John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I certainly will.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from Texas in giving me a few minutes to speak on this continuing resolution. This is, to say the least, disappointing. We have a bill that addresses more than $400 billion worth of spending but cuts $3.1 billion from our men and women in uniform for the Department of Defense at a time when we hope to be able to build facilities in the United States to accommodate them and their families as we bring them back from places such as Europe and Korea and elsewhere. We know that we have an all-voluntary military. As a member of a military family myself--my father was in the Air Force for 31 years--it is more than just the individual servicemember who serves; it is a family proposition. I urge the majority leader and the majority to reconsider this cut of $3.1 billion in the very meat and bone of what it takes to recruit and retain a volunteer military. As the saying goes, you recruit an individual servicemember but you retain a family. These kinds of cuts, $750 million of which will come out of the money that is allocated for the State of Texas, are just extraordinarily unwise. I have heard rumors to the effect that the majority is going to try to add this money back in the supplemental appropriations bill we will be taking up, I guess sometime in March. Of course, that would be a budgetary trick which would exacerbate the budget deficit and be in stark conflict with the kind of rhetoric we have heard from our colleagues on the majority side who have said that we need a pay-as- you-go budget. In other words, if there is going to be spending, there has to be commensurate offsets. Cutting out of this so-called continuing resolution or Omnibus appropriations this $3.1 billion for our military families and then coming back and adding it in as emergency spending in a supplemental avoids the budgetary requirement of an offset and, thus, will add to additional deficits which are irresponsible and certainly in conflict with the statements our colleagues have made on the other side.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was hoping to have at least 5 minutes, but I see that time is running short.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not object, but may I inquire how much time remains to the minority under morning business?

Mr. CORNYN. I am proud to be a cosponsor, along with the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, of an amendment which would accomplish that goal. This is the way to handle our budgetary responsibilities appropriately. I implore the majority leader to allow us an opportunity to have amendments and to have a full and fair debate on this continuing resolution. We started this Congress in a spirit of compromise, but certainly if the amendment tree is filled and we are denied an opportunity to have debate and consideration of an amendment such as that, it would be extraordinarily disappointing and in conflict with some of the early rhetoric and hopes we all had for bipartisan cooperation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, when we convened here in January, we had an unprecedented meeting of the new Members of the U.S. Senate, both Republican and Democratic, in the Old Supreme Court Chamber where the Senate used to meet. There were a lot of very nice speeches by the new majority leader, Senator Reid, and by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, about efforts at bipartisan cooperation. I think those were welcomed by all of us and I think welcomed by the American people as well because, frankly, I think they believe--and I think they are right--sometimes there is too much emphasis put on party and not enough emphasis put on the well-being and the welfare of the American people at large. Well, we had a good start. We started out on ethics and lobbying reform. As you will recall, we initially had a vote to close off debate, and we got over that minor hurdle after that cloture motion lost and we were able to shape a bill that got the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the Senate on lobbying and ethics reform. So that was a good start. Then we moved on to the minimum wage and small business tax and regulatory relief. And we had, I guess, another period of testing there, people trying to figure out what all this new majority and new minority meant and how we might work together. Lo and behold, we got through that in a bipartisan way, and we passed a minimum wage bill, with small business tax and regulatory relief that, again, I think we could all look at and say: I don't agree with 100 percent of it, but on balance this is a good bill. This is the kind of thing we ought to be doing together. Well, I would say that notwithstanding that good start--and I think it was a good start--we have stumbled a little bit in recent days. We see a resolution on the Iraq war where we have requested the opportunity to present alternatives that reflect the diversity of views in the Senate. Yet the majority leader, in his wisdom, decided we were not going to have an opportunity to vote on those different views, some of which are espoused by his own caucus. So we are not able to get to a vote on any of those resolutions--yet. I predict they will come back. We will be back on those issues. The issue itself is not going to go away. We are going to have plenty of opportunities to vote on whether we are going to support our troops and the mission we have called upon them to do. But, here again, we have stumbled again on this continuing resolution. It is not, as we all know, technically speaking, a continuing resolution, which would be to continue the spending at levels of 2006 into the 2007 year. This is really what would probably more properly be called an Omnibus appropriations bill. Rather than breaking things down into their constituent parts and passing, let's say, a Department of Defense bill, a Labor, Health and Human Services