John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group of veterans. In appreciation for their selfless service to our country, Brookshire's Grocery Store and Super 1 Foods have sponsored a World War II Heroes Flight that has brought 33 World War II veterans to Washington, DC, free of charge. I want to take a moment to thank these brave veterans visiting our Nation's Capital, including six that are from Texas: John Connolly, Longview, TX; Gene Germaine, Longview, TX; Glen Kernohan, Longview, TX; Hugh Neeld, Jacksonville, TX; Dale Whitton, Tyler, TX; and Jim David Woolverton, Tyler, TX. During this trip, these veterans will tour Arlington National cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, the World War II Memorial, the United States Capitol, and other sites. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service and sacrifice. Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a quick question?

Mr. CORNYN. I know there are a number of us who would like to speak on the upcoming cloture vote at noon on the McConnell nomination. I know Senator Grassley would; I presume the Senators from New York and Rhode Island would. I wonder if we could reach some unanimous consent agreement that would allow at least 5 minutes for each of us to speak. I would pose that as a unanimous consent request; that for the Senators who are currently on the floor, the five of us, we be given up to 5 minutes to speak preceding the cloture vote.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask one further unanimous consent, and that would be that an article from Legal Newsline about a discovery dispute still delaying the resolution of the theft case against Motley Rice be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. I regret that the Senator from Louisiana is unwilling to cooperate and provide everybody a chance to be heard, but I will proceed. I wish to speak to the nomination of Jack McConnell to the Federal district bench. I spoke on this nomination yesterday. I have authored an op-ed piece in the Washington Times expressing my concern. I wish to summarize my concerns for my colleagues' benefit and their consideration. I serve as a member of the Judiciary Committee, as does the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this nominee was asked about allegations of theft of corporate documents arising out of some lead paint litigation that his law firm was pursuing in the State of Rhode Island. That has been the subject of some discussion. I will ask unanimous consent to have several documents printed in the Record at this time. First, I ask unanimous consent that after my comments, the complaint of the Sherwin Williams Company v. Motley Rice and others be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have been conferring with the Senator from Rhode Island and other Senators who want to speak. Maybe if we could try another attempt at a unanimous consent request that would allow all of us a chance to speak. Since I have the floor, I assume I can speak for up to 10 minutes under the standing order. I am willing to yield some of that time so everybody can have an opportunity.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have the floor. The Senator is out of order.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from----

Mr. CORNYN. What I think these documents demonstrate is that not only did Mr. McConnell intentionally mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee with regard to his possession of these stolen documents, but now there has been for some years--even after the lead paint cases have been essentially dismissed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court with the State and Mr. McConnell and his law firm having lost--ongoing litigation by one of the defendants in that case suing for tortious interference with their property; also conversion--in other words, theft, as the Presiding Officer knows--of their private, proprietary documents, including their litigation strategy, including their trade secrets and the like. The article, dated April 21, 2011, that I have made part of the record shows that dispute over the theft of these documents remains unresolved. In other words, Mr. McConnell and his law firm's participation in this ongoing dispute remains unresolved. I don't know why the majority leader would choose to bring up a nomination of somebody for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench when serious allegations about his law firm's participation and his personal participation in the theft of corporate documents in pursuit of litigation remains unresolved. I think it is a terrible mistake. I know the Senator from New York suggests we ought to just go ahead and vote on cloture because he knows then that because our Democratic friends control 53 votes in the Senate, Mr. McConnell will be confirmed. But I am concerned that because the ethical allegations made against Mr. McConnell and his law firm remain unresolved, this is a terrible time for us to be voting on a lifetime tenure. If he were to be confirmed and we find out later on that the court actually finds he did participate in this conspiracy to steal these corporate documents, what would that say about the Senate and about this process, our deliberative process? I think it would be a scandal. It would be a scandal. Finally, let me say I have expressed my concerns previously about the scheme that a group of very smart trial lawyers have dreamed up to sue legal industries for huge amounts of money by making alliances with State attorneys general and then suing in the name of the State but then in the end settling these cases for billions of dollars--in some cases, hundreds of billions of dollars--and these lawyers reaping a windfall of billions of dollars in attorney's fees. That is something Stuart Taylor--I think one of the more level-headed commentators about legal matters--has said, that this has indeed morphed the rule of law into the rule of lawyers, and ultimately consumers will have to pay more in terms of higher prices and the lawyers reap a windfall. The very same lawyers who are hired through these no-bid, noncompete contracts are indeed the political supporters of these very same attorneys general, raising at least the appearance of impropriety and a pay-to-play system of providing litigation opportunities to these lawyers from which they reap billions of dollars and after which they funnel campaign contributions back to the very same State officials who have, in fact, authorized them to sue on behalf of the State. This is unseemly, to say the very least about it. Finally, I would say Mr. McConnell continues by his own admission to be eligible to receive up to $3.1 million a year in one of these shakedown-industry lawsuits where these trial lawyers have worked with State attorneys general to sue on behalf of the State, not in cases that were actually tried but were actually settled under an existential threat to these businesses and these industries. At a time when we are talking, as Senator Portman did, about job creation, the idea that we would be confirming a lawyer to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench where he could then serve as a venue, given the venue shopping that frequently goes on in this type of litigation, we can expect, if Mr. McConnell finds himself confirmed as a Federal judge, that in the future litigants will find a warm reception in his court to these ethically dubious schemes. I think it is an extraordinary circumstance according to the standards set by the so-called Gang of 14. It is not something we will be doing often. But when an ethically flawed nominee such as this nominee is proposed by the President of the United States on three different occasions, and Senator Reid, the majority leader, as is his right, tries to slip this stealth nominee through when people are paying attention to other things, and we have not had adequate time to debate and expose in the record so Senators can make a good judgment about the facts and do their duty as individual Senators, I think it is a terrible shame. I intend to vote against cloture, and I hope my colleagues will so we can have additional time to review this nominee's credentials and make a good-faith assessment on behalf of all of our constituents. Exhibit 1

Mr. CORNYN. I will proceed, then, under the standing order which gives me up to 10 minutes, as I understand.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Ohio, what a welcome idea of refocusing on the No. 1 issue in America today, which is too many Americans out of work. Of course, we saw the growth numbers for the first quarter of this year: 1.8 percent--hardly vigorous enough to create the kind of economic expansion and job creation we need. As we are dealing with the spending issue, we have to deal with growing the economy. That is exactly what the Senator from Ohio has proposed--a comprehensive plan to try to figure out how to get people back to work and to try to get the kind of economic growth that will help us deal with this debt crisis we are in. The one thing I especially like about the plan, although I like all of it, is the embracing of a notion of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The Senator from Ohio has had a distinguished career not only in the House but as U.S. Trade Representative and also as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He knows the budget numbers and the intricacies of that better than just about anybody here. He knows the difficulty we have had, whether Republican administrations or Democratic administrations, of living within our means. Now that we are spending so much money we do not have--about 40 cents on every dollar, with $14.3 trillion in debt and huge deficits--we have to figure a way out of that situation. I think the best way to do that is to put this proverbial straitjacket on Congress and force us to do what every family and every business and 49 States do, either because of constitutional or statutory provisions. I wish to say in conclusion how much I appreciate the good work he has done. Senator Portman has been here a short time, but he brings a lot of experience and a lot of wisdom on these issues, particularly on getting America back to work.