our domestic resources. We need to look for alternative forms of energy that are clean. We need to continue our scientific research into things such as clean coal-burning technology. We have about 300 years' supply of coal in this country, and we all know that coal can burn dirty, but the fact is that by using the technological advantages that we have in this country, we can conduct the kind of research that will allow us to use this coal in a way that does not pollute and does not endanger the environment. The fact is we simply can't turn a blind eye to any source of energy and remain competitive in the world economy. But the fact is also that we are simply not going to solve these problems by holding press conferences, as our colleagues are going to do, apparently, this afternoon, I think at 2:30 or 3:30. I can't remember when. They did that last year when they were in the minority. They have not quite yet, I guess, accepted the fact that on November 7 they won the election and they are now responsible. It means more than holding press conferences; it means action. I tell my colleagues the Republicans are willing, ready, and able to work with them to try to solve the energy crisis, the gasoline price crisis in this country. It is not going to be easy, but for sure, none of us can do it in a partisan way. The only way we are going to be able to do it is by working together in the best interests of the American people. I think the American people are more than a little tired of some of the hollow rhetoric when people talk about problems, but when you are in a position to actually do something about it, that nothing gets done. As our leader on this side of the aisle, Senator McConnell, has noted, divided Government actually provides an opportunity for us to take on some of these big problems, some of these big challenges that are harder to tackle when there is a single party in charge, but it takes a spirit of cooperation. It takes a desire to actually work together to try to solve these problems the best we can. The energy problem is just one of them. I would say the spiraling debt being accumulated by growth and entitlement programs is another one of them. I am very disappointed that this new budget that is going to come to the floor later this week does nothing about passing the buck on entitlement spending. As a matter of fact, it imposes additional debt and burden on our children and grandchildren when we have the responsibility to pay our own bills, not use Social Security to pay for the general debt, which we are doing now, and other bookkeeping tactics that if we were in the private sector would probably mean that somebody would end up in jail. But the Federal Government plays those sorts of budget gimmicks, and they need to end. So let me end by saying that this is an opportunity for us to work together but not if we are going to have press conferences and do nothing, talk tough but fail to use the tools that are available to us in Congress as representatives of our respective States to work together in a bipartisan way to try to solve them. I think that is what the American people want. That is why I came to the Senate. I wanted to do something. I wanted to actually make a difference. I think all of us feel roughly the same way, but somehow we have fallen into these bad habits of partisanship and avoiding the solutions that are readily at hand. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I will take 9 minutes of that and then Senator Thomas will take the remainder.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining in morning business on this side?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think the senior Senator from Texas is exactly right. There are a lot of laws that Congress can pass--we can even repeal laws--but we can't repeal the law of supply and demand. The only way we are going to see these gas prices come down is to produce more supply, as we look for alternative forms of energy. The Senator mentioned, obviously, nuclear power, but we are even investing in clean coal-burning technology. I think we basically need to look at all aspects of the energy issue. The Senator from Arizona was exactly correct as well. We have gone from a high of 324 refineries in this country down to 132. Because we are in a global marketplace for gasoline, which essentially can be transported wherever the prices tend to be higher, that is why we have seen gas prices in excess of $3 a gallon at the pump. I remember well that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle last year, when we were in the majority, said they wanted to know what the Republican plan was to relieve the pain at the pump. Well, the Democrats are in charge now, and we would like to know what their plan is. We believe this is something we ought to work on together, on a bipartisan basis, to try to relieve the pain at the pump being experienced by working men and women and families all across this country. The only way we are going to be able to do this is on a bipartisan basis, but the Democrats control the agenda. The majority leader basically controls the time on the Senate floor. We need to know when he plans to bring up some meaningful relief for the American consumers to try to bring that price down. We need to do this in the short term, the near term, not the long term only. We do need nuclear power. We need to do research in the biofuels and other alternatives. We need to employ wind energy and other clean technologies that will provide for part of our energy needs. We haven't discovered a way to make any of those useful to operate our vehicles. It is oil, and it is gasoline. The only way we are going to be able to provide relief in the near term is to increase supply by reducing our dependency on imported energy, producing more of it domestically, and relieving some of the regulatory impediments which have made it impossible to create a new refinery in this country in the last 30 years. Only by increasing the supply in the near term are we going to be able to see prices come down at the pump as we continue to explore alternative forms of energy and other ways to meet our energy needs, while continuing to see our economy grow and continue to create jobs. I hope the majority will take this request seriously and will come back and tell us what their plan is to relieve the pain at the pump American consumers are experiencing today. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask that Senator Pete Domenici be removed as a cosponsor to S. 1038, the Workforce Health Improvement Act, and added as a cosponsor to S. 1083, the SKIL Act. Let the Record reflect that due to a clerical error Senator Domenici was inadvertently added as a co-sponsor to the Wokforce Health Improvement Act.