bill, and different appropriations bills, this is one big, huge, appropriations bill and I think most appropriately called Omnibus appropriations. Although I will correct myself. I think this is really--if I had to give it a name, I would call it an ``Ominous'' appropriations bill. The reason I say that is for the reason that has been pointed out by a number of our colleagues today. What it does is it demonstrates an unwillingness to provide the financial resources necessary for our military during a time of war. And I think that is ominous. I hope it does not give us a foretaste of the future, when we have seen our military underfunded at times and resulting in a later effort to try to catch up. I remember the Secretary of the Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, just a couple days ago, in the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, said: Do you know what. We would accept a lower level of funding if it was kept relatively constant so we could actually plan rather than have the spikes and the valleys, the changes from year to year, from appropriations bill to appropriations bill. But my point is, this bill, by cutting $3.1 billion from our military during a time of war, is simply penny-wise and pound-foolish. I may be too generous when I say it is penny-wise because the money that is actually cut from the military is then distributed through a variety of other programs, which means in the end, when we pay the bill, which we ultimately will have to pay, we are going to add to the debt rather than--and we have seen $3.1 billion in new spending that could not otherwise be done without cutting the military--but causing us problems by exacerbating a deficit that none of us would like to see compounded. But I want to mention--because I just met with MG Robert Lennox, who is the commanding general at Fort Bliss in El Paso, TX--El Paso will, as a result of this last Base Realignment and Closure Commission, receive an additional 20,000 new uniformed servicemembers and about 25,000 in addition to that, for a total of 45,000 people, including the family members who will move there. The $3.1 billion that was cut from this bill will have a direct impact on General Lennox's ability to build the infrastructure necessary to accommodate those 45,000 servicemembers and their families in El Paso, TX. It also will have an impact on places around Texas such as Camp Bullis where an Armed Forces Reserve Center is in jeopardy; places at Fort Sam Houston, which is a principal location for Army medicine; places such as Grand Prairie; Seagoville; Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base; Carswell Air Base; Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, my hometown; Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, TX; and Randolph Air Force Base, also in San Antonio, TX. All of those various programs to try to build the infrastructure and accommodate this Base Realignment and Closure Commission are in some jeopardy, and it is because our colleagues, the leadership on the other side, has determined that, without an opportunity for amendment, without an opportunity to vote on alternatives, we are going to take $3.1 billion from the military and give it to other programs and projects. The problem we have in an All-Volunteer military is that we depend not only on our ability to recruit service members but also to retain those service members in our All-Volunteer military. And, of course, quality of life issues are very important--housing, various facilities. Of course, I mentioned this earlier today, but the saying goes: You recruit a servicemember, you recruit an individual, but you retain a family because it is important we provide the services to sort of cushion the sacrifices that so many family members make when their loved one is serving in our Armed Forces. I am disappointed to see what started out as laudable efforts at bipartisan cooperation in the way we craft legislation on the floor of the Senate sort of degenerate into partisan railroading of important legislation. I fear what will happen is, when we come back to the supplemental appropriations bills that will be necessary to fund our military, we will then, out of these emergency supplemental appropriations, try to make up for this $3.1 billion. The only difference is that it will result in $3.1 billion in new spending rather than the required offsets that would be necessary to maintain fiscal responsibility. An amendment that the senior Senator from Texas and I have cosponsored, along with others, would provide such an offset. And if allowed to have a vote on that amendment, for less than a three-quarters of 1 percent, across-the-board cut in this Omnibus appropriations bill, exclusive of defense spending, we could restore the complete $3.1 billion that this current Omnibus appropriations bill cuts. We could tell our men and women in the military that we not only appreciate and support them but actually back that up with real action and a real financial commitment to make sure they have what they need. I am disappointed that after we got off to such a good start in terms of bipartisan cooperation, we find ourselves now where the majority party is attempting to dictate the terms of this Omnibus appropriations bill, without any input, without any opportunity for votes on any amendments that some of us believe are in the best interests of the military and in the best interests of the country. It represents an unfortunate and unwelcome development. In the end, I predict the new majority will learn what the old majority learned, that no single party gets to dictate how things happen around here because of the 60-vote requirement to close off debate. The magic number, of course, for the majority is 60. The magic number for the minority is 41. That gives us the power we need to get a seat at the table. But it is clear that the majority leader has made a calculation that he can pass this legislation without any contribution, any amendments, any