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Earlier today we had a cloture vote on the nomination of Jack McConnell to be a United States District Judge for Rhode Island, and 63 Senators voted to cut off debate and to move then to a final vote on confirmation which will occur, I am told, around 5:30, shortly. But first I wanted to come to the floor and expand a little bit on some of my earlier comments with regard to this nomination and why I am so strongly opposed to it just to make a few other comments. Thirty-three years ago I became a lawyer, a member of the legal profession. While I have heard as many lawyer jokes as a person can stand in a lifetime, I am actually proud of the legal profession. What attracted me to it was study of the law, the rule of law, and the majesty of law being made by elected representatives of the American people speaking for the American people themselves; a profession that observes a rule of ethics, that is not just who can get the most the fastest but one that actually requires lawyers to practice according to a standard of ethics. Third, the obligation and the responsibility that comes with representing a client; in other words, it is not the lawyer who is speaking on his or her own behalf but a lawyer who is speaking on behalf of a client, whether they have been arrested and charged with a crime, whether they have been injured in an accident and seeking compensation for some wrongdoing and to deter future acts, similar actions in the future, whether it is a commercial dispute over a contract or some other relationship. I believe it is the rule of law and our adherence to ethical standards and the fact that the legal profession serves the interests of clients who need help, many of whom don't have a voice themselves, or certainly the capability of representing themselves, who need somebody who can help them. But I have to tell my colleagues that it is because of my respect and admiration for the legal profession that it makes me angry when I see people making a mockery out of the foundational principles I just mentioned: the rule of law, ethics, and the fiduciary duty owed to a client. After I practiced law for a while, I had the great honor of being elected to and serving as a district judge in my home city of San Antonio. So not only did I represent clients as an advocate in court, I had the responsibility of presiding over trials and making sure people were treated impartially, the same, and according to the rule of law; that it was not a matter of who they were or how much money they had but that everybody could have access to our system of justice. Later I was honored to be elected to serve on the Texas Supreme Court for 7 years where I was an appellate judge and I wrote legal opinions, basically grading the papers of some of those trial judges and making sure that indeed we had equal justice under the law. Then I served as attorney general for 4 years before I came here, during which time I became acquainted with a certain class of entrepreneurial lawyers whom I think threatened the very rule of law I have been talking about. I previously talked about my objections to Jack McConnell's nomination and confirmation to serve as a Federal judge because I believe he intentionally misrepresented certain facts before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. McConnell and his firm have been sued in Ohio for stealing and maintaining custody of certain stolen documents in a lead paint lawsuit which I will speak about in a moment. As a matter of fact, earlier today I introduced an article which demonstrates that legal dispute still is raging and is not yet resolved. Yet the Senate is moving ahead and will likely confirm someone to a life-tenured job as a Federal judge who may ultimately be found responsible. I don't know, he could be vindicated. But why are we taking the risk that this individual who will be given a lifetime job as a Federal judge might ultimately be found culpable in something that is certainly disqualifying if he is responsible for it? But I wish to speak just a little bit more about--well, I wish to tell a story. I think it helps make the point I wish to convey. Once upon a time there was an enterprising lawyer and some of his law partners who were trying to figure a new way to make a lot of money. One of them said: ``Well, I have a plan to do that. First, we have to pick a product or sector of the economy that is unpopular, even though it is legal. For example, tobacco.'' ``Exactly,'' one of the lawyers said. ``We pick a product like tobacco, and we sue the manufacturer and make a lot of money.'' ``The problem is we have already tried to do that in individual lawsuits that are designed to compensate victims and deter wrongdoing, but we lost all of those lawsuits.'' ``Well,'' the enterprising young lawyer who suggested this plan said, ``we did, but now we have a new legal theory. We have a new approach. And it is a legal theory that has never actually been embraced or accepted by the courts.'' One of the other lawyers said, ``Well, how does that work? What is the theory?'' To which the other responded, ``Well, the theory really doesn't matter because this case will never be tried, but it will be settled for billions of dollars.'' That takes us to the second part of the plan. The truth is, the client or the person who would be represented is not an individual victim who was harmed as a result of some wrongdoing by the manufacturer of the product, but instead of that it is the State--a State. How do you get hired to represent a State? Well, you have to get the attorney general--my former job. You have to get the attorney general, who is the chief law enforcement officer of the State, to basically hire you and then to delegate to you the sovereign law enforcement power of the State--in this case to sue the makers of a product. Part of this scheme is you sue not just for damages to one individual or a group of individuals, you sue for essentially everyone in the State, alleging billions of dollars in damages. The key reason this is so important to this scheme, of course, is because this is a break-the-company lawsuit. By that I mean it is an existential threat to the existence of this company, far bigger than any legal threat they may have faced in the past, because the damages are enormous. Every potential juror who would sit in judgment of the case being a constituent, a resident of that State, would stand to benefit in some way or another by any judgment rendered against this company. Then, of course, there is the power of the State itself to launch, perhaps, a negative publicity campaign against this company or sector to erode the stock value of this company in order to compel them or force them into a settlement posture. Well, part of this scheme is that even though the chances of winning in court are very slim, even a small risk of losing everything--wiping out shareholders, retirees, pension funds, and employees--even that small risk is enough to cause the defendant to consider coming to the settlement table. True, even if you have a chance--liability is very thin and you think you aren't responsible--you still have to navigate the maze of litigation through the trial and the appellate and the Supreme Court. You know you might just win if you can outlast their adversaries. But in the meantime, as I indicated earlier, the stock price takes a beating, management is consumed with defending the lawsuit rather than running the business, and millions of dollars are being spent on their own lawyers in order to defend this case. Well, in this story the law partners of this enterprising young lawyer say: That sounds like a great plan. We could earn a lot of money. The lawyer proposing this says: Well, we can earn more than you can possibly imagine because our compensation may well exceed $100,000 an hour. Well, how do you do that? No one can charge $100,000 an hour as a legal fee. Well, this is the best part from their perspective. They would not actually negotiate an hourly fee under the supervision of a judge that reflects prevailing ethical standards. Instead, they will negotiate a deal with this attorney general for the State on a contingency fee basis in a no-bid, noncompetitive contract. So then they would get a percentage of any amount of money recovered in this bet-the-company lawsuit. Since there are no costs up front for the taxpayer, the State attorney general would look like a hero, even if the lawsuit was unsuccessful. But if he succeeds, these lawyers would get a significant percentage of an astronomical sum of money. No funds would be appropriated by the legislature to finance the litigation, so the State official can make the ethically fallacious and ethically dubious claim that no tax dollars will be used to pay legal fees. The official enters into this no-bid contract for legal services with lawyers whose future political support, including campaign contributions, is assured. The official can expect to be lauded as a popular hero in the press by his willingness to take on an unpopular industry. Now, as part of this scheme and story, to leverage the chances for success, these lawyers then cherry-pick the court where the lawsuit is filed, a court well known for being friendly to these sorts of claims. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, ultimately as part of this scheme, the plan would be that the defendants, even though they are not--the chances of proving them responsible are very thin, the risk of losing and losing the company are so huge that they decide to go to the settlement table. Well, here is the deal. The plaintiff's lawyers say--under this scheme, and in some ways it turns out to be a lifeline to the defendants--first, the good news: The defendants will survive. They won't be at risk of losing the company--the employees, the stock price, the pensioners, the retirees who depend on the existence of the company. Secondly, the business will continue to operate and--here is the best part--the judgment that will be entered will ultimately, from the standpoint of the company, bar any future lawsuits. The defendants agree rather than paying a lump sum settlement out of their current assets to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to these lawyers and the State out of future profits. How do you make sure you don't have to dip into your current assets? Well, basically, the defendants agree under this arrangement to raise the price of their product for consumers. So, ultimately, the consumers pay, and the defendants will pay the attorney's fees out of this same income stream. Now, these lawyers in this story believe this is really a stroke of genius. While no person who has allegedly been injured by this product will receive a penny--and, indeed, as a result, the defendant will not be deterred from engaging in that sort of conduct, nor will, as I say, any victim be compensated--the State recovers a windfall of damages without having to appear to raise taxes, although the increased price for the product is passed along to consumers. As a result of this deal, the defendant's stock price rebounds, they can stay in business essentially as a partner with this law firm whose legal fees will be paid out of future sales revenue, and the State official who agrees to this ingenious scheme is elected to higher office in part on the strength of this David v. Goliath story. The only problem with this story is that it is no fairy tale. So who are these lawyers who dreamed up this ingenious scheme to partner with a State official to be able to be delegated the sovereign power of the State and collect fabulous wealth in the form of attorney's fees that no judge will award and no jury will award because it is part of this settlement? Jack McConnell, the nominee, and his law firm. His Web site says: McConnell played a central role in the historic litigation against the tobacco industry in which $246 million in all was recovered, it says, on behalf of the State attorneys general, serving as a negotiator and primary drafter of the master settlement agreement. As a result, Mr. McConnell told us in the Judiciary Committee, he expects to collect between $2.5 million and $3.1 million a year from now through 2024. What is more, Jack McConnell now finds himself nominated to be a Federal judge in whose court future ingenious but ethically dubious schemes can be expected to have a warm reception. This is the type of thing Stuart Taylor--a well-respected legal commentator--called, he said: The rule of law has now morphed into these sorts of schemes into the rule of lawyers. He has talked about the sequel to this litigation I have described in this story which was the lead paint lawsuit, which we have talked about a little before, which was unanimously rejected by the Rhode Island Supreme Court-- frivolous litigation. As a matter of fact, Mr. McConnell and his law firm were assessed fees of over $200,000. But Mr. Taylor said: It is litigation of this type which has perverted the legal system for personal or political gain at the expense of everyone else. Strong words, hard words, but I think the Senate needs to know the type of nominee we are voting on, and the American people need to know what the record of this nominee is, so then they can hold the Senators who vote for his confirmation accountable. But this is not a partisan issue. It is not. This is not even about ideology. This is about ethics. This is about upholding the rule of law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the close of my remarks, a Wall Street Journal article, dated January 12, 2000, by Robert B. Reich, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. Reich was Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, and he wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that I think is particularly appropriate to what I am talking about. The lead of the article from this prominent Democrat, a Cabinet Secretary under Bill Clinton, is: ``Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy?'' That is the title. I will not read all of it, but I will read just a few sentences. In talking about this kind of government-sponsored litigation by outsourcing the responsibilities of the sovereign government and the elected officials to contingency fee lawyers, whose only motive is maximizing their personal profit, he said: . . . the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil lawsuits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux legislation, which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of administration officials operating in secrecy. Well, I agree with Secretary Reich. I think this is a threat to our democracy. Again, I do not think it should be viewed as a partisan issue, even though he has that provocative headline and he is talking about members of his own party who have endorsed and initiated some of this type of litigation. We had an earlier vote, as I said, where 63 Senators voted to close off debate, and we will have a vote here in short order. I know some Senators have indicated they voted to close off debate because they felt that was the appropriate vote to make, but they were going to vote against Mr. McConnell's nomination. So we will see how many votes he gets. But we know if it is a party-line vote, there are 53 Democrats in this body and 46 Republicans. If it is a party-line vote, Mr. McConnell is going to be a Federal judge. But I think it is important to make the Record crystal clear as to the type of nominee Senators are voting on. I think it is my responsibility to my constituents, it is my responsibility to the Senate, to express the strong objections I have to this nominee. Surely--well, I know there are better people for the President to nominate in Rhode Island. Two of them serve in the Senate. There are other qualified people who could be nominated, and I believe this ethically challenged nominee--who, according to the words of Stuart Taylor, is among a class of lawyers who have perverted the legal system for personal and political gain at the expense of everyone else--is the wrong person for this job. So I will be voting against the nomination. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 12, 2000] Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy? (By Robert B. Reich) If I had my way there would be laws restricting cigarettes and handguns. But Congress won't even pass halfway measures. Cigarette companies have admitted they produce death sticks, yet Congress won't lift a finger to stub them out. Teenage boys continue to shoot up high schools, yet Congress won't pass stricter gun controls. The politically potent cigarette and gun industries have got what they wanted: no action. Almost makes you lose faith in democracy, doesn't it? Apparently that's exactly what's happened to the Clinton administration. Fed up with trying to move legislation, the White House is launching lawsuits to succeed where legislation failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of making our frail democracy even weaker. The Justice Department is going after the tobacco companies with a law designed to fight mobsters--the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act. Justice alleges that the tobacco companies violated RICO by conspiring to create an illegal enterprise. They did this by agreeing to a ``concerted public-relations campaign'' to deny any link between smoking and disease, suppress internal research and engage in 116 ``racketeering acts'' of mail and wire fraud, which included advertisements and press releases the companies knew to be false. A few weeks ago, the administration announced another large lawsuit, this one against America's gun manufacturers. Justice couldn't argue that the gun makers had conspired to mislead the public about the danger of their products, so it decided against using RICO in favor of offering ``legal advice'' to public housing authorities organized under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who are suing the gun makers on behalf of their three million tenants. The basis of this case is strict liability and negligence. The gun makers allegedly sold defective products, or products they knew or should have known would harm people. Both of these legal grounds--the mobster-like conspiracy of cigarette manufacturers to mislead the public, and the defective aspects of guns or the negligence of their manufacturers--are stretches, to say the least. If any agreement to mislead any segment of the public is a ``conspiracy'' under RICO, then America's entire advertising industry is in deep trouble, not to mention health maintenance organizations, the legal profession, automobile dealers and the Pentagon. And if every product that might result in death or serious injury is ``defective,'' you might as well say goodbye to liquor and beer, fatty foods and sharp cooking utensils. These two novel legal theories give the administration extraordinary discretion to decide who's misleading the public and whose products are defective. You might approve the outcomes in these two cases, but they establish precedents for other cases you might find wildly unjust. Worse, no judge will ever scrutinize these theories. The administration has no intention of seeing these lawsuits through to final verdicts. The goal of both efforts is to threaten the industries with such large penalties that they'll agree to a deal--for the cigarette makers, to pay a large amount of money to the federal government, coupled perhaps with a steep increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes; and for the gun makers, to limit bulk purchases and put more safety devices on guns. In announcing the lawsuit against the gun makers, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo assured the press that the whole effort was just a bargaining ploy: ``If all parties act in good faith we'll stay at the negotiating table.'' But the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil lawsuits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux legislation, which sacrifices democracy to the discretion of administration officials operating in secrecy. It's one thing for cities and states to go to court (big tobacco has already agreed to pay the states $246 billion to settle state Medicaid suits, and 28 cities along with New York state and Connecticut are now suing the gun manufacturers; it's quite another for the feds to bring to bear the entire weight of the nation. New York state isn't exactly a pushover, but its attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, says the federal lawsuit will finally pressure gun makers to settle. New York's lawsuit is a small dagger, he says. ``The feds' is a meat ax.'' The feds' meat ax may be a good way to get an industry to shape up, but its a bad way to get democracy to shape up. Yes, American politics is