Approval Rating of Congress

Floor Speech

APPROVAL RATING OF CONGRESS -- (Senate - May 21, 2008)

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we reached a milestone in Congress, because on Monday it was the 500th day since our friends on the other side of the aisle took control of both the Senate and House following the 2006 election. In those 500 days, we have seen congressional approval rating, according to Rasmussen Surveys, drop to 13 percent of the respondents who believe that Congress has performed in a good or excellent fashion. I believe one reason why we have seen this drop in Congress's public approval rating is because we have failed to address some of the biggest concerns that confront the American people.

Here is a chart. Four of the concerns are depicted here. The first number I mention here is the 96 days that Congress--specifically the House of Representatives--has failed to act to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, of course, is the law that allows our intelligence community to listen to telephone conversations between foreign terrorists to learn of attacks being planned, so as to not only detect them but also to deter them and defeat our enemies. Why Congress would fail to act to reauthorize this important piece of legislation for 96 days, I think, can only cause us to scratch our heads and wonder what could possibly justify that effective blinding of our intelligence community to new threats and the kinds of threats that could make us safer, if detected, deterred, and defeated, and could make us safer here at home and make our troops safer in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

At the same time, we have been waiting 547 days for Congress to take up and pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This is important to our Nation and it is important to my State. Last year alone, Texas sold $2.3 billion worth of goods and produce to Colombia, a large nation in South America. Because of tariffs that are currently imposed on those goods that are sold from Texas to Colombia, or from the United States to Colombia, it actually discriminates against my small business man and woman, against the manufacturer, against the producer of farm goods; whereas, Colombian goods coming into the United States because of another agreement have no similar tariff or financial discrimination.

If the Speaker of the House would take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we could restore a level playing field and create more jobs in the United States because we would be creating more goods here in America to sell in Colombia.

Free trade is something that, amazingly, this Congress seems more and more afraid of, when, in fact, I think it is one of the ways out of our current economic doldrums. If we continue to create new markets for our goods and services across the world, that creates jobs at home. If there is anything like a stimulus package Congress could pass, free-trade agreements, such as the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is one of them.

It is more important than that because Colombia, of course, is one of our very best allies in Latin America, sitting right next door to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, someone who is not our friend and has declared us his enemy.

I have to think that Raul Castro and Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela are sort of chuckling to themselves, seeing how America is treating one of our very best allies in Latin America. In fact, it is President Uribe in Colombia who has been heroic in his fight against the narcoterrorists, known as the FARC, who recently, we found out, were not only in cahoots with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez but planning a lot of no good--buying arms, buying military materiel from Russia and other places right in our backyard, in Latin America. Why we would stiff-arm President Uribe in Colombia, one of our very best allies in Latin America, when it is in our self-interest to create more markets to sell American goods and services, frankly, is beyond me.

The next number is 692 days. This is how long some judicial nominees, nominated by President Bush, have been waiting for Senate confirmation.

We know the majority leader pledged to confirm at least three circuit court nominees before the Memorial Day break. We only have 2 more days left to go. Obviously, we are not going to meet that pledged goal. So 692 days with nominees waiting for a vote with no real end in sight. It is clear what is happening. It is an attempt to drag this out until the election is nigh upon us and then the majority leader can say: We can't get any more judges confirmed because we are going to have to wait for the Presidential election to see who will fill those vacancies. But to wait 692 days without even giving these nominees simply the courtesy of a hearing or an up-or-down vote is inexcusable. There is just no reason for it.

The last number on this chart is 758 days. That is the period of time since Nancy Pelosi, now the Speaker of the House, pledged to come up with a commonsense plan to reduce the price of gasoline. Mr. President, 758 days later, the price of gasoline is going through the roof, with no end in sight, and the price of oil, which makes up 70 percent of the cost of gasoline, is going through the roof, with no end in sight.