opportunity to vote on important amendments. Unfortunately, not only is the kind of bipartisan cooperation we started off with during the first month we have been here in January the loser, I am afraid as a result of this ill-advised cut in our military that our military is the loser as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. And here we are in the Senate this week debating about nonbinding resolutions and avoiding the tough votes on whether we will cut off funds to support this mission. Instead, we engage in the continued surreal environment of this Senate by saying: OK, now we have confirmed General Petraeus, one of the people who is going to execute this plan in Iraq. But now, today, we are going to also vote on Admiral Fallon, the head of Central Command, General Petraeus's commander, who will also be in charge of this mission, and GEN George Casey, who has been in charge of coalition forces. Do you know what I predict? We will confirm, as we did General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon and General Casey, and yet there are some who stand up here in the Senate and elsewhere and have the temerity to say: We support you, but we do not support the mission we have asked you to execute. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask for 1 remaining minute by unanimous consent.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the majority leader this morning said within my hearing that there is no support for the surge. I don't know why he would say that because, in fact, not only have Members of this Senate unanimously supported, through the confirmation hearing of GEN David Petreaus, one of the people who certainly will be instrumental in executing that surge, but that is what we have been debating for these last weeks, indeed, months: what the new plan should be in Iraq, to deal with what is, obviously, an unacceptable status quo. I am tempted to wonder out loud if, rather than talking about issues that really matter--such as the issue that the Senator from New Hampshire has asked for a vote on but been denied, whether we will support our troops and refuse to cut off funding while we send them in harm's way--we are seeing a bunch of spin doctoring going on. But when the majority leader says there is no support for the surge, I would simply disagree because, in fact, at least one of the amendments that has been offered that we have been denied an opportunity to vote on, as the majority leader has done what he is entitled to do, which is to move on to other subjects and to set the Senate agenda, one of those amendments would, in fact, support General Petreaus and the plan he has taken upon himself to execute in Iraq that we are sending, over a period of time, additional reinforcements to secure Baghdad. So there is substantial support for this plan. The problem is, I am tempted to believe there are some who have simply given up, who don't believe there is any chance of success in Iraq. The problem is, those who have expressed such defeatism, who in this contest of wills say we simply lost ours, have not talked one bit about the consequences of giving up, the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur, the ethnic cleansing that would occur, the fact that another failed state in the Middle East, as in Afghanistan before it, could serve as a launching pad for recruiting and training and exporting of terrorist attacks. Standing here and suggesting that defeat is something we will accept is, to my view, not a responsible position to take. So I disagree with those who simply say we have no chance to turn things around. There are those who say ad nauseam that there is ``no military solution in Iraq.'' I would commend to them an article that was written by Victor Davis Hanson that is entitled ``Give Petraeus a Chance.'' Mr. Hanson says: . . . in fact, only a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. So, as General Petraeus said, we are engaged in a test of wills. How could it possibly be that we have lost our own will to protect America's national security, to prevent a regional conflict that will inevitably, if it occurs, cost us more in treasure and blood? How is it that America could possibly have lost its will? I think the Senator from New Hampshire made a good point a moment ago when he said the reason why the majority leader has now taken us off of this issue--which, again, is his sole prerogative as majority leader; that is the power a majority leader has--that the reason we have not been given a chance to vote on the Gregg amendment that says we will not cut off funds, we will not fail to support our troops on the mission they have volunteered to undertake, and which we have sent them on--the real reason, as the Washington Post reported, Senator Gregg's amendment was not allowed to be voted on is because his amendment is likely the ``only measure that could attract 60 votes.'' The USA Today said the majority leader opposed allowing a vote on the amendment because it could have resulted in a situation where the Senate would have been on record opposing cuts in funding for the troops but not the President's policy. I think it is absolutely imperative--whether it is today or tomorrow or next week or next month, or all of the above--we make it very clear we will not ever cut off our support for the men and women who have undertaken this dangerous mission. When I went out to Walter Reed on Monday to visit some of the injured veterans of the Iraq conflict, I could not help but be struck by the sort of surreality of that. Here are young men and women who have lost limbs, and many, unfortunately, have lost their lives volunteering to protect us and to bring stability to the Middle East and to allow the Iraqis a better life. They have risked it all, and some have paid that ultimate sacrifice. Yet here in the Senate----

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would you advise me when I have used 6 minutes, and I will defer to my other colleagues.

