John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the distinguished Republican leader with regard to the process we can anticipate and the fact that the majority leader has indicated he will fill the amendment tree, blocking any ability of any Senator, both on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle, to offer amendments to improve the bill or perhaps add other provisions that cry out for some remedy. I ask the distinguished Republican leader whether the types of amendments or suggestions that have been discussed informally would include things like adding a requirement of securing the borders and having an enforceable system at the worksite, or a trigger, before any other provisions like the DREAM Act would be considered or implemented; whether it would also consider--for example, we know that in the agricultural sector there is a lot of concern about a shortage of workers--whether there would be an ability to provide an amendment which would allow for not a path to citizenship but for a temporary workforce to satisfy that need in the agricultural sector; or, for example, in places like Texas that are fast growing States, whether there may be an opportunity to offer any amendments that would provide for a temporary worker program--not a path to citizenship--that would satisfy the legitimate needs of American business? Are those going to be precluded under the plan by the majority leader?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about 2 percent of all children under the age of 18 have at least one parent incarcerated in a State or Federal prison. According to the Bureau of Justice. In 1999 an estimated 721,500 State and Federal prisoners were parents to 1,498,800 children under age 18. 22 percent of all minor children with a parent in prison were under 5 years old. Prior to admission, less than half of the parents in State prison reported living with their children 44 percent of fathers, 64 percent of mothers. As a group, children of prisoners are less likely than their peers to succeed in school and more likely to become engaged in delinquent behavior. So, it is important that we support organizations that provide positive adult mentors to address the needs of these at-risk children--organizations like the Seedling Foundation in Austin, TX; and national organizations like Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and Amachi, both of which have chapters in most States. Many of these organizations depend on grants from the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program, authorized in 2001 under section 439 of the Social Security Act and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This program was designed to keep children connected to a parent in prison in order to increase the chances that the family will come together successfully when the parent is released. Unfortunately, this program has been level-funded for the past few years. The current allocation for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program is $507,000 below the President's request and is at the fiscal year 2007 level. I would have preferred that the Senate adopt an amendment to a modest increase in fiscal year 2008 funding and restore this amount to the Senate bill. At the very least, I would encourage the conferees to retain the existing funding for this program.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for working with us on this bill, this important piece of legislation, and for the opportunity to offer this amendment. It is my intention, at the end of my remarks, to seek to withdraw the amendment because there are some procedural objections under rule XVI of the Senate rules. I think this is an important amendment and an important matter for us to consider at the appropriate time. I hope my colleagues will work with me, as well as Senator Voinovich and Senator Chambliss, who are cosponsors of the amendment, to find a way to address the urgent matters contained within the scope of the amendment. Specifically, we ought to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, due to the size and scope of the Federal budget, there seems to be precious little attention given to ways to make sure that we spend the taxpayers' money efficiently. While we debate the necessity of appropriations, and we should continue to try to cut back on the unnecessary expenditures wherever possible, I think it is imperative that Congress do the appropriate oversight on existing Federal programs and appropriations and ways to look for both cost savings and efficiencies. I think we ought to ask the fundamental question every time we are asked to appropriate money for a particular agency--we ought to ask this question: Is this agency or program still needed? What has led me to offer this amendment arises out of some good work being done by the OMB. As a matter of fact, they have published this brochure called: ``Expect More.'' You could go on line to expectmore.gov on the Internet and see what I am talking about. Specifically, they have a tool called ``the program assessment rating tool,'' which helps the Office of Management and Budget assess whether a particular Government program is working. The Office of Management and Budget has recently reviewed over a thousand programs. As this chart indicates, upon a review of 1,016 Federal Government programs, they have concluded that 22 percent of those programs rated either as ineffective or they are unable to determine whether they are effective. In other words, they are unable to find evidence that they are effective. They have not conclusively determined them as ineffective, but they have concluded that 22 percent of the Federal Government programs are either ineffective or the results are not demonstrated. Anybody who is interested anywhere in the world--certainly in the United States--can look at the information on this expectmore.gov Web site and inform themselves, as I am sure they would want to, about what the Federal Government is doing and not doing on their behalf. As part of the review, the OMB looked at 35 programs within the Department of Labor, totaling almost $15 billion. They identified $2 billion that could be saved out of that $15 billion on programs that are not meeting expectations and are not effective. Some of these programs include the Office of Disability Employment Policy, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and part of the Workforce Investment Act. Certainly, these programs have the potential to help people and strengthen our country. But my hope is we will look at these programs and not necessarily decide they are not necessary--because they may be--but, rather, give the appropriate oversight and come back and try to do what is necessary to make them effective or, if they simply cannot be rehabilitated or made effective, we ought to eliminate them. The fact is we can look to our State governments and State laws for mechanisms that we could use to make sure we spend the taxpayers' dollars only on needed programs and in the most efficient ways possible. I look to my State of Texas. Since 1971, we have had something called the Sunset Commission, which periodically--about every 10 years-- reviews State programs and State spending to decide what the answer to the question is that I posed earlier: Is this agency or this program still needed? Is the money being spent effectively? Here in Washington, we could learn from the State sunset commission process, which I know happened in Texas and which also is reflected in the laws of many of our State governments but which we do not have here at the Federal level. A study by the Congressional Budget Office found that Congress spent almost $160 billion in 2006 on agencies and programs that were not, in fact, authorized. In other words, while the authorizing committees had previously authorized it, those authorizations had lapsed, indicating a lack of continued oversight and authorization by Congress. Yet money was continuing to be appropriated and spent on these programs. This list includes hundreds of accounts, both big ones and small ones, ranging from the Coast Guard, $8 billion, to the Administration on Aging, $1.5 billion, to section 8 tenant-based housing, $15.6 billion, to the foreign relations programs, which is $9.5 billion. Many of these programs and agencies, perhaps most, deserve reauthorization. I am not saying they do not. But reauthorization no longer means what it should. It means we have conducted the appropriate investigation and oversight to determine whether the programs are meeting current needs or whether they are no longer necessary. Congress should make sure we are only spending money on programs that can and are justified. My amendment would take what I think is a great experiment, which has shown tremendous success on the State level in places such as Texas, and create a bipartisan Federal sunset commission to review the efficiency of all Federal programs but will focus their work on ineffective and unauthorized programs and will make recommendations to Congress about how to improve them, if they can be improved, or whether we should just eliminate them altogether. To me, this is a shocking figure, when our own Federal Government concludes--the executive branch, the Office of Management and Budget-- that almost 25 percent of Federal programs are not delivering for the American taxpayers. My amendment would create, as I said, a bipartisan U.S. authorization and sunset commission that would be composed of four Members of the House and four Members of the Senate. The commission would issue a schedule-and-review proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years, as well as issue reports on the way to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Government programs and agencies. The schedule-and-review proposal is where the commission would review and analyze at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and 25 percent of the ineffective programs as identified by OMB and would do so on a rolling or ongoing basis. In other words, we have to start somewhere, and that is where they would start, but we would continue until all Federal agencies and programs would be subject to this sort of scrutiny and review. Unlike most commissions, Congress cannot simply ignore the commission's work under my amendment. Rather, the amendment would provide an expedited procedure that would force Congress to consider and debate the commission's work and then vote up or down on whether to accept it. Simply put, this commission would help Congress do what we should already be doing; that is, providing the necessary oversight to make sure every dollar of the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. The commission will help Congress answer the simple but powerful question I posed at the outset, and that is: Is an agency or program still needed? It seems