We have on this side of the aisle offered what I believe to be a very constructive plan to produce more American energy and rely less on imported energy from other parts of the world, and that was rebuffed by the majority. I am left to wonder, if the majority refuses to take advantage of American natural resources and reduce our dependency on imported oil from our enemies at the price of $3.75 a gallon, I wonder if they would reconsider when the price hits $4.75 a gallon or $5.75 a gallon? At what price will we finally wake up in Congress and recognize that the moratorium we passed some 30 years ago which banned the exploration for oil and gas on our Outer Continental Shelf, when oil was $7 a barrel and now is $127 a barrel, when will we reconsider that policy and decide it is in our national interest--our national security interest and our economic interest--to depend more on what God gave us in America, our natural resources, which can be developed in a way that is consistent with a good environment and in a way that is responsible?

It is irresponsible to simply ignore reality or to imagine that we in Congress can suspend the economic laws of supply and demand. As we have seen oil consumption worldwide go to about 85 million barrels a day, we know that countries such as China and India, with growing economies, are using more and more of that oil. So we are competing for a fixed supply of oil, and the law of supply and demand says: If you have a fixed supply but increasing demand, the price is going to continue to go up. But somehow Congress feels as if we can ignore that law or we can defy that law. We can no more defy the law of supply and demand than we can the law of gravity. I think the American people understand that, and I think they are bewildered, as I am, why Congress continues to defy this basic law of economics.

The bill that will be before the Senate today is a very important piece of legislation which bears further witness to why Congress is held in such low regard by the American people. It is because this bill which was designed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations to help fund our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq has become a political football and a lot of unrelated projects have been added to this bill, which has caused the President to threaten to veto it, which the majority understands will simply slow down the process of getting these necessary funds, getting this necessary equipment that these funds would pay for, to our troops in harm's way.

Twenty-five days from now--Deputy Secretary Gordon England said that absent additional congressional action, ``the Army will run out of military personnel funds by mid-June and operation and maintenance funds by early July.'' In 25 days, unless Congress acts, the military will run out of personnel funds--that means money used to pay the military their paychecks each month--and will run out of operation and maintenance funds by early July.

I believe it is absolutely inexcusable that as we approach Memorial Day, the men and women of our military are left to wonder whether we will meet our obligation to make sure there is enough money available to pay their paychecks so their families can be provided for after June. While we all have talked about supporting our troops--and that is very important--how much more basic a way is there to support our troops than to make sure they are paid the money they are entitled to on a timely basis and not left to wonder whether Congress will meet that simple obligation? Talk is one thing; action, which would send a different message altogether, is another.

It is indisputable that these men and women in our U.S. military have made tremendous sacrifices for all of us. They have given not only their precious time, some have even given their lives to protect our way of life. Many of them have spent months, if not years, away from their families, missed birthdays, missed births, all in fulfillment of this noble duty to help keep the oppressed free and to protect our national security. Now they are left to scratch their heads and wonder what is going on again in Washington and whether politics is interfering with Congress's willingness to simply do its duty while they discharge their duties abroad.

This critical funding includes not only vital pay and allowances but also the tools our troops need to ensure they have safe passage through neighborhoods they patrol in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am referring to, in part, the Commander's Emergency Response Program, or the CERP. When I was in Baghdad and other places in Iraq in January, the commanding officers said that these are some of the most useful funds we have made available to them. Secretary Gates has called it ``the single most effective program to enable commanders to address local populations' needs. .....'' These CERP funds will come to a standstill. Unless Congress acts on a timely basis without loading down this bill with a lot of pet projects and pork, it will come to a standstill. Why would we want to hamstring our commanders in the field in working with local populations to try to win their hearts and minds? As Secretary Gates pointed out, CERP is the key in the effort to get potential insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan off the streets and into jobs.

Colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged the importance of CERP funding. However, despite this acknowledgment, Congress has provided less than a third of what has been requested, and now providing those funds at all is left in some doubt. According to the Department of Defense, unless we provide the remaining $1.2 billion in CERP funds, the program will grind to a halt. What more important thing could we be doing in Iraq than trying to win the hearts and minds of former insurgents and get them deployed so that they lay down their guns and their bombs and engage in not only the political process but in the economic revitalization of that war-torn country. We all agree the Iraqis need to take more responsibility for rebuilding their country, and that is what these CERP funds are designed to ensure. Why in the world would we slow them down or fail to see that they are delivered?