rotting. Special-interest money is oozing over Capitol Hill. The makers of cigarettes and guns have enormous clout in Washington, and they are bribing our elected representatives to turn their backs on these problems. But the way to fix everything isn't to turn our backs on the democratic process and pursue litigation, as the administration is doing. It's to campaign for people who promise to take action against cigarettes and guns, and against the re-election of House and Senate members who won't. And to fight like hell for campaign finance reform. In short, the answer is to make democracy work better, not to give up on it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a nomination that is pending before the Senate, and I do so with some degree of trepidation because, as someone who has been a member of the legal profession for about 30-plus years, I believe it is imperative that I voice my strong concerns and, indeed, my objections to the nomination of Jack McConnell to become a U.S. district judge prior to the vote we will have tomorrow morning on a cloture vote. The reason I was attracted, like so many others, I think, to law school and the legal profession was because of the majesty of the notion of the rule of law, its importance to our democracy, the responsibilities that lawyers owe not just to themselves, to enrich themselves, but to their clients--the fiduciary duty that a lawyer has to represent a client. Then, of course, the ethical standards, which some might scoff at but which actually work pretty well. They keep lawyers, for the most part, accountable to the high ethical standards imposed by the legal profession. Unfortunately, and I am sorry to have to say this, but the hard truth is Mr. McConnell's record--which I will describe in a moment--is one of not upholding the rule of law but perverting the rule of law, ignoring the responsibilities he had to his client, and manipulating those ethical standards in order to enrich himself and his law partners. First, let me just say that Mr. McConnell, when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, intentionally misled the committee during the confirmation process. I don't know how I can say it any more gently. The fact is, he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation process: Regardless of who nominates an individual, party affiliation aside, I don't think the Senate, as an institution, should tolerate a nominee who essentially misrepresents the facts in the context of a confirmation process. This involved his participation in or involvement with a set of stolen confidential documents his law firm obtained in a lawsuit against the Sherman-Williams Company. In 2010, in his answers to written questions to the committee, Mr. McConnell told members of the committee: ``I would not say I was familiar with the documents in any fashion.'' Only a few months later, in September 2010, this same nominee gave a deposition in an Ohio court, where he testified he was the first attorney at his firm to review the documents in question, that he had drafted a newspaper editorial citing information that had come from those documents, and that portions of those documents were incorporated in a brief filed under his signature. Despite this obvious contradiction and given an opportunity to correct his misleading statement, Mr. McConnell has unequivocally stood by his original statement to committee members. I reiterate, this body should not approve or confirm, for a lifetime appointment, someone who wants to serve as a judge, in particular, but anyone who would lie to or, at best, intentionally mislead the Senate by downplaying his role in a serious controversy involving, in this case, stolen confidential documents. During the time I practiced law and served on the State court bench in my State of Texas, I have come to respect lawyers who handle all sorts of cases--lawyers who prosecute criminal cases, lawyers who defend criminal cases, lawyers who defend citizens, including companies, sued for money damages, and those who bring those lawsuits-- constrained, again, by the rule of law, duty to the client, and high ethical standards. But based on his long career as a lawyer, Mr. McConnell has advocated--it is clear from the evidence--a results- oriented view of the law and manipulated it for his personal gain. These theories he has advanced, ostensibly on behalf of his client, have been rejected, not just by people like me but by a very broad range of people in the legal community. For example, Mr. McConnell and his firm sued paint manufacturers based on an unprecedented theory of public nuisance that allowed them to circumvent longstanding legal doctrine and receive a huge jury award in a sympathetic judge's courtroom. Ultimately, the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected unanimously this theory, declaring it ``at odds with centuries of American law and antithetical to the common law,'' to quote the court. As one Iowa attorney general who happens to be a Democrat said: ``Mr. McConnell's lead paint litigation was a lawsuit in search of a legal theory.'' Mr. McConnell's lead paint litigation scheme required the complicity, unfortunately, of State and local officials, a practice I will speak more on in just a moment. But Mr. McConnell's reaction to the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court also demonstrates his lack of judicial temperament, something very important, particularly for a judge. It showed that not only does he still adamantly believe in these radical, unprecedented legal theories, rejected by the highest court in Rhode Island, but he also lacks the temperament to serve on the Federal bench. Instead of respecting the decision made by the highest court in the State, Mr. McConnell wrote a strident op-ed piece condemning the court and stating he believed their decisions ``let the wrongdoers off the hook.'' In other words, Mr. McConnell made clear he believes the law should be manipulated to serve his agenda, not to uphold the rule of law, nor to respect the very bodies that are responsible under our system for interpreting law and rendering judgment. Mr. McConnell's outburst was not particularly surprising, given his public admission previously that he is ``an emotional personal about injustice at any level, personal, societal, or global,'' as he put it. This lack of temperament and novel view of the law is indicative of the type of judge Jack McConnell would be, I am sorry to say: biased against a certain class of people and untethered to the rule of law. Mr. McConnell's practices also existed under an ethical cloud throughout his career. He and his law firm made billions of dollars and a name for themselves through their pioneering practice of soliciting no-bid, contingent-fee contracts from State officials. For example, Mr. McConnell and his firm played a central role in litigating lawsuits brought by State attorneys general, first against tobacco companies and then lead-based paint manufacturers. Of course, I am not saying tobacco companies and other companies should not be held accountable for harmful products, but the purpose of the law should be to compensate those people who have been aggrieved and to deter others from acting in the same fashion in the future. The litigation he constructed and devised, the scheme he literally created, did none of that. The question is, ultimately, where did the money go? Under these contracts, Mr. McConnell and his partners have repeatedly sued American businesses, pocketing billions of dollars for themselves in attorney's fees, while leaving taxpayers on the hook for the resulting costs. In the word of one respected legal commentator, Mr. McConnell and lawyers like him have ``perverted the legal system for personal and political gain at the expense of everyone else.'' In several lawsuits, Mr. McConnell and his partners received contingent-fee contracts from State officials, to whom they later contributed tens of thousands of dollars. I think there are a lot of very important public policy reasons why State officials should not be able to outsource their responsibilities to private lawyers based on a contingency fee, where their only incentive is one of a profit motive, untethered by the sorts of checks and balances that elected or other appointed government officials would ordinarily have. Our system of justice relies on financially disinterested officials who take an oath to uphold the law and not those whose sole motive is not to uphold the law but to twist it and manipulate it in order to maximize their economic gain. Some of these lawyers, including Mr. McConnell's firm, have pocketed what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour for their work in lawsuits against tobacco companies. Mr. McConnell and lawyers like him are the big winners in these lawsuits, taking home large sums of money that rightfully belong to the taxpayer, the client I mentioned at the outset. Imagine if these billions of dollars were spent on cancer research or improving public health, instead of lining the pockets of a few politically well-connected lawyers. More important, however, the outsourcing of suits to private trial lawyers on a contingent-fee basis creates both the opportunity and appearance for corruption by allowing State officials to reward their friends and campaign contributors. One reason I have taken such a strong personal interest in this issue is because of my service as attorney general of Texas, following that of Dan Morales, my predecessor. Mr. Morales served over 3 years in the Federal penitentiary for attempting to illegally channel millions of dollars in a tobacco settlement, money that was due to the State of Texas, but he steered it to a lawyer friend of his by trying to backdate a contract, to make it appear to be something it was not. The actions of Mr. McConnell and his partners, by funneling tens of thousands of dollars into campaign accounts of State officials who hired them, raise concerns about pay-to-play dealings. In the State of Washington, for example, Mr. McConnell and members of his small South Carolina-based law firm contributed $23,200 to the reelection of the attorney general in the State of Washington. By the way, that was the very same lawyer who hired them on a contingency basis to represent the State. In North Dakota, Mr. McConnell and his wife contributed $30,000 