like common sense to me. I know some will argue this is why we have authorizing committees, but I believe the commission would add greater focus to the budget and appropriations process on saving taxpayers money as opposed to how can we come up with new ways to spend more money, which tends to dominate the appropriations process, and how can we improve Government accountability and provide for greater openness and transparency in Government decisionmaking? This concept, as I said, is not new or even revolutionary. My home State of Texas has had a sunset commission in place for 30 years, in which time it is estimated the Texas taxpayers have been saved more than $700 million by eliminating ineffective or unnecessary programs, starting with a zero-based budget during the sunset commission reviewing process and justifying each and every dollar that is added to pay for that program if reauthorized. The tendency in Washington, unfortunately, is to take an existing program and see it grow incrementally each year. Indeed, once a Government program is created, it tends to create a constituency that will come to Congress and argue that it should not be eliminated--not only should it not be eliminated, it should grow by a certain percentage each year. As this and other appropriations bills come before the Senate, I ask my colleagues to keep in mind the extent of waste we already see in Government programs. Rather than allowing these programs to continue endlessly with no real purpose and no real means of accomplishing their goals, it is time we took a closer look at and acted on our responsibility to eliminate wasteful Washington spending. Before we raise taxes and before we mindlessly appropriate money for another batch of potentially ineffective and outdated programs, we should take a hard look in the mirror on how we spend the hard-earned money of the beleaguered American taxpayers. No one wants higher taxes, and our first defense against higher taxes ought to be greater efficiency and money savings by eliminating wasteful programs. Our primary means of ensuring this efficiency would be through this bipartisan sunset commission. I hope all of our colleagues will seriously consider this proposal for a Federal sunset commission. It is important, before we look at raising taxes and growing the size of Government, that we look at ways to eliminate waste and unnecessary programs, and that is exactly what this amendment would do. Amendment No. 3381 Withdrawn I understand this particular amendment, being legislation on an appropriations bill, will be subject to a point of order. Rather than pursue that issue and require the procedural ruling on that decision, I now ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have conferred with the bill managers. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3381 and to set aside any pending amendments.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, in America, there are over 10,000 children like 11-year-old Nate Newton of San Antonio and 7-year-old triplets Zoe, Emma, and Sophie Dunn of Houston, who are both deaf and blind. The increase in the number of deafblind children in America is fueling a growing demand for qualified teachers to work with deafblind children. Texas Tech University is one of the few universities in the United States that offer graduate training in deafblind education. To date, the Department of Education has provided funding from the special education national activities account to train teachers with deafblind children in their classes on how to educate and include these children in daily classroom activities. Yet Federal funding for this program has remained level at $12.8 million for nearly the past 20 years. The House-passed version of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill includes a modest increase of $2 million in funding for deafblind services. I think this is a reasonable increase and would request that the conference committee accept the higher level of funding.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the bill managers and my colleagues for indulging me on this point. This is not an issue that is going to go away. I am not going to go away when it comes to urging greater efficiency and elimination of wasteful Washington spending. We have a tremendous responsibility, those of us who have been sent to Congress to represent our States and our districts, the least of which ought to be being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. It is time to take the Federal budget off autopilot, to see the Government grow and grow and grow without any real oversight, particularly when it comes to these programs which have been demonstrated either as ineffective or where it is impossible for the Federal Government to conclude that the evidence justifies the continued existence of these programs. Funding For Deafblind Services

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I had talked to the majority leader before he propounded the unanimous consent proposal. As we have discussed, we are trying to clear any objections on our side. Given the fact it is Friday and Members are traveling, we are having a few difficulties doing that. But it is my hope we can continue to work through it and resolve those so the unanimous consent request can proceed without any objection. At this point, because of those challenges we have, while we are continuing to work in good faith to resolve them, I must respectfully object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have, as the saying goes, some good news and some bad news. The good news is the budget deficit has dropped in the last year from 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product of this Nation down to 1.2 percent--a historic low level for the budget deficit. But as Members of the Senate know, the budget deficit is just a year-to-year statement of what the financial obligations are of the Federal Government. The figure that is the bad news is the debt; that is, the bills, if you will, owed by the American people to finance the cost of Government. The bad news is on September 27--a short time ago-- this Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America from $8.965 trillion to $9.82 trillion. Now a ``trillion'' is more money than any of us can possibly imagine, but let me break it down to what it means for every man, woman, and child in America. It means today, every man, woman, and child in America owes $30,000 of the Federal debt--the cost of the Federal Government doing business. So instead of passing on to our children and grandchildren the kind of prosperity and opportunity to start on a level playing field and to reach their God-given potential to achieve their dreams, we are burdening our children and grandchildren today, if we do not do anything about it, with a minimum of $30,000 of debt. The fact of the matter is, it is actually worse than that. As to Social Security, we understand from the Social Security trust fund, they will be running red ink by the year 2017, unless we do something about that. In other words, as to the Social Security taxes that are deducted from your paycheck and mine and everybody's in America to help pay our share of Social Security, the money that has to be paid out will exceed the amount of money coming in as a result of those Social Security taxes by 2017, if we do not do anything about it. In addition, Medicare is even in worse shape. By 2013, the amount of money coming in to pay for Medicare for seniors will be exceeded by the outflow of funds. So instead of being in the black and being able to sustain itself, both Social Security and Medicare are on the road to insolvency and worse. Just when you think the story, the financial picture, could not be any worse, there comes the revelation that actually Congress is spending the current surplus for Social Security, for Medicare, for Civil Service Retirement, and the Transportation trust fund, spending money that is a surplus now and issuing debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren--in other words, funding out of the Civil Service Retirement Fund, Medicare, Social Security, and the Transportation trust fund, taking money out of that to pay the current bills of the Federal Government. This is a dire financial circumstance that only the Federal Government could ignore. No family, no business, no one in America could run their finances this way and get by with it, except for the Federal Government because the Federal Government can continue to issue debt to borrow from surpluses in one fund to pay for bills in another. Frankly, this is a train wreck we are beginning to see in slow motion taking place right before our eyes and will be played out over the next few years, unless we act in a more fiscally responsible way right now. The President has vetoed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and I want to talk about that in a minute. Thursday, I believe the House will vote on whether to override that veto and there has been a lot of misconceptions about that and I wish to clarify that with my remarks. But I want to suggest to you that before Congress votes to expand current programs, even successful programs, beyond their original scope, such as the SCHIP program, which has been enormously successful, targeted at low-income kids whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private health insurance--before we expand that, not by 40 percent, which I support, but by 140 percent, to cover adults in 14 States, and with a combination of waivers that can be issued by the executive branch of Government to potentially cover people up to 400 percent of the poverty level, displacing private health insurance and taking individuals who currently have health insurance and replacing it with Government--read ``taxpayer''-- subsidized free health care for people, families making up to $82,000 a year--before Congress should attempt to expand programs in this sort of irresponsible manner, in my view, we ought to take a look at the programs that have been rated by the Federal Government in terms of their effectiveness and look at opportunities for cost savings there. I think the American people do not resent paying their fair share of taxes for efficient Government and for a consensus role in what Government should be doing as opposed to the private sector. What they have a right to resent is the fact the Federal Government wastes their money and grows Government at the expense of the private sector in ways that crowd out the private sector. I would like to suggest to my colleagues they look at a Web site called Expectmore.org. This is a Government Web site that, through the Office of Management and Budget, rates various Federal programs and agencies. What they have concluded--the Office of Management and Budget--is that out of 1,016 programs they have evaluated, 22 