Mr. CORNYN. How much time does the minority have remaining in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I noted with some interest the headline in today's Washington Post. It says ``GOP Stalls Debate on Troop Increase.'' I must say, in light of the remarks of the Senator from Maryland, obviously nobody has stalled the debate on troop increase or anything else to do with the conflict in Iraq. In fact, I think that is a positive thing because there isn't anything more important, in my view, than debating this important issue and, as the Senator from Maryland said, supporting our troops. I do have profound disagreement, though, that these nonbinding resolutions which have been offered do anything other than encourage our enemy and undermine our troop morale. I wonder why it is that so many are insistent that we proceed forward on nonbinding resolutions when, in fact, we know what power the Congress has when it comes to war. It is not to supplant the Commander in Chief, it is not to have 535 micromanagers, but it is the power of the purse. Yet it is the very amendment that Senator Gregg, the Senator from New Hampshire, has offered that the majority leader has denied an opportunity to debate and on which to have have an up-or-down vote. That is what the vote yesterday was about. It is not to cut off debate; it is to make sure the debate continues and that the varied positions espoused by Members of the Senate are not only fully debated but that there is an opportunity to vote on those positions. At least two Members of the majority--Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold--have made it clear that they believe the power of the purse should be exercised to cut off funding to support this new plan forward. While I disagree with them, I do respect the fact that they actually intend to vote for something that would make a difference in the outcome as opposed to the nonbinding resolutions which have been offered by Senator Levin and others. I do not understand why it is the critics--the President's critics and the critics of what is happening in Iraq--why they will not take yes for an answer. Yes, as the Senator from Maryland said, on November 7, obviously, Iraq was on the minds of the American people. It is one of the reasons why, frankly, the then majority is no longer the majority. There were critics on the other side of the aisle who said the Secretary of Defense needed to be replaced. Now we have confirmed a new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Robert Gates. There are those who said: What we are doing in Iraq is not working, so we need a new commander. And, indeed, we have confirmed, unanimously, a new commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq. There are those who said: We need a new plan in Iraq. And lo and behold, the President announced a new plan after lengthy consultation. I think there is a fair amount of revisionist history or selective memory going on. For example, there are some who said the President did not consider, in coming up with this new plan, the provisions of the Iraq Study Group. Of course, this is a bipartisan group that made 79 different recommendations. But I would challenge the critics who say the President ignored the Iraq Study Group report to look at page 73 of that report, where they say, unanimously--a bipartisan group--they could support a temporary surge of troops to secure Baghdad if it was necessary. Indeed, if you look at this new way forward, that is precisely what it is, a temporary surge, supporting Iraqi troops to provide an opportunity not only to clear but to hold Baghdad and then to build and begin the political reconciliation process that is necessary for stabilization. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying we do not want to debate, when the truth is they are denying us a right to vote on some of the key resolutions that define the nature of the debate in this Congress. We want a debate. We want a debate, but we want it to be a fair debate. And we want it to be representative. We want to expand and extend the debate so we can fully examine and discuss what is at stake in this central front in the global war on terror. We want a full and comprehensive debate and an opportunity to vote. Do they? If our friends on the other side of the aisle are serious when they say they do not want to block funding for our troops, then why are they dodging an amendment offered by Senator Gregg that would allow them a vote on that important issue? Now, I disagree that we should ever cut off funds to support our troops while they are in a time of war. But I think if you feel what is happening in Iraq cannot be justified, if you feel we have already lost and we are merely sending more troops into harm's way, with no chance of accomplishing the mission, then I would say the only real vote that matters would be one that would cut off the funds to allow that to happen. That would be the moral decision to make. I simply disagree with the judgment. I do not believe all is lost. I do believe this new plan, this new commander, this new Secretary of Defense have a reasonable chance of success. Now, we all agree the consequences of failure in Iraq are not simply something we can walk away from. The Iraq Study Group said that failure in Iraq could result in a regional conflict, most likely ethnic cleansing, where the sectarian violence would spiral out of control, perhaps bringing in other countries to defend the various sectarian parties to that conflict. We know from sad experience what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was defeated by the Afghan rebels, where the Taliban and al-Qaida set up business in Afghanistan and used that as a place to train and recruit and then to launch