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 3 months ago, the President of the United States asked Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and the flexibility they need to succeed in what has been called the central front on the war against al-Qaida in Iraq. Instead, this body helped pass a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. The bill Congress passed was, in my view, unacceptable, and late. Eighty-five days after the President had requested the funds on an emergency basis, Speaker Pelosi finally forwarded the bill to the President yesterday. It was no surprise that the President vetoed the bill within hours because he had said he would, and so the outcome was predictable. The President, in his address to the Nation last night, made it very clear that it remains his desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Today, he is holding a bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders at the White House for that purpose. We have known for weeks that this legislation was flawed and that we would find ourselves in this place--a bill that included a surrender date, when we tell our enemies we would simply give up, and one larded with porkbarrel spending in order to secure the votes of recalcitrant Members who were unwilling to vote for this flawed bill on its merits. The President outlined these shortcomings last night. First, he said the bill would mandate an artificial deadline for troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. The withdrawal could start as early as July 1 and would have to start no later than October 1 regardless of the situation on the ground. The language in the bill defies sound military logic and, I would say, common sense itself. It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and it would be irresponsible. As the President made very clear last night, setting this deadline for withdrawal would also demoralize the Iraqi people and encourage the killers across the broader Middle East, such as al-Qaida, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. American commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians thousands of miles away in Washington, DC. Third, as I mentioned, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars of nonemergency porkbarrel spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror and which demeans the importance of this particular legislation, designed as it is to support our troops who are literally in harm's way. Democratic leaders know that many of us in Congress disagree with their approach and their desire to use this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. Yet we know there are not enough votes to override a veto. It is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need. Some have confused the need to debate, which I agree with, with cause for delay, which I disagree with. There should be no cause for delay in getting these emergency funds to our troops, and the debate will indeed continue. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements that General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, requested. Not all of these reinforcements have arrived; roughly half of them have. As General Petraeus said just last week, it will be at least the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this new operation, the Baghdad security plan, or surge. We ought to give General Petraeus's plan a chance to work. In the months since our military has been implementing this plan, we have actually begun to see some important results. General Petraeus noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. He reported that, since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially. Spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering in Iraq continue because these attacks are largely the work of al-Qaida, the Sunni extremists--the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting, or at least some say we should be fighting. At the same time, they would impose arbitrary deadlines, imposing a surrender date on our troops. The objective of these al-Qaida attacks is to reignite the sectarian violence in Baghdad and breaking support for the war here at home. That was the goal of al-Zarqawi, whom we were fortunate to be able to take out of the fight, and that is the fight now of the remaining al-Qaida extremists in Iraq. General Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign. It just boggles my mind, Mr. President, for some of us to stand here on the floor and say we ought to withdraw our troops from Iraq when, in fact, al-Qaida--the enemy that hit innocent Americans and killed 3,000 of them on September 11, 2001--considers Iraq to be the central front in their campaign against the West. Al-Qaida's role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. Many also belong to the same terrorist network, as I said, that attacked us on September 11, 2001. Were we to leave prematurely, were we to leave a power vacuum in Iraq, al-Qaida would no doubt, as they did in Afghanistan earlier, use that power vacuum as an opportunity to regroup, to plan, to train, to recruit, and then to export additional terrorist attacks against the United States here on this continent. We need to give our troops all of the equipment and training and protection they need to prevail. Without a war funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account--notably, the Air Force or Navy--just in order to make sure the Army has the resources they need, so the troops can have the equipment they need, so they can rotate back on a timely basis and come home to the loving arms of their families, to repair existing equipment. And worst of all, in one sense, failing to send this money on a timely basis to the military hurts the military families who are waiting behind, anxious, as we all understand, for the welfare and safety of their loved ones. Our troops and their families deserve better. So I hope that after the last 86 days, which have been characterized by political theater and gamesmanship, where some have been more focused on the 2008 election and trying to find ways to gain political advantage, I hope Republicans and Democrats, the legislative branch and executive branch, can come together and do what we should have done months ago--get the funds to the troops as soon as possible, without the surrender deadline, without tying the hands of our military commanders and making their opportunity for success impossible, and without the porkbarrel spending that demeans the noble sacrifice of these brave men and women. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back our remaining time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.