percent-- almost a quarter of them--have been rated as ineffective or, perhaps even worse, we cannot tell whether they are working as intended--22 percent. Only 18 percent have been rated as effective; 31 percent, moderately effective; and 29 percent, adequate. This is a miserable scorecard for the Federal Government in terms of the taxpayers' dollars actually delivering the kind of services we should expect Government to deliver, efficient use and respectful use of the taxpayers' dollars. Before we talk about growing any program--even the SCHIP program--by 140 percent to cover adults and people in the upper middle class with free taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, should we not try to eliminate some of these ineffective programs that have been inconclusive in terms of the evaluation? As it turns out, I have introduced legislation, along with some of my colleagues, designed to do this, building on the successful sunset commission programs in Texas and elsewhere, which periodically--say every 10 years or so--take an agency and evaluate it and make the agency justify its continued existence, start with a zero-base budget and justify each and every dollar they use in order to perform that function, in order to make sure it actually is effective. In my State of Texas, the sunset commission has been responsible for eliminating a number of different programs and saving taxpayers a lot of money. We can do the same thing for the Federal Government in Washington if Congress would merely have the will. Another idea, another proposal I have made, along with some colleagues, is modeled off of the enormously successful Base Realignment and Closing Commission, the BRAC Commission. This, as my colleagues know, is a way for Congress to make sure we eliminate unneeded and unnecessary military installations. When trying to do it on an individualized basis, is very hard because there is always a constituency for maintaining a military base someplace, even if it is not needed by the military. But the BRAC situation is an independent commission that collects recommendations for all of the unneeded bases and presents it to Congress for an up-or-down vote. No cherry picking, no putting some in and taking some out. We have to vote on all of them up or down. That BRAC Commission has been enormously successful in eliminating unnecessary, unneeded, and costly military installations. We need to do the same for the Federal Government. Before we spend any more of the Federal taxpayer dollars, I think we need to show the taxpayers we are being good stewards of the money they faithfully pay to the Federal Government for their tax obligation. In addition to not taking care of this growing crisis I have described, Congress continues not to keep its fiscal house in order. It is common knowledge that we have not passed a single appropriations bill for the current fiscal year, and we are operating on a continuing resolution that Congress passed because we have not been able to take care of the simple matter of paying the bills--again, something no family or business could get away with. But the Federal Government is guilty of fiscal mismanagement, once again, by failing to pass a single appropriations bill and sending it to the President. What this is leading up to, as we all know--and this is no secret--is likely pulling together all of the various appropriations bills, all 12 of them, or some combination of them, into an omnibus appropriation, which somebody told me the other day is Latin for ``watch your wallet.'' We are going to have a huge game of chicken between the President of the United States, who wields the veto pen, and the Congress over how much excessive spending Congress is going to be able to pass against the President's stated intention to veto excessive spending. Again, this is not for the benefit of the American people; it is, rather, for partisan political benefit--a big game of chicken and potential Government shutdown because Congress isn't taking care of its business and its fiscal house is in a state of disarray. The American people are enormously skeptical, and they have every right to be given what I have described a moment ago. What they want us to do is quit the partisan game playing and trying to score points, and simply work things out in the best interests of the American people, being respectful of their tax dollars and not wasting 1 penny more than we must. This is especially true in the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which I described. It is currently, again, on a continuing resolution. It is currently in effect and not in any danger whatsoever of coming to an end. There is bipartisan support for the continuation of this successful program, if it is intended and does affect children of low incomes, up to 200 percent of poverty. There is not a political consensus; indeed, there are those who object--and I am one--to a radical expansion of this program to cover adults in 14 States and to go up to, along with the Presidential waiver, 400 percent of the poverty level for a family of four making $82,000 a year. At that level, for every two people added, one of them will get Government-subsidized health care by dropping their private health insurance--an unhealthy development, to say the least. Here again, Congress is up to its old tricks. It relies on an unsustainable funding stream, a regressive tax that hits low-income Americans the hardest, and a budget gimmick that will demand that either Americans' taxes be raised by 2012 to continue the program or children will be dropped from the program. I have a prediction to make. There is, as Ronald Reagan said, no such thing as a ``temporary'' Government program from the Federal Government. I believe he said that a temporary Government program in Washington is the closest thing we have to eternal life here on Earth. I think he has been proven right. What I would hope that the leadership--Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi--would do is sit down with Republicans and with the President and try to work out our differences. As I said, everybody supports continuation of this program. I am willing to predict, without equivocation, that this program will continue; it will continue to help poor children--and it should--on a bipartisan basis. We should not have a game of chicken where, as Leader Reid said and Speaker Pelosi said-- Senate Majority Leader Reid said this: If the President says let's sit down and talk about it, it is something that is not going to happen. He said that in Congress Daily on September 28, 2007. Later, he said on that same day: We have compromised all we are going to compromise. What we see here is more political theater and partisan point scoring, as opposed to working together to try to find ways to resolve this impasse. We can do it. It is strictly a matter of political will and, frankly, I think it is what the American people want us to do. They are sick and tired of Congress being dysfunctional when it comes to meeting the very clear needs of the American people. I have described some of them. But at least we can try to work out this SCHIP impasse in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the intended goals of this important Children's Health Insurance Program. Today, a Gallup poll reported, for what it is worth, in USA Today that 52 percent agreed with President Bush that most benefits should go to children and families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40 percent in the Gallup poll reported today in the USA Today said benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000. As I said, there is a provision for a waiver that can go up even higher if, for example, President Clinton is in the White House after the next election. The Gallup poll says 55 percent of those polled are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop their private health insurance. At a time when the American people are taxed at huge levels, you can see that this chart says ``living essentials squeezed by Federal taxes.'' The American wage earner has to work 120 days a year to pay all their State, local, and Federal taxes, while they work 62 days a year to pay housing, 52 days a year for health care, 30 days for their food, and 30 days for their transportation. But, again, it is 120 days to pay Uncle Sam and State and local taxes. Should we not be taking care of our finances in a way that does not pass a huge IOU down to our children and grandchildren that we will never repay? Should we not quit robbing from the surpluses of Social Security and Medicare today rather than using that money to finance other programs? Should we not be eliminating ineffective programs or those programs that have been rated as inconclusive in terms of whether they are actually effective? Should we not take a more restrained approach to the growth of Government programs, including programs that have worked, such as SCHIP? Instead of a 140-percent increase and transforming it into something that bears very little similarity to what Congress originally intended when they started this program, should we not take a more restrained and careful approach? Rather than drawing lines in the sand and threatening the termination of benefits of their health care to poor kids, shouldn't the majority leader, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States, and the folks on the Republican side of the aisle sit down and try to work it out? As I said, everybody in Congress supports this program, virtually without exception. The only difference is between those who believe this is an irresponsible, radical expansion of the program beyond recognition, and one that others have offered--including me--is a reauthorization of the program designed to meet its original target, and that is poor and low-income kids. I hope the leadership will listen and make a sincere attempt to try to meet in the middle on this. The children of this country will benefit, and I think the American people will be enormously relieved. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes within our allotment of morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the distinguished questioner, the Senator from Rhode Island, is himself a distinguished lawyer and a former attorney general with whom I served as a State attorney general. He knows as well as I do that a trial judge and a trial lawyer have to craft written and legal arguments the same way as an appellate lawyer does. Those are the same basic skills that Judge Elrod brings to her job. It is true, when I became attorney general of my State, I created an Office of Solicitor General, recognizing the increasingly specialized nature of appellate practice. Again, I believe Judge Elrod, by virtue of her extensive trial experience, the fact she graduated at the top of her class from law school and undergraduate school, served with one of the premier law firms in the Nation and with distinction as a trial judge, more than adequately qualifies her for this new responsibility.