to the gubernatorial campaign of the attorney general who appointed him as special assistant attorney general, for purposes of representing that State in tobacco litigation. Mr. McConnell and his law firm contributed an additional $73,000 to that same attorney general's State political party during the campaign cycle, making them the No. 4 campaign contributor to that organization. There is nothing wrong with people contributing money to political candidates or parties or causes they believe in. But it is another matter when these contributions are made in connection with no-bid contracts or apparent political favors. It is no small matter that Mr. McConnell has a lucrative, ongoing financial arrangement as a product of his previous work as a trial lawyer. In fact, he will receive $2.5 to $3.1 million a year through 2024 as part of his payout for his work in the tobacco litigation I mentioned a moment ago--$2.5 to $3.1 million a year through 2024. For anyone who would praise Mr. McConnell for giving up a successful legal career in order to serve as a Federal judge, remember he would be reaping huge windfalls at the expense of taxpayers long into his tenure as a Federal judge. Some Senators will say that whatever his past, Mr. McConnell deserves the benefit of the doubt and that he would be an impartial judge if confirmed by the Senate to this lifetime appointment. I cannot agree and neither does, by the way, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They have taken an unprecedented step of opposing this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. The Chamber has taken this unprecedented step of opposing his nomination and declaring him ``unfit to serve.'' In fact, this is the first time in its 99-year history they have opposed a district court nominee. My colleagues have asked me whether I believe that Texas businesses and businesspeople would get a fair shake in Jack McConnell's courtroom, and I absolutely do not believe they could. To my colleagues who may doubt what I am saying or look for some proof, I would just say: Read the record. I am convinced you would have trouble looking your constituents in the eye and telling them you believe Mr. McConnell would be fair to all litigants in his courtroom and, in this case, especially businesses that may be sued for money damages, as he did throughout his legal career. In fact, Mr. McConnell, during the Judiciary Committee deliberations, described his legal philosophy by saying: ``There are wrongs that need to be righted and that is how I see the law.'' That doesn't cite any applicable legal standard. It doesn't actually take into account law as we know it, just wrongs he believes need to be righted. Similarly, Mr. McConnell has said that based upon his experience he has ``absolutely no confidence'' that certain industries will ever do the right thing and that they will only do the right thing ``when they're sued and forced to by a jury.'' Given his tendency to view lawsuits against businesses as a movement against societal injustice, it is difficult to see how Mr. McConnell could put those personal views aside and give all litigants in his courtroom a fair trial, a right which they are guaranteed under our Constitution and laws. I believe a vote to support Mr. McConnell's nomination is a vote to create yet another court where trial lawyers will repeatedly prevail in frivolous litigation against American businesses. That is something we ought not allow. Mr. McConnell's behavior during his career and confirmation procession demonstrates a lack of ethics and temperament necessary to serve as a Federal judge. I hope a President would never appoint someone such as Jack McConnell, but apparently everyone makes mistakes, including this nomination by this President. Instead of stubbornly digging in his heels, usually the President has agreed to withdraw nominees whose confirmation process produces extraordinary controversy, but since he has failed to do so here, the President has forced me and others to stand our ground and to fight Mr. McConnell's appointment to the Federal bench. Based on his deeply troubling ethical record and poor judicial temperament and the fact he intentionally misled, if not lied to, the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation process, I believe we must fight this nomination with every tool at our disposal. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, March 30, 2011. Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, strongly opposes the nomination of John ``Jack'' McConnell to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Mr. McConnell's past statements, conduct as a personal injury plaintiffs' lawyer, and lackluster ABA rating raise serious concerns about his fitness to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Although the Chamber has historically stayed away from debates surrounding federal district court nominees, we believe that a response is warranted in this circumstance given Mr. McConnell's record. Our opposition begins with Mr. McConnell's mediocre ``substantial majority qualified, minority unqualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. For a practicing lawyer with 25 years of experience to obtain such a low rating speaks poorly of his legal abilities. It is likely that he generated negative comments from judges before whom he appeared and/or from lawyers who know him. Mr. McConnell's ABA rating should come as no surprise given his past statements, which raise serious questions about whether he will follow precedent and the rule of law. For example, in 1999, Mr. McConnell was hired on a contingency fee basis by the State of Rhode Island to sue paint companies under theories of liability that exceeded the bounds of well- settled law. After nine years of protracted litigation, and after millions of dollars spent by defendants, the Rhode Island Supreme Court unanimously (4-0) rejected Mr. McConnell's misguided interpretation of public nuisance law. Mr. McConnell demonstrated little respect for the Supreme Court's ruling and publicly attacked the decision in an op-ed that he penned for The Providence Journal, claiming that the justices ``got [the decision] terribly wrong'' by letting ``wrongdoers off the hook.'' Mr. McConnell's public criticism of the Rhode Island Supreme Court's lead paint ruling should also give the Committee pause because it casts light on a judicial philosophy that appears to be outcome-driven rather than based on interpreting and applying the law. Indeed, Mr. McConnell has publicly affirmed his support for ``an active government'' that should not ``stand on the sidelines'' and that ``[he] see[s] the law'' as a mechanism to redress ``wrongs that need to be righted.'' Considering these statements together, a picture of a judicial nominee who will legislate from the bench begins to emerge. The Chamber is equally concerned that Mr. McConnell lacks the capacity to be an impartial jurist, especially against business defendants who may appear before him. Mr. McConnell has defined his career by suing business defendants. As his own Committee questionnaire indicates, of the top ten cases he views as the ``most significant'' litigations of his legal career, all but two involve actions against businesses, and none involved him representing or defending a business. Worse still, when asked by the Columbus Post Dispatch in 2006 about the possibility of future lead paint litigation, he said that, based on history, he had ``absolutely no confidence'' that defendant paint companies would do the right thing. He added ``[t]he only time is when they're sued and forced to by a jury.'' How could a business hope to receive an impartial hearing in Mr. McConnell's courtroom when these statements show that the deck is already stacked so heavily against them? Moreover, Mr. McConnell's ability to render fair and impartial rulings from the bench should be seriously questioned in light of the potentially significant financial windfalls that he stands to recover for the next 15 years. According to Mr. McConnell's questionnaire, he is scheduled to receive millions of dollars annually through 2024 from an organization closely tied with his current employer, the Motley Rice plaintiffs' firm. This has all the appearance of a conflict of interest and it is difficult to see how Mr. McConnell could render impartial judgments in matters involving plaintiffs' law firms while simultaneously receiving millions of dollars in compensation from another plaintiffs' firm. Ultimately, we are concerned that Mr. McConnell's apparent bias against business defendants, underlying judicial philosophy, and questionable respect for the rule of law, will lead to the multiplication of baseless lawsuits in his courtroom with untold consequences to businesses large and small across the country. Given the limited number of judges who currently serve in the District of Rhode Island, it is not hard to imagine a generation of enterprising personal injury lawyers flocking to a new ``magnet jurisdiction'' at the federal level with a chance to draw such a plaintiff-lawyer friendly judge. State courts like those in Madison County, Illinois have amply demonstrated the problems that can arise from courts that accept plaintiffs' claims no matter their merits. Finally, as most litigators understand, federal judges exercise virtually unreviewable discretionary authority in many circumstances, and the chance of the appellate courts correcting every misstep is unrealistic. As such, the Chamber must urge the Committee to resist the confirmation of a lawyer with an animus against one type of defendant. As Mr. McConnell has not demonstrated that he would provide the kind of fair and impartial judicial temperament needed to be a federal judge, as well as his demonstrated bias against a clear class of litigants, the Chamber urges you to oppose this nomination. Should Mr. McConnell's nomination be considered on the Senate floor, the Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, his nomination in our annual How They Voted scorecard. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, moments ago, I sent to the desk a resolution on my behalf, as well as that of Senator Collins, Senator Blunt, Senator Lee, Senator Roberts, and Senator Inhofe, relating to the military operations in Libya. I would like to speak for a few moments about that and about my concerns. Like all of our colleagues, I respect our troops and honor them and, of course, their sense of duty, which obligates them to do whatever the Commander in Chief has directed them to do. And, of course, I respect the role of our President as Commander in Chief. But I have grown increasingly concerned that the role of Congress in consultation and in communication with the White House on matters of such grave import to our country and our men and women in uniform as intervening in a foreign country--that the powers of Congress have seemingly been ignored or certainly eroded. We know this is not new. Since the end of World War II, to my recollection, the U.S. Congress has never exercised its authority under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to declare war. Instead, when our nation has been involved in military operations, we have had something other than a war declared by Congress, but most often with communication and consultation and even authorization by the Congress. I believe it is imperative, particularly in light of the events subsequent to our intervention in Libya, that the President should submit a plan to Congress on Libya. I believe the President should also come to Congress and ask for a congressional authorization for our continued participation, even in a NATO mission of which the United States bears a disproportionate responsibility. Like many Americans, I admire the Libyans who protested against Muammar Qaddafi beginning on February 15 of this year. And the timeline, I believe, is important. February 15. They showed they wanted the same things as people in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and so many other nations in the Middle East; that is, a chance to live in freedom and to have a voice in determining their own future. But, like many Americans, I was also concerned that the people of Libya got so little encouragement from our own President. True, President Obama said on March 3 that Qaddafi had lost legitimacy and he ``must step down from power and leave'' immediately. That was on March 3. He indicated this was the policy of the U.S.--that regime change was our goal in Libya--regime change. But he obviously had no plan to accomplish that goal or to further assist the Libyan people in accomplishing it themselves, other than handing the responsibility off to NATO. Now, this is not like handing it off to some third party that is alien to us or not part of us. We--the United States--are a significant part of NATO's operations. For example, in Afghanistan, basically for every one coalition troop from other NATO countries, there are two American troops, and we bear the proportionate financial responsibility as well. The President watched as Qaddafi forces regained the momentum against those who had taken up arms against the regime. France--France--became the first nation to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate government of Libya on March 10. And then the Arab League asked that a no-fly zone be imposed over Libya on March 12. Finally, on March 17--this was almost a month after the first protests against Qaddafi in Libya--the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly zone over Libya, as well as necessary measures to protect civilians in that country. U.N. Security Council resolutions take a lot of time to negotiate. There is obviously the need for a lot of consultation between the nations making up the U.N. Security Council. That is why I am only left to wonder why it was during this period of time that the President made so little effort to consult with Congress in a substantive way. I admit he appeared to act like he checked the box once or twice. He sent us a letter on March 21--2 days after Operation Odyssey Dawn began--letting us know what we could have learned from reading the newspaper and watching cable television, that he had ordered strikes on Libya. But the level of consultation with Congress about Libya was nothing like what we had in the years leading up to U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Congress issued an explicit authorization for use of military force at the request of the President of the United States. This is not just a constitutional powers matter. I think this is also a matter of communicating with the American people about the reasons for our intervention in Libya and expressing to the American people what the plan is so they can do what they naturally want to do; that is, provide support for our men and women in uniform, particularly when they are in harm's way. The President waited until 9 days after our planes and missiles were in the air to make his case to the American people in a speech at the National Defense University. During that speech, the President began to draw a very confusing distinction between our political and military objectives in Libya, saying: There is no question that Libya--and the world--will be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. Or, as he put it in an interview the next day, he said: Our primary military goal is to protect civilian populations and to set up the no-fly zone. Our primary strategic goal is for Qaddafi to step down so that the Libyan people have an opportunity to live a decent life. I bet I am not the only person in the country who is confused by this dichotomy between our military goals and our strategic goals. I think they should be the same. We know the American people still have many questions about what we are doing in Libya and why. As a matter of fact, I met this morning with some Texas Army National Guardsmen who were visiting the Capitol just today, who asked me a question on this very subject because they are confused. If our men and women in uniform are confused about the President's objective, and the American people do not understand what it is either, it means there has not been a good case made explaining the need for military intervention and the ongoing operations. But do not take my word for it. According to a Pew Research poll on April 3, only 30 percent of Americans believe the United States or our allies have a clear goal in Libya--30 percent. Our troops deserve more clarity. The President told our troops that their involvement in Libya would last a matter of days, not weeks. These men and women, as we all acknowledge, are the finest fighting force in the world. They can accomplish any mission given to them. But they can also tell the difference between days and weeks. Our troops can tell that they are still responsible for about 25 percent of the NATO support missions in Libya. They hear the voices calling for NATO to expand its operations. And then they know that any expansion of NATO's mission, in scope or duration, puts more of them in harm's way. They simply deserve more clarity, as do the American people. So I think the Congress, on behalf of the American people, consistent with our constitutional responsibilities and our shared power in matters as serious as this, deserve a plan from the President of the United States, so he can present it to us and we can have what we sorely need, which is a genuine debate about our role in the future-- the way forward in Libya. So what should that plan look like? I will make a few suggestions. I believe a credible plan should contain a detailed description of U.S. policy objectives in Libya both during and after Qaddafi's rule. It should include a detailed plan to achieve those objectives. And particularly in these times when we are struggling with enormous debt and deficits, it should include a detailed estimate of the costs of U.S. military operations in Libya and any other actions required to implement the plan. Congress, of course, has the responsibility for the federal purse strings and would be asked to appropriate the money, so I think it is entirely appropriate that the President present to us a plan that we can debate and vote on in the form of an authorization. I think a credible plan should also include a detailed description of the limitations the President has placed on the nature, duration, and scope of U.S. military operations in Libya--the limitations he referred to in his letter of March 21 to Congress. A plan from the President would, of course, be a catalyst for a long- overdue debate right here in the Halls of what we call occasionally the world's greatest deliberative body. But we cannot deliberate without debate and without an honest appraisal of where we are and where we are going. In fact, it is clear, just by referring back to the debate we had on Iraq and Afghanistan, that the amount of time devoted in this body to Libya is dwarfed by the fulsome debates we had over a period of years relative to our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, what questions should a Senate debate over Libya hope to address? Well, I can think of a few. Was the Secretary of Defense correct when he said Libya is not a vital interest for the United States? Is the situation on the ground in Libya--as reported by the news-- basically now a stalemate? Remember that the initial U.S. commander of coalition operations in Libya, General Carter Ham, testified before the Armed Services Committee just last week. He agreed with that assessment that it was essentially now a stalemate. I think this is, to me, the simplest, the most direct question: If the President's goal was to stop Qaddafi from killing Libyans, civilians rebelling against him and protesting against his tyrannical rule, how in the world do we stop the killing without stopping the killer? That would be Muammar Qaddafi. How can we stop the killing of civilians until we achieve the objective of removing him by any means necessary? I think it is also appropriate to inquire as to whether the Pottery Barn rule applies in Libya. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once observed that, Once you break it, you own it, the so-called Pottery Barn rule. Has the administration's focus on Libya distracted it from our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both vital interests? We have committed huge amounts of blood and treasure to success in both of those countries, and I think Congress needs to know, and we need to have a fulsome debate, about whether this mission in Libya has distracted from those other two vital missions. We also need to talk about whether NATO's performance in Libya has jeopardized its effectiveness and reputation. Is there a risk that the alliance is already splitting because of caveats or restrictions that some of the coalition members are placing on their participation in the ongoing intervention in Libya? Finally, I think we need to know, because certainly everything that happens becomes precedent for some future action, whether there is something that one might call an ``Obama doctrine.'' Is it that the United States will use military force when requested by our allies such as France or, perhaps, international bodies such as the Arab League or the United Nations, but not otherwise? Is it something like the United States will protect civilians when they capture the world's media attention, but ignore their suffering otherwise? Is it something that explains why, for example, we are engaged in Libya but not engaged in Syria? Remember that Syria is a nation that is slaughtering its own civilians--a humanitarian crisis, I would submit. It is a known state sponsor of terrorism, so designated by the U.S. Department of State, and it is a well-known and notorious conduit for arms from Iran to the Lebanese Hezbollah. Whatever the Obama doctrine is, why doesn't it apply to Syria? We need to ask those questions and I think we need and deserve--and the American people even more so deserve--answers. I believe our debate in the Senate should result in a vote on a congressional authorization for the President's plan, whatever that is, in Libya, but we ought to have a conversation, we ought to communicate, we ought to have a consultation, not allow the President to treat Congress like a potted plant when it comes to intervening in a foreign nation in a military fashion. I believe the President should ask Congress for an authorization, and I believe we should vote on one. I certainly don't believe that what we have done so far, which is pass a simple resolution without much notice or debate, is sufficient. Frankly, I don't understand why some of my colleagues are so willing to acquiesce to the President, thereby conceding to the executive branch all authority in dealing with a matter of this gravity and seriousness. I believe a robust debate about Libya would be good for the Senate, it would be good for the House of Representatives, I think it would be good for the American people, and I think it would be good for the President. If the President takes action knowing that the American people and the Congress are behind his plan, that is good for America, and that is what we need. I am afraid, though, that the President is taking the support of the American people for granted. The American people instinctively want to support our Commander in Chief, but history shows our military operations are most successful when the people of the United States are behind them. When the American people are not--when they become disengaged or disillusioned--success becomes much more difficult, not just in Libya but for future missions as well. I hope the President will act in such a way that shows respect for Congress as a coequal branch of government, and for the American people, who expect that their representatives will debate questions of this gravity in the open and ask the questions they themselves would ask before their sons and daughters are put in danger. I hope the American people will have the benefit of a vigorous debate on Libya in the Senate. It is with that objective in mind that my colleagues and I have submitted a resolution. I know there are other resolutions. I believe the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Arizona have another one. I am advised that Senator Ensign from Nevada and Senator Hutchison from Texas have another one. I think we need to consider all of those views and have a debate and vote on these issues.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield back time on both sides.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I can only imagine that the American people who are watching this drama unfold in Washington, DC, are scratching their heads and are confused, and are wondering why it is that Congress can't perform one of its most basic functions, which is to make sure that the government continues to operate. I am reminded of an adage from the days I practiced law, and then presided as a judge in the courtroom: If you can't convince them, confuse them. Whether it is inadvertently or intentionally or by mistake, I think there is a lot of confusion being encouraged and propagated on the floor. The fact of the matter is, there are three things we are talking about. One is the continuing resolution that the House of Representatives passed and sent over here some time ago, which would fund the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year. That is one thing. There is a second thing, which is a bill sent over yesterday that would fund the government for 1 more week and the Department of Defense for the remainder of the fiscal year, which the majority leader has the power to bring to the floor today and have us vote on this afternoon or tonight. But the President of the United States has sent out a veto message saying he would veto it. Then, the third thing that is being discussed--and it may be the most confusing of all--is when Speaker Boehner says it is all about the money, and Majority Leader Reid says, no, it is about the policy riders--well, I submit that it is about the money. It is not about objections to policy, which 49 of our Democratic friends have voted for in the past, which has been signed into law by President Clinton and signed into law by President Obama himself. The real casualties of this dysfunction here, and the inability of Congress to get its work done, unfortunately, fall on men and women in uniform. In my State, a large Army installation, as the Presiding Officer knows, is located in Killeen, TX, at Fort Hood. On November 5, 2009, a tragedy hit Fort Hood when Major Hassan killed 13 people in what could only be described as a domestic act of terrorism. Shortly after that, a number of our military who were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are now in the process of returning. The three corps soldiers are finally returning from Iraq and individuals such as SPC Kevin Gallagher of Tiger Squadron Calvary Regiment, who is a Purple Heart recipient, is just coming back from Iraq. Soldiers of the 20th Engineer Battalion and the 36th Engineer Brigade are returning to Fort Hood from Afghanistan. I wonder what they are thinking now, along with their families, when, as a result of the Federal Government dealing with its most basic responsibilities, they are not going to get paid--starting tomorrow-- unless the majority leader takes up the temporary bill that was passed yesterday in the House and sent over here and we vote on it today to make sure our troops and their families continue to get funded, and get the pay they so richly have earned and deserve. We have heard, as I said, a lot of talk about riders. The only thing that is contained in this bill that could be called a policy rider, about which there appears to be confusion, is one that 49 Senate Democrats have voted on in the past--a spending bill with regard to abortion funding in the District of Columbia. President Obama has signed it into law, President Clinton signed that into law, and 49 Senate Democrats voted for it in the past. Yet this becomes somehow the obstacle to paying our troops what they have earned. The argument sounds as if we will not fund our troops like we can't fund abortions in the District of Columbia. I think it is a terrible shame and I think it galvanizes public opinion about everyone in Washington. I think the President and his advisers are wrong if they think a government shutdown will help Democrats and help him get reelected and hurt Republicans. I think people are saying: a pox on all your houses. You need to work together to solve problems, to cut spending, to cut the deficit, deal with the unsustainable debt, and you need to get on with it now. The fact of the matter is, we continue to spend 40 cents out of every dollar in Washington as borrowed money. We know that the debt held by the public--and this is under the President's own budget proposal-- would double in 5 years, and it would triple in 10 years, because the President himself, who is obligated under the Budget Act to send over his requested budget, does nothing to deal with the debt crisis that is threatening our Nation, threatening our prosperity and our freedom. As China continues to loan us money, we are subject to the tender mercies of a country that I submit we do not want to be subject to the tender mercies of. We need to deal with this. Unfortunately, the President and some of my friends across the aisle have been very critical of the proposed budget of Paul Ryan in the House. At least he tries to deal with the reality of the hand we have been dealt, or which some of us have created. The President himself ignores his own fiscal commission report that came out in December of 2010. On this chart, here is what the wall of debt looks like, unless we deal with this problem. According to the President's own budget, it gets worse and worse. In 1997, it was roughly $5 trillion. Now we are looking at about a $14 trillion debt. If we don't do anything about it, if we continue business as usual in Washington and don't cut spending and deal with the structural and systemic problems facing us and our debt crisis, it will continue to get worse and worse. This is another sobering chart. This shows when we borrow the money, we have to pay interest to the people who buy that debt. This chart shows that the interest paid by 2021--the last year of the President's proposed budget--that the amount of money paid in interest, at assumed rates, which are now very low, is $931 billion, which is more than transportation, more than defense, and more than Medicare. We have been told by the experts that if interest rates were to go up--if, for example, we incur a period of inflation, this number could explode into multiples of this figure, putting us into a death spiral-- economically speaking--and we could end up like Greece or Portugal. The only problem is that there is nobody out there to bail out the United States of America. The only one that can stop this is us. Secretary Geithner said the debt limit ceiling has to be raised