terrorist attacks against the United States, such as what occurred on September 11, 2001. Where is the plan of the critics of this new way forward in Iraq? What is their plan to avoid a failed state in Iraq? Where is their plan to avoid the kind of regional conflict and the humanitarian crisis that will most likely occur if, in fact, we do not try to support this new plan forward and bring stability to Iraq long enough to where the Iraqis--which is their responsibility--can engage in the reconciliation process and the political process necessary to stabilize that country, which is in their best interest, which is in our best interest? Because we know if things spiral out of control in Iraq, if we decide to precipitously leave Iraq and it becomes a failed state or becomes a killing field for ethnic cleansing, we will most likely have to return at even greater loss of blood and treasure. So I would ask the new majority, since the Senator from Maryland mentioned the election of November 7, what is your plan? To criticize may be OK if you are in the minority. But if you are the majority, surely you have a responsibility to offer a constructive alternative. It is not constructive to merely criticize the new plan that is going to be executed by the new commander, unanimously confirmed by this Congress, and a new Secretary of Defense. I must say, with all due respect, it is not supporting our troops to send them into harm's way if, in fact, our colleagues believe all is lost and they cannot succeed. I do not believe that. But if, in fact, they truly do believe that, then they should stand up and be willing to vote on the only resolution that would have an outcome on that determination. That is the Gregg amendment. It is because we have been denied an opportunity to vote on that only amendment that counts that this debate continues. It was not cut off yesterday; merely a fair process was secured for those of us who think that all views ought to be represented and we ought to have more than one vote rather than be railroaded in this process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I try to count up the number of positions of Senators articulating either for or against the various resolutions, I count at least six, and maybe there are more. There are some who say, yes, that the President's plan--basically, that General Petraeus, the architect of that plan, will have responsibility for implementing--that plan ought to get a chance. Then there are those who say: No, we disagree with that plan. We do not believe that General Petraeus should get the additional five brigades that the plan calls for, but we do think in Anbar Province additional troops ought to go in to fight al-Qaida in Iraq. Then there is a third position I count that says we think there shouldn't be additional troops, and we want to cap the number of troops, period, and we want to set a timetable for their withdrawal. That would actually be No. 4. Some of the distinguished Members of this Senate have said these nonbinding resolutions are shooting with blanks. What we ought to do is have a vote on cutting off funds because that is the sole way that Congress can have a definitive impact on what is happening. We do not believe any funds should be appropriated for this effort. That is a fifth position, as I count it. Then there are those--and I find myself in this group--who say: No, we shouldn't cut off funds that support our troops during a time of war. In fact, we ought to give this a chance. Some of these positions may have some commonality and some may merge and diverge, but the point is, for the majority to say we have one vote on one resolution, in spite of the fact there are at least six positions, as I count them, on this issue is asking Members to accept limited debate and does not reflect the diversity of views in this Senate. The vote we are going to have at 5:30 tonight--and I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia and others who, perhaps, share a different view from me on the substance of the resolution, for supporting our right to have a fair process and to have all the various resolutions or, I should say, at least two, in opposition that ought to be offered, that Senators ought to be given the chance to vote for. Senator Reid, the majority leader, on the floor earlier asked rhetorically: What makes the Baghdad security plan different from the ones that have come before? Let me mention the specific answer to his question. First of all, this is an Iraqi-initiated plan for taking control of the capital of Iraq. No. 2, there will be adequate forces-- Iraqis supported by American and coalition forces--to hold neighborhoods cleared of terrorist extremists. Third, there is a new operational concept, one devised not just to pursue terrorists and extremists but actually to secure the city once they are cleared. Fourth, new rules of engagement will pursue that Iraqi and U.S. forces can pursue lawbreakers, regardless of their communities or sect. Five, security operations will be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid, including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds, offering jobs and the prospect for better lives. The reason I support the plan General Petraeus is largely the architect of, and the very same commander whom we have confirmed by unanimous vote about a week or so ago, is because I think it represents the last best chance for success in Iraq. I don't know anyone who believes the status quo is acceptable. The question is, Are we simply going to give up and see a regional conflict? Are we going to see ethnic cleansing occur? Are we going to see countries that have Sunni majorities come to the aid of their Sunni brothers and sisters who might be the subject