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am reminded of a quote from Daniel Webster when he said that ``justice is the greatest aspiration of man on earth.'' I think the reason we take these judicial nominations so seriously is because the judiciary--the people who wear the black robe--is the personification of that aspiration for justice. Today, it gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Jennifer Elrod of Houston to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a few moments, the Senate will vote on her nomination. As Judge Elrod's career makes clear, she is well qualified for a seat on the Federal appellate bench. She has demonstrated the legal acumen, the judicial temperament, and dedication to public service which the Senate wisely requires of all judicial nominees. Since 2002, Judge Elrod has been a State district court judge, serving on the 190th District Court in Harris County, TX. As a trial judge, she has presided over more than 200 jury and nonjury trials. Before that, Judge Elrod practiced law in Houston, TX, in the trial department of Baker Botts, a top national law firm. Judge Elrod is known for her outstanding intellect, her strong work ethic, her integrity, and her courteous demeanor. She has an outstanding record as a practicing attorney and as an active State court judge. She has demonstrated an impressive commitment to public service and pro bono work throughout her career. Both while in private practice and while serving the people of Texas as a trial judge, Judge Elrod has dedicated much of her free time to improving the lives of those less fortunate in the community. Even with the demands of a career in the law, she also found time to serve as a board member and chairwoman of the Gulf Coast Legal Foundation, now called Lone Star Legal Aid. This organization serves more than 1 million low-income Texans, making it the fourth largest legal aid program in the Nation. She also served as general counsel to Communities in Schools in Houston and as the cochair of the Houston Volunteer Association's Legal Hotline. As a judge, she assisted the Houston Bar Association with numerous fundraising activities aimed at providing scholarships for diversity and equal access to justice. Judge Elrod dedicated her time to hosting and mentoring legal interns from less-privileged backgrounds, opening her courtroom to them and teaching these young men and women valuable oral advocacy skills. She has been an active participant in the Texas Access to Justice Commission, helping young lawyers to provide legal services to indigent clients. Mr. President, I know of few lawyers, much less judicial nominees, with such an outstanding record of consistent commitment to pro bono services and public service. While my colleagues undoubtedly will acknowledge the importance of Judge Elrod's career achievements and dedication to her community, we also recognize that the most important attributes of a judicial nominee are their temperament and commitment to the rule of law. Above all else, a judge must faithfully interpret and apply the law as written and not as they wish we in Congress should have written it. I am confident Judge Elrod has demonstrated her ability to fairly and impartially resolve cases before her. Her demonstrated fairness and respect for all is a key reason why her nomination is supported across the Houston legal community. She has the personal endorsement of the past and current presidents of the Houston Bar Association, the Hispanic Bar Association of Houston, and the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston, which are just a sampling of the broad base of her support. By all accounts, Judge Elrod has exercised her judicial duties with nothing but neutrality and a commitment to fundamental fairness for every litigant before her. In sum, Judge Elrod is an accomplished lawyer and judge of high character and uncommon integrity. I am honored to enthusiastically recommend to the Senate that it vote to confirm her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am confident she will serve this Nation with honor and distinction. Let me say in closing how much I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for giving Judge Elrod a timely hearing and for putting it on the markup on the Judiciary Committee schedule. I appreciate the majority leader, Senator Reid, for allowing this nomination to come forward to the floor so we can give this good judge a vote very soon, I hope. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member. I certainly respect the right of the Senator from Maryland to express his views. I do want to put this in some context. I don't know if it is a unique experience currently in the Senate, but perhaps it is currently that I am the only Member of the Senate who actually served for 13 years as a State judge, both on our State trial bench and the supreme court. That does not give me any particular qualifications other than to say what it means to have served in those capacities, as Judge Elrod has for 5 years. She worked also as a clerk for a U.S. district judge, Judge Sim Lake, for 2 years. I hope we are not saying that it is a prerequisite for confirmation to the job of an appellate judge that one actually has to have served as an appellate judge. Of course, rarely do any of us have experience in the jobs to which we are assigned or to which we are elected or to which we are hired until we have actually had a chance to perform that job. What we look at is not whether they have actually done that job before, but whether they have done a good job of everything they have taken on previously. By that standard, Judge Elrod not only has an impressive resume for a lawyer of her age, but she has demonstrated her competence, indeed, her excellence as a State district court judge. I have some sensitivity to the suggestion that she does not have lengthy enough experience, alluding to her relative youth. I remember when I became a State district judge, I was 32 years old. But, more importantly, of the 19 judges currently serving on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 10 were in their forties or younger when appointed; three were 41--Judge Elrod's age--or younger. Judge Edith Jones, the chief judge of the Fifth Circuit, was 36 when confirmed by the Senate. Judge Higginbotham, to whose vacancy Judge Elrod is nominated, was 44, and Judge Sim Lake, with whom Judge Elrod clerked, was 44 when he was appointed. I also think of the members of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate who have been elected to important positions of responsibility. My recollection is--and I have to rely on the distinguished Senator from Maryland to remind me--but I think he was one of the youngest, if I am not mistaken, speakers of the Maryland House ever elected. He was elected at a young age, and that is to his great credit. The fact is, age alone should not determine competence for these jobs. I think the demonstrated public service and record of excellence is sufficient. I appreciate the Senator from Maryland acknowledging her tremendous record of pro bono service. That is a record of service above and beyond the call of duty which I think demonstrates Judge Elrod's commitment. Finally, on the issue of diversity, I note that Judge Higginbotham, who currently occupies the seat to which Judge Elrod has been nominated and will serve, is somebody who looks like me. He is a White male. I think we ought to celebrate the fact that a woman of Judge Elrod's capability and experience has been deemed qualified by the President of the United States and by the Senate Judiciary Committee to serve in this important position. I think that counts for some diversity. I do share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland that too few African Americans are attending law school. It reduces the pool of potential applicants for people to serve in positions on the judiciary, and we need to do more to try to encourage and facilitate that situation. But I certainly would not hold it against Judge Elrod that she is not an African American. I think she is qualified on the merits. I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania, the distinguished ranking member, giving me a few minutes to explain, perhaps, another side of the story.

Mr. CORNYN. I will.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yesterday, the President vetoed the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion that the Congress had sent to him, as he said he would. I would hope all of us would get down to work on the serious matter of trying to come up with a compromise which would achieve the original intent of Congress when we passed the legislation back in 1997 and when it was signed into law by President Clinton and which has served the Nation's children so well. Instead, it appears you can't take the politics out of politics and you can't take the politics out of Washington. This matter has become a political football that is going to be used for partisan political gain. I think that is a shame. I say that not with a sense of anger but with a sense of disappointment that we would see something as important as providing health coverage to our Nation's children be used in political ads and that rather than have a veto- override vote in the House of Representatives forthwith, it has now been postponed by Speaker Pelosi to October 18 to give the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee time to run ads against those who would likely uphold the veto in their congressional districts over the next week or so. That is a shame. I wish they would reconsider. The problem, after all, with the bill Congress passed is that while the State Children's Health Insurance Program was designed to take up where Medicaid left off, this was fundamentally a welfare benefit, one which I believe the Congress wisely decided was necessary for our Nation's poor, low-income children, to make sure they got access to health coverage. But what we see is this vehicle was then used, with a 140-percent increase in Federal spending, to take this program not just from children up to 200 percent of poverty but to then say this can be a wealth transfer from the pockets of the American taxpayers to the middle class because under the bill the President vetoed, up to 400 percent of poverty level could be covered by this welfare benefit. That translates to a family of four roughly making $80,000 a year. It is simply unacceptable, from my perspective, to say that you can take money from the pockets of the American taxpayer not for a welfare benefit to help those in need but to help those who already have their own health insurance, simply to provide a