sometime in the period between middle May and July. That is the big event. What we are talking about now is a preliminary skirmish, albeit very important. I will tell you, I do not intend to vote to increase the credit card limit of the Federal Government, unless we can get systemic reform that will deal with this very real problem. One of those ways to do that would be to pass a balanced budget amendment. All 47 Senators on our side have now agreed to a constitutional amendment provision that would require a balanced budget. We hope our friends across the aisle will join us in passing it. The last time this was considered, we came within one vote--in 1997--of passing a balanced budget amendment. The deficit was $107 billion. Now it is $1.5 trillion. The debt was around $5 trillion and now it is $14 trillion. So if it was compelling enough that it came that close to passage in 1997, how much more compelling now is the evidence that we need to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? In closing, I hope cooler heads will prevail tonight, that those who seek political advantage via the game of ``gotcha''--a world class sport in Washington, DC--will forbear and allow us to get on with the big fights, which are dealing with this unsustainable debt, these huge deficits, and not threaten the paycheck of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, who are fighting three wars around the world, and whose families are calling my office. Mr. President, I guess they are calling your office and that of the Senator from Michigan and New York also, saying: What are you doing, and why can't you get this taken care of so that we don't have to add this to our list of burdens while our loved ones are away fighting America's wars. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, sometimes when my constituents come to Washington I tell them: Welcome to the District of Columbia, 68 square miles of logic-free environment, where perception is reality. I can't think of anything more surreal than the situation we find ourselves in with the House of Representatives having passed an appropriations bill that would keep the government open while negotiations continue and would fund our men and women fighting now three wars around the world to make sure they get paid. I have also had occasion to tell my constituents that Washington, DC, is a lot like Disneyland. It is a fun place to visit, but it is not real. When we get in trouble, when Members of Congress get in trouble is when they think Washington is real because it is not. What is real is what is back home, where people have common sense, try to solve problems working together, rather than play endless political games. I find it outrageous that Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the President of the United States would refuse to fund pay to the men and women in uniform by threatening a veto to the House bill sent over here. We know that unless Senator Reid and the President agree to keep the government open, they will be responsible for the shutdown of the Federal Government and all the disruption that goes along with it. After the government shuts down, we are still going to have to pass an appropriations bill at some level to keep the government functioning. A shutdown doesn't solve anything, except cause disruption, concern, and heartburn among a lot of good people about whether they will get paid. First and foremost among those are our men and women in uniform. The President has threatened to veto the troop funding bill, which is H.R. 1263, by saying: ``This bill is a distraction.'' That is according to the President's own Statement of Administration Policy issued by the White House earlier today--``a distraction.'' An attempt by the U.S. House of Representatives to make sure our men and women in uniform are being paid while they are fighting three wars around the world is a distraction to the President of the United States. That is outrageous. That is irresponsible. That is an abdication of Presidential leadership, and I hope the President will reconsider because funding our troops is not a distraction, it is a responsibility. A veto threat is not what they deserve nor what they should be hearing from the Commander in Chief. About 1 in 10 people who wear the uniform of the U.S. military calls Texas home. Those Texans are among the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Afghanistan, many of whom are serving multiple deployments away from home and away from their families. Some of them are, for example, members of the Texas Army National Guard's 176th Engineer Brigade headquarters that is currently handling engineering projects for about one-half of the country. Other Texans are among the roughly 40,000 troops still deployed in Iraq. Some of these are members of the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division headquarters that is currently providing command and control for about one-third of that country. Texans are also supporting the mission in Libya, although many are perhaps unclear about what the mission is. Texans are onboard more than a dozen Navy vessels currently providing humanitarian assistance off the coast of Japan. The President's threat to veto funding for these troops is irresponsible and shows his willingness to risk a shutdown of the government and deny them the pay they are entitled to rather than to accept responsibility and to face the fiscal facts. For nearly 200 days, our Federal Government has operated without a budget because of an irresponsible approach to one of the most basic functions of the Federal Government: to keep the lights on, to keep the government operating, and to accept responsibility for those decisions. We know Democrats, while they controlled the White House and both branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, failed to pass even a budget last year--even a budget. Every family in America, every small business, everyone other than the Federal Government and Congress has to operate on a budget, but only Washington could continue to spend money it does not have--about 40 cents on every dollar. Yet I would say the President remains either oblivious to that fact or, I think probably more accurately, in denial about the fiscal crisis that is impending and is apparently unwilling to try to work across the aisle to try to address it. I think it is imperative that the majority leader allow the Senate to vote on the House-passed measure, which we could do by unanimous consent if not today then tomorrow before the looming shutdown tomorrow night. It is clearly in Majority Leader Reid's hands, and it is in the hands of the President of the United States if he would withhold his veto, allow negotiations to continue, and to make sure our troops were funded as they should be. The troop funding bill would fund the Department of Defense through the end of the fiscal year, and it represents a bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was reached last December on funding of the Department of Defense. It is past time for this legislation to be enacted, particularly given that in the months that have passed since December, America now finds itself engaged in a third war--entered into without congressional authorization, without any clear mission and, frankly, only 21 percent, according to a recent poll I saw, actually believe the mission is clear. Well, I am with the other 79 percent. I do not know what the mission is. The President said it was a humanitarian mission, although when he obligated the U.S. military to go in he immediately outsourced the responsibility for it to NATO, which did not have the assets and the resources in order to protect the rebel forces who continue to be killed by Qadhafi's troops. The President said Qadhafi must go. Yet he is doing nothing from a military perspective to accomplish that goal. What does that do to America's stature and reputation in the world community? What other tyrants are watching this President say Qadhafi must go, and yet have this President unwilling to do what is necessary to remove him from his office? Well, I think it not only damages American prestige, it emboldens other tyrants like Qadhafi, and it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in Libya. Well, some have said--and the majority whip was here talking about so-called riders that accompany this piece of legislation, but let me first say what this troop funding bill also does. It cuts $12 billion in additional spending. When 40 cents out of every dollar the Federal Government has spent is borrowed money, and we are spending money we do not have, doesn't it make sense to cut Federal spending? Well, I think it does. I think anybody who thinks we can continue business as usual is just deluding themselves, living in a la-la land that has no bearing, has no semblance with reality. This bill would also keep the government operating for another week. This would avoid the shutdown that would occur tomorrow night, and it would allow for more time for bipartisan negotiations to occur. So far as the so-called policy riders go, prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, well, that has been supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past. President Clinton signed similar legislation six times. Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Harry Reid have voted for it many times; and President Obama himself signed this same provision into law in 2009. This troop funding bill also prevents Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred to the continental United States. I think if there ought to be a consensus about anything, it is that we do not want dangerous terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, transferred to the United States. This bill prevents that. This language is virtually identical to existing law that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill also includes full funding for our commitment to the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding for fiscal year 2011 and was passed Thursday afternoon, this bill, by a vote of 247 to 181 in the House of Representatives. I do not know what could be any clearer than if President Obama were to veto this legislation--after it was passed by the Senate--that closing the government would be on their hands. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?