Beyond CERP funds and troop paychecks, the lack of funding begins to also impact other areas. We will see furloughs of civilian employees of the Department of Defense if Congress does not act promptly. Unfortunately, this includes staff members at facilities such as child development centers which many of our troops depend on for daycare for their young ones. It would detrimentally impact services provided to troops and their families at military installations across America and around the world.

It is sad to note this is not the first time Congress has put our troops in this position. Once again, while our troops are waiting for critical funding, needed not only for their own well-being but for the completion of their mission, some of my colleagues will try to use this supplemental funding bill to advance pet projects or to resurrect a tired agenda. Once again, we have seen there will be an attempt to force yet another vote on the precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq; that is, based on a political timetable handed down here in Washington rather than conditions on the ground which will lead to the likelihood of stability and ultimate success. Despite the countless debates we have had on this issue and despite the clear and undisputable evidence of both military and political progress in Iraq, my colleagues will again refuse to pass a clean supplemental bill to support our troops. This debate, of which we know the outcome, will do nothing but delay those funds going to our troops.

It is becoming increasingly evident that American troops and our Iraqi allies are making great progress in areas that were formerly labeled as hopeless. In the New York Times today, there is a story on the front page about how Sadr City, which was basically a no-man's zone, has now been stabilized by Iraqi troops themselves. Violence is down, and communities are fighting back against extremism. Life is slowly returning to normal. Refugees who previously fled that country are returning home. What better could we hope for than to see these sorts of developments? Of course, this is thanks in large part to the sacrifices of our military and our military families.

We also need to acknowledge the great strides being made by the Iraqi Government. By reasonable estimates, the Iraqis have now met 12 of the 18 benchmarks Congress set for them, and they have begun to fight against extremism and senseless violence without regard to affiliation or sectarian identification.

The recent initiative that Prime Minister Maliki undertook in Basra is a good example of taking the initiative, of doing what we had hoped for, and that is taking the training that America and our coalition partners have provided and using that training to fight for themselves.

The more the Iraqis stand and fight for themselves, the more American and coalition troops can stand down and ultimately come home.

I think it is important to point out to the American people that what was supposed to be an emergency supplemental appropriations bill is not limited to war-related measures, and this is designed to slow down this important piece of legislation. We know that not only are other pet projects and unrelated spending measures included, there are $10 million in unrelated emergency spending measures that perhaps might be justified in some other context, but we need to have this bill passed cleanly so we can get the money to the troops and so we can debate the merits of these various other programs at a later time. We should not use this bill for controversial policy measures.

Our troops, as well as the American people, deserve more open debate about complex issues--and here are four of them we need to act on--but we should not use this bill to try to get provisions passed without either adequate debate or adequate scrutiny. Things that could not be passed in the light of day should not be passed on this vehicle, this must-pass vehicle. The men and women who have made tremendous sacrifices to serve our country deserve more than to have to be asked to carry on their backs the political agendas of a few of their elected representatives.

Despite the looming shortfalls for military paychecks, the Senate does not seem all that concerned. Despite warnings by the Deputy Secretary of Defense that Congress must act before the Memorial Day recess, the majority leader recently told people it was no big deal if Congress did not. I respectfully beg to differ. Failing to supply a paycheck to our brave soldiers is an incredibly big deal. Playing politics at a time when our soldiers are being left to wonder whether they will be able to pay for their food bill, their gasoline bill, their health care or other items while Congress engages in this sort of gamesmanship is simply inexcusable.

So I think we could improve congressional approval ratings above the 13 percent who think we are doing a good or excellent job if we would simply act on this list of items which has been waiting, some for as many as 758 days, without a response from the Congress and if we would simply quit using something such as an emergency funding bill for our troops in harm's way in order to pass other unrelated pet projects or to try to impose other political agendas. I think if we acted responsibly, in a bipartisan way, to try to solve some of these problems, the American people would respond favorably. That would be good for them, that would be good for the country, and that would be good for the Senate and the Congress, generally.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source