free benefit to those who are already covered by their own health insurance. There is no sound basis upon which to take what is essentially a welfare benefit and transform that into a middle-class entitlement--unless, of course, there is something else going on here, which I suspect there is. I will talk about that in a moment. In my own State, I wish we would redouble our efforts to focus our vision on the original intent of the SCHIP legislation because in my State, there are roughly 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children who are not covered by Medicaid. Why? Because their parents haven't signed them up for benefits they are entitled to under the law. There are an additional 200,000 SCHIP-eligible children, up to 200 percent of poverty level in Texas, who are not signed up for that benefit. So why in the world, when there are still children in the target population we are trying to help who remain uncovered, are we going to be diverted by a huge expansion of this program beyond its original intent to cover adults in 14 States? In the State of Wisconsin, more adults than children are covered by the State Children's Health Insurance Program-- obviously, that was not part of Congress's original intent--up to 400 percent of poverty level, up to $80,000-plus for a family of four. It is simply another example of a well-intended, perhaps as originally intended, program that has now been expanded beyond all recognition. If possible, I would say this was the equivalent of mission creep for the U.S. military. It is clearly another example of trying to use a successful Government program, a welfare benefit for low-income kids, and to expand it beyond recognition--another example, I am afraid, of wasteful Washington spending run amok. The question is not whether the State Children's Health Insurance Program will continue. Even after the President's veto, as my colleagues know, we passed a continuing resolution which would continue the current program through November 16. I know today that if we had an opportunity to vote on a continuation of the current program as targeted, it would pass unanimously in the Senate. But rather than take care of business, rather than do our jobs, unfortunately this has degenerated into political gamesmanship, where the House leadership, Speaker Pelosi and others, have decided that rather than have the vote on the override of the President's veto, which they know will be sustained, immediately they have decided to put it off until October 18 in order for the political games to continue. Obviously, this is another reason Congress's approval rating in most public opinion polls is well under 20 percent. The American people wonder why is it that Washington is not hearing what they are saying when it comes to being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, when it comes to making sure the money we do spend that they earn and which is transferred to the U.S. Treasury is spent efficiently and effectively on important programs we all support as opposed to these programs being used essentially as a Trojan horse for other objectives. The final concern I have about this vast expansion of the SCHIP program--a 140-percent increase over the current program--is it clearly represents another step toward a Washington-controlled health care system, something I think would be a tragedy for our country. Eventually, it would crowd out the private sector and the choice and the individual decisionmaking Americans can make with their own health care provider to determine what is in their best interest, what kind of treatment they want to have for their health care needs, as opposed to turning that over to Government bureaucrats. There are three things I can guarantee will happen when Washington makes all the health care decisions. No. 1 is, it will be expensive. It will not be free, or I should say you would be surprised at how expensive ``free'' health care turns out to be in terms of the tax payments that will be required to support it. Secondly, I will tell you that a Washington-controlled health care system will be excessively bureaucratic. It is just in the nature of Washington. With central Government control for 300 million people, there will be more red tape than anybody can imagine. It will make it harder to get access to the health care that right now is readily available for virtually all Americans. The question is, how are we going to deliver it the most efficiently, not whether they can get access to it. Because we all agree they should have and do have access to health care today. The third thing I will say is, I will guarantee once Washington makes all health care decisions, it will be controlled by rationing. The costs of health care delivery--when Washington makes all the decisions--will be controlled by rationing. What is the evidence of that? Well, if you look right now at the reimbursement rates Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP provide to health care providers, who provide health care services under those programs, those reimbursement rates are much lower than private health insurance. Where I live in Austin, TX, only 18 percent of physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Why? It is because the reimbursement rates set by the Federal Government are so low that most doctors cannot treat new Medicare patients and keep their doors open for other business. So if we continue down this road to a single-payer, Government-run health care system out of Washington, DC, it will be expensive, it will be bureaucratic, and it will result in rationing such as citizens of Canada and the United Kingdom currently have with their single-payer system, where the kinds of access to health care we take for granted in this country--and we can get in a matter of hours or a matter of days, at most--they have to wait months and years because of the rationing resulting from a single-payer, Government-run health care system. That is the wrong prescription for the American people. I believe once they begin to realize this radical expansion of this program-- which has a very important target audience of 200 percent of poverty, poor kids--has now been blown up into something that hardly anybody would recognize, covering middle-class Americans, resulting in a vast wealth transfer from the taxpayers to the middle class--and that it is not just a welfare benefit, but an incremental step toward a single- payer, Washington-controlled health care system--I think that would be the wrong prescription for America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I intend to ask unanimous consent that the time spent on the Intel bill not be deducted from our time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is it now the appropriate time for us to begin our 30-minute allocation for morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks for up to 10 minutes, Senator Bennett be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then Senator Kyl be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, more than 1 month ago, I spoke on the floor regarding the need for the Senate to confirm Jim Nussle as the head of the Office of Management and Budget and about my constituents' concerns that are regularly voiced to me about the runaway Federal spending in Washington, DC, and its impact on their ability to earn a living or run a business, and their concern about the direction of the economy for the future if the Federal Government continues to occupy more and more space when it comes to their hard-earned tax dollars. I mentioned my fear that the tax-and-spend season was upon us here in Washington, DC, and there seemed to be some early indications that some of the progress we have made as a result of progrowth, low-tax policies was going to be reversed under the new management in Washington. In my State of Texas, to give you a snapshot, unemployment is near its lowest level in 30 years, while more than a quarter of a million new jobs have been created over the past year. That is out of the 8.3 million new jobs created in this economy since August of 2003. Instead of talking about how we can preserve these hard-won gains for the American people and my constituents back home in Texas, we hear more and more talk about raising taxes and expanding the size of the Federal Government. Instead of talking about how can we help support and nurture the entrepreneurial spirit in America, we are hearing more folks talking about how can we grow the bureaucracy and Federal programs and the size of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, we are beginning to see a trend when it comes to raising taxes. Yesterday's suggestion by some members of the House is a disturbing example of that. Yesterday, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee unveiled a proposal that would require taxpayers to add anywhere from 2 percent to a 15-percent surcharge to their income tax bill. In the Senate, the majority leader declared that nothing should be off the table. I am glad to see that the Speaker of the House of Representatives quickly voiced her disagreement with this tax surcharge proposed by Congressman Obey. His proposal would amount to an annual tax increase of $150 billion a year, or three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years--a bad idea, in my view. At the same time, with this chart, I will document some of the proposals that have been made, because it helps to see them in one place and add them up because you only then begin to understand the full impact of these discrete proposals that are being made, all of which would result in increased taxes. First, the budget that was passed earlier this year, of course, is where the Federal Government says how much it intends to spend and where that money is supposed to come from. The disturbing thing to me was that it contemplated the spending levels in that budget that passed--without my support, by the way-- contemplated an increase of $916 billion in additional revenue. The problem is, my concern is, frankly, that the revenue they are talking about--in other words, increased tax revenue--would come from not making the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 permanent. In other words, it would result in a huge tax increase if allowed to go into effect without actually having Congress vote on increasing taxes by the mere expiration of those taxes. Then there are some who say we want to tax the rich and don't worry about it because we are only going to tax the rich. I ask how many times we have heard that before. The alternative minimum tax is the latest example. We know that from roughly 4 million taxpayers who will be hit by this so-called alternative minimum tax this year. According to the Wall Street Journal, that number in 2007 could soar to 23 million Americans, from 4 million to 23 million Americans. In other words, the tendency all too often of the Federal Government is once a tax is created to see that tax expand and grow and to gobble up more and more taxpayers' dollars. Certainly, that is the case where we see new Government programs created to provide for a larger and larger Government which, of course, has to be paid for, and guess where that money comes from. It comes from the beleaguered American taxpayers. In a counterintuitive mood, this second provision of $70 billion, actually rather than tax the rich, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who recently voted for this new State children's health insurance expansion of 140 percent over the current program, they have actually targeted a regressive tobacco tax to fund expansion of Washington-run health care. The President has vetoed the so-called SCHIP bill not because any of us disagree about the core mission of the SCHIP program, which is to provide health coverage for low-income kids, but the fact is that program has been hijacked and used as a Trojan horse to take an additional step, a huge incremental step toward a Washington-run health care system, which I believe is bad for the American people. Three things one can say about Washington-controlled health care: No. 1 is, free health care isn't free because it is going to have to be paid for by the American people. No. 2, we can say Washington- controlled health care will be inevitably bureaucratic and some bureaucrat will be deciding what kind of health care you get and what kind of health care you don't get. And No. 3, we can be assured the way the Federal Government will control cost, to the extent it can, in this new program will be as a result of rationing and deciding who gets access to care and who does not, and that means more care programs, as we see currently underway in Canada, where people have to wait months and years for the kind of diagnostic care and treatment they get in a matter of days in America. The third item, $11.4 billion, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed a massive increase on energy producers in the United States. We recently had a so-called Energy bill on the floor. The only thing was it didn't produce one drop of additional energy. What we saw happen was a proposal that actually would have increased taxes on domestic energy producers which would have made us more dependent on imported energy, something we have all said is a bad idea. We know it is a bad idea for us to be as dependent as we are on imported energy. So why in the world would we want to raise taxes and increase the burden on domestic producers in a way that would make us more dependent on that imported energy? We see there are additional proposals about which we have heard: $6.1 billion in additional taxes on oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, additional taxes on investing and creating jobs in America by foreign businesses that want to invest in the United States, that we benefit from, that actually creates jobs here, but our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed an increased tax on that as well. We can see the other proposals that have been made. This is a disturbing chart, at least to me. When we look at the cost for the average American taxpayer and how many days a week they have to work to pay their Federal taxes, that will invariably go up. Right now, American taxpayers have to work 79 days out of the 365 days in the year to pay Uncle Sam, to pay their taxes. That is more than 1 out of every 5 days of the year, and that is more than the average that taxpayers will spend on food, housing, health care or any other category. Of course, working parents face challenges every day when it comes to making sure their children get what they need and deserve in terms of health care and education. So why would Congress continue to increase and add to their burden by increasing taxes? I ask: Is this how Washington should be working for the American taxpayer? To me the answer is clearly no. We should not force American citizens to work even more days each year for Uncle Sam. I am sad to say, disappointed to say that the tax-and-spend season is indeed upon us in Washington, DC. Our country faces a number of challenges when it comes to the war on terror, making health care more accessible to more Americans, and making sure we remain competitive in a global economy. But it seems that every day that passes, some spend their time thinking about more ways to raise taxes and grow the size of Government. I wish we would reconsider and not do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday marked the beginning of a new fiscal year, when all of our projected spending for the next year ought to have been budgeted and allocated to the appropriate programs and Federal agencies. Unfortunately, we have yet to see a single appropriations bill be sent to the President. Four appropriations bills that have been passed are still in conference: the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs appropriations bill, the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, and the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development appropriations bill. But those are stuck in conference and none have been sent to the President for his signature. What is worse, the remaining eight were never even brought to the floor for consideration by the Senate majority leadership before the end of 2007. One, of course, will be taken up this week--the Defense appropriations bill. Any business leader or small business owner in America can tell you that entering the fiscal year without an approved budget plan is disastrous policy. But in Washington, we have grown to accept that the Federal Government can basically hold the American taxpayer to a double standard: Do what we say and not as we do. In Washington, we have come to accept that we don't have to budget or pay our bills on time to keep the lights on. Instead, we can pass a law saying it is OK--which we did last week, a continuing resolution, which keeps Government basically on autopilot until November 16 and, as I said, that is a double standard the rest of America is not allowed to meet. Only Congress, only Washington, can do that. This mentality of fiscal irresponsibility is a disturbing trend. Americans rightly expect us to keep the country running, but to keep it running efficiently and keep it running well, and to be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. We can't do that when we legislate on borrowed time and fail to pass any appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year. Zero for twelve is a dismal average, even for the Senate. Despite harsh criticisms for failing to pass all appropriations bills last year, the new majority has failed to pass a single appropriations bill when given the chance this year. Passing appropriations bills is ``the most fundamental job Congress is expected to do.'' That is a quote from our colleague, majority whip Dick Durbin, December 2006 in the New York Times. Senator Harry Reid, the current majority leader, said in May of 2007: ``The `Do-Nothing' Republican Congress failed to pass the appropriations bills.'' Now we find that notwithstanding their promise of new leadership and change, that situation bears all too similar a comparison to what they complained about last year. But the lack of urgency in passing these bills is only a part of the problem. My colleagues in the majority have used a few appropriations bills that have been brought forward as a vehicle for their political agenda, and increased spending on expanded social programs and pet projects. As we debated the Defense authorization bill week after week, the majority party delayed the bill's approval by trying to add and, in fact, successfully adding, in some instances, unrelated amendments-- amendments dealing with Federal hate crimes legislation, and immigration was even considered during the debate. Ultimately, these tactics wasted valuable time and delayed essential resources our military is counting on. As each minute, each day, and each week passes by, we come closer and closer to what is known as an omnibus appropriations bill. For those outside the Washington bubble, let me say that ``omnibus'' is sometimes translated as ``grab your wallet.'' An omnibus appropriations bill tends to be loaded down with a lot of excess spending and unrelated pork. If the appropriations bills we have debated thus far are any measure, we are in for major trouble. The spending proposals--an extra $205 billion on top of the President's budget request over the next 5 years--will force American taxpayers to send even more of their hard- earned pay to the Federal Government. We should instead be working to return their hard-earned money to the American people, or rather allow them to keep it in the first place as much as possible. Now that we have already missed our own deadline for appropriations, it is time we get serious about these spending bills. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and vote to pass timely and responsible appropriations bills and reverse this trend of fiscal apathy. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the great passion and sincerity with which our colleague from Massachusetts brings to this subject, but there is a time and a place for everything, and this is not the time-- 16 days into the Defense authorization bill which should have been finished a long time ago--to inject extraneous matters and matters which, as I will explain, have been poorly thought out and not completely aired by the Members of Congress. A few blocks from here is the United States Supreme Court building, and above the entry to that building reads the motto ``Equal Justice Under The Law.'' Equal justice under the law. Too many people have sacrificed too much for too long to make sure that guarantee of equal justice under the law is a reality for Congress to continue down the path to treat some crimes unequal from others. Every civilized Nation recognizes that all people deserve equal protection from criminal attacks. Unfortunately, there are some who reject that notion. But they are brought before the bar of justice, tried, many convicted, and many punished according to the laws we have on our books at the State level and, yes, even at the Federal level. I fear by trying to inject this extraneous matter on to a Defense authorization bill without adequate time for deliberation and discussion and inquiry, that Congress and the Senate in particular are being asked to pass on legislation without full knowledge of the consequences of the legislation. For example, under current Federal law, an individual who violates current Federal hate crimes law can be given the death penalty by a jury in appropriate circumstances. Under this legislation the Senate is being asked to vote on today, the death penalty is not available for violating this particular amendment or this particular legislative language. Thus, James Byrd's killers were convicted under State law, and according to a jury verdict, after exhausting all appellate remedies, were ultimately executed. If the same individuals committing those heinous acts back then were charged by a Federal prosecutor under this bill, they could not be given the death penalty by the jury. That is only one example of how this particular provision has not been thoroughly thought out or the consequences thoroughly vetted. I will be very clear. I don't support this legislation on the merits because I do believe in equal justice under the law. I believe individuals ought to be treated as individuals and not as members of groups, and that all human beings are entitled to the dignity God gave them by creating them, and they all ought to come equally before the bar of justice when they are accused of crimes and be given equal justice under the law. It is a mistake, in my judgment, to begin to treat people unequally based on the same conduct because of notions that some crimes are simply more despicable than others based upon the individual against whom they are perpetrated. All crimes of violence are crimes of hate. All ought to be judged according to the same criteria. All ought to be subject to the same range of punishments given to juries able to convict people based on evidence in court, not based on a politically correct notion that some crimes are more heinous than others. All crimes of violence are heinous and all ought to be punished equally under the law. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has alluded to the threat of a Presidential veto of this legislation if this amendment is passed, thus, making one of my points, that by introducing this amendment on the Defense authorization bill, the sponsors of this amendment are jeopardizing our ability to pass a Defense authorization bill. It is worth recounting what it is the Defense authorization bill provides and what they are putting in jeopardy by insisting on this extraneous amendment at this time: a pay raise of 3 percent; the authority to pay bonuses as special pay for enlistment and reenlistment; flight pay; various medical and dental benefits; nuclear incentive pay; an authorization for an additional 13,000 active-duty soldiers and 9,000 active-duty marines. In the Boston Globe of September 27, 2007, the Army's top officer, General Casey, said what we all know, which is that the military has been stretched too thin. We know, based on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, these are concerns we all share about the lengthy deployments of our troops because we don't have enough men and women in uniform, particularly in the Marines and members of the U.S. Army; and this bill, which this amendment puts in jeopardy, expands the end strength of the Army to reduce that stress and strain on our volunteer military and their families. We should not put it in jeopardy. This bill also authorizes an additional $4 billion for the MRAPs. To recall, the MRAPs are the mine resistant ambush protected vehicles that are specially constructed vehicles devised to defeat IEDs and save the lives and limbs of U.S. soldiers. Why in the world, in order to add extraneous legislation that has nothing to do with national security, would the advocates of this amendment jeopardize the ability to pass this Defense authorization bill, which is so important to our men and women in uniform? It is one thing to claim we support our military members; it is another thing to act on that stated conviction. Have no doubt about it, this amendment has nothing to do with our military. There are remedies in place under the Uniform Code of Military Justice if, in fact, there is an attempt to link this to the military somehow. I think that is a spurious claim. There are a myriad of laws, since 1968 under the Federal United States Code itself, dealing with hate crimes. As I mentioned, this bill, because it has been brought in haste on this legislation without an opportunity for calm deliberation and investigation and understanding by Members, actually dilutes some of the penalties currently available under Federal law if, in fact, the same conduct were indicted or charged under this amendment if it were to become law. Why in the world would the advocates of this legislation want to dilute the punishment that is potentially available to the jury in admittedly heinous crimes? It would be a mistake, and a mistake made out of haste. We should not indulge the desire to pass this legislation, no matter how sincere it is, in haste and without the kind of calm deliberation that will allow the Members of the Senate to understand what they are voting on and what we are doing. We should not jeopardize passing the Defense authorization bill, which contains the essential protections and benefits for our military members by loading it down with this extraneous amendment; or as the Senator from Illinois said, he wants to add an amendment relating to immigration. We know that will only spawn other amendments and burden this bill down so it will never pass. That would be a travesty. Instead of engaging in these ill-considered attempts to burden this important legislation with extraneous amendments, we ought to be doing the rest of our work. Why are we going to have to pass a continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government open before we leave this week? It is because none of the appropriation bills that are to pay for the Federal Government to keep the Federal Government open have cleared the Congress and gone to the President to be signed. We are simply not taking care of the people's business when we engage in rabbit trails such as this amendment calls for. I don't doubt the sincerity of the sponsors of this amendment. I disagree with them on adding this amendment to this important legislation for the reasons I have stated. I even disagree with them that some crimes ought to be treated or punished unequally than others based upon a membership in a particular group that can be identified, as I have described. So I don't doubt their sincerity; I just disagree with them. But we ought to have this debate at a time when we can focus our efforts, after a hearing and due deliberation, and after adequate consideration about the merits of the particular proposal, as we ordinarily do--not add it on 16 days after we have started the Defense authorization bill that has taken too long, jeopardizing our ability to add to the end strength and relieve the stress of our men and women in uniform and their families, and make sure they get the dignified treatment of the Wounded Warriors Act, which is part of this underlying Defense authorization bill, so we can deal with the concerns expressed again in the GAO report, which said the reforms we all want to come quickly are coming far too slowly when it comes to cutting the redtape and making sure our wounded warriors not only get the medical care they deserve, but get to move through the Department of Defense health care system and Veterans Affairs system in a way that lightens their load and not burdens them further. I think it is a mistake to consider this amendment at this time and in this way--a way that jeopardizes this important legislation. It has nothing--zero--to do with the Defense authorization bill. Whatever the merits of the amendment may be, I encourage the majority leader to give the proponents of this amendment an opportunity to present it at another time when we don't place in jeopardy these important benefits and relief designed to help our men and women in uniform during a time of war. We are at war. Why in the world would we be engaged in these rabbit trails on extraneous topics when we ought to be providing our men and women in uniform the relief they deserve and so urgently need. I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture on this amendment, no matter how good the intentions may be. I disagree that it belongs on this bill. I disagree that we should jeopardize this important legislation with extraneous matters such as immigration amendments, or hate crimes amendments, or anything else that doesn't have to do with helping our men and women in uniform during a time of war. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the SCHIP program will continue. That is a certainty, as certain as anything can be. The question is whether the SCHIP program, the State children's insurance program, will remain true to its targeted population which was contemplated by Congress in 1997 when it passed with strong bipartisan support or whether it will expand into a new burgeoning Federal program that has lost sight of its original mission and which, in the minds of some, represents another incremental step toward a Federal Government takeover of our health care system in America. Let there be no doubt about it, a Federal, Washington-run health care system would be bad for the children and the people of this country. There are at least three things you can guarantee if Washington takes control of our health care. One is it will be incredibly expensive. In other words, taxes will have to go up to pay for it. Two, it will be incredibly bureaucratic, and some bureaucrat with a green eyeshade will decide what kind of health care you or your family gets. Three, there will be rationing of health care. That same Government bureaucrat will decide whether you get a diagnostic test, whether you can be scheduled for an operation when you need it, or what other kinds of health care decisions you can make. In fact, the choices will be taken from individuals and be given to the Government. That is a bad idea, although there are some who have advocated this for many years, including the leading Democratic contender for President of the United States, who has advocated a government-run health care system since the early 1990s. This cannot be an expansion of a wildly successful program that has lost its focus on the poor children of America, and how in the world could I possibly say that? Well, this bill we are debating now raises spending by 140 percent--140 percent--at a time when my constituents tell me they are very concerned that the Federal Government has lost its way when it comes to spending and are worried that they will see consequential increases in their tax burden as a result of out-of- control Federal spending. Along with virtually everyone else in Congress, I strongly believe the SCHIP program should be renewed, and it will be renewed. I voted for a renewal bill called Kids First that provided $10 billion in addition to the $35 billion over 5 years and which would enroll 1.3 million new children in SCHIP. But the majority has rejected that as too miserly. Whom do they want to cover with the State Children's Health Insurance Program? Well, No. 1, they want to cover adults in 14 States, and in New York City they want to be able to cover up to 400 percent of poverty. A family making $82,000 a year would be--half of whom would be displaced from their private health insurance to get government-funded health insurance at the courtesy of the beleaguered American taxpayer. That is wrong. The other inadvertent consequence of this will be because government doesn't know how to control health care costs except to ration access to health care, we are going to see more and more people now who will be displaced from private health insurance to go on to government insurance who will find low reimbursement rates--close the doors to access to health care providers. In the city of Austin recently, there was a story written that said only 18 percent of physicians accept new Medicare patients--18 percent. The question was, Why? Well, the Federal Government Medicare reimbursement rate is so low, doctors can't continue to accept new Medicare patients and keep their doors open. In a similar fashion, the SCHIP rate is regulated by the Federal Government, as is the Medicaid rate. The only way many physicians and health care providers keep their doors open is to have a mix of government-subsidized health coverage and private health insurance. We all know private health insurance carries the cost to allow many health care providers to keep their doors open. It is not conspiracy theories, it is not an exaggeration to say this is an incremental step toward that single-payer, Washington-controlled health care system. Right now, the Federal Government pays 50 percent of the health care costs in America today. I think it is a bad idea to lose sight of the original target for SCHIP, which is children whose families make up to 200 percent of the poverty level, who have more money than they can make and still qualify for Medicaid. But we should do everything in our power to recommit to those children that we are going to make sure the money Congress appropriates, takes out of the pocket of the taxpayer and provides in terms of health benefits to them, is true to the vision Congress originally intended and that that money which could go to expanding health care coverage to these kids who come from relatively modest incomes is not taken and provided for adult coverage or middle-income coverage in places such as New York for up to 400 percent of the poverty level. So there is a lot of misinformation and, indeed, downright demagoguery going on in the media and elsewhere with regard to what is happening here. I hope we will make one thing clear: that every Member of the Congress--certainly this Senator--supports a continuation and reauthorization of SCHIP. It is a canard to suggest that anyone is denying access to health care to the children who have benefited historically and should benefit from SCHIP. But it is simply a Trojan horse to suggest that we are merely reauthorizing this legislation because what is happening is we are seeing a dramatic expansion of Federal spending, losing sight of the targeted population, and taking another incremental step toward a disastrous Washington-controlled and -run health care system which will be expensive to the American taxpayer, which will be incredibly bureaucratic, and which will result in rationing of health care, which is something that is not in the best interest of the American people. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I rise to express my grave concern about the misplaced agenda we appear to be pursuing in the Senate: Taking us off of a Defense authorization bill that we have spent 15 days on--more than 2 weeks--to take up special interest legislation that has nothing to do with providing the equipment and the pay raises and the dignified treatment to our wounded warriors that the Defense authorization bill is designed to provide. Unfortunately, we see the distinguished majority leader has now introduced an amendment relating to hate crimes on a Defense authorization bill. We are told the majority whip now plans to introduce a bill with regard to immigration, the so-called DREAM Act. I would submit there is a time and a place for everything. This is a deliberative body, where we are happy to talk about and debate and air our differences on any piece of legislation any Senator might want to propose that comes to the floor, but there is a time and a place for everything. This is not the time and not the place to divert our attention from the important provision of pay raises, the important provision of equipment, and the important public policy changes with regard to how we treat our wounded warriors. One of the Hill newspapers has reported that today, a Government report is being released that concludes the wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan are still getting the runaround from the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs, despite big promises of change made after last February's revelations about the scandalous conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am proud of the work we have been able to do on a bipartisan basis to move legislation forward that would address the causes for concern first uncovered as a result of those sad and embarrassing revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Today, it is reported the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says that delays for disability payments for veterans still average 177 days--nearly 6 months--with no indication that any dramatic improvement is in the offing. The General Accounting Office also found continuing frustrations and shortfalls in care for the increasing number of military returnees from Iraq. Delayed decisions, confusing policies, and the perception that the Department of Defense and Veterans' Administration disability ratings result in inequitable outcomes and have eroded the credibility of the system, according to the General Accounting Office. Thus, it is imperative, the GAO concludes, that the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs take prompt steps to address fundamental system weaknesses. Well, I agree. This is intolerable. That is the reason why we need to pass the Defense authorization bill, which has previously been pulled from the floor for consideration and has returned and now is being hijacked for special interest legislation that has nothing to do with providing help to our men and women in uniform during a time of war. Let me talk briefly about what the Defense authorization bill would do if we ever get it passed. It would authorize increases in end strengths to the Army and U.S. Marine Corps. As my distinguished colleague from Arkansas knows, that has been one of the major concerns we have all had about the stress and strain on our military that is too small for the challenges we have today, resulting in lengthy deployments and absences away from family members. This bill would authorize an increase of 13,000 in end strength for the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps. But what do we do instead of passing the legislation that would provide that additional authorization? We hijack this Defense authorization bill to talk about hate crimes and perhaps immigration and other unrelated issues. This bill authorizes a pay increase of $135 billion for our men and women in uniform, people who deserve everything we can do for them when it comes to providing for them or reducing some of their financial burdens. This bill authorizes $135 billion in additional pay. But what does the majority leader do? He says we are going to take another timeout after 15 days and we are going to talk about hate crimes, potentially immigration, and who knows what else, further burdening this bill with amendments which may jeopardize our ability to pass it in the end. This bill also provides for a 3.5-percent increase in pay for all our troops. To the point of the GAO report, which I cited that has been reported in one of the Hill newspapers today, this bill would authorize $24.6 billion for the Defense health program, including a $1.9 billion adjustment to fund TRICARE benefits for fiscal year 2008. That is exactly what we ought to be doing. I, similar to my other colleagues, have visited our wounded warriors at Walter Reed and Bethesda, places such as the Brooks Army Medical Center in San Antonio, and places such as Darnall Medical Center at Fort Hood and Killeen. We need to make sure we do everything in our power to take care of our wounded warriors. But what are we doing? We are apparently taking a timeout from that important work that is urgently needed and diverting our attention to other matters that have nothing to do with taking care of our troops. What else would this Defense authorization bill do? Well, it would authorize $4 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. As my colleagues know, these are the V-shaped hull vehicles that have a way of dispersing improvised explosive device attacks in a way that will save lives and protect our troops from further injury as a result of improvised explosive devices. But what do we do? We dillydally around after 15 days of not taking care of our business and divert our attention to other unrelated matters that have nothing to do with protecting our troops. I think it is shameful. Further evidence the agenda is misplaced in the Senate is the fact that we will, this week, have to consider a continuing resolution. That means passing legislation to keep the doors of Government open until November 16 because this Congress has not passed, nor has the President signed, appropriations bills to pay Congress's bills. Now, this is not a surprise. September 30 we know is the end of the fiscal year. What would happen if we were a small business--or a big business, for that matter--that didn't take care of its affairs and didn't pay its bills? Well, it would shut down. But not the Federal Government, because we have the power to wave a magic wand and pass a continuing resolution. But 13 appropriations bills affecting the lives of each and every one of 300 million Americans in this country has simply been neglected, pushed to the back burner, because we are diverting our attention to matters that we should leave for a later date. So I implore the majority leader, I implore the new management of this Senate that was elected to the majority status after the last election, let's take care of business. Let's take care of our troops. Let's take care of our military families that, in an all-volunteer military, are absolutely essential to our ability to protect and defend the United States. I think it is shameful we are changing the subject to take care of special interest legislation at a time such as this, when it is so critical, at a time of war. I implore the majority leader to reconsider his misguided agenda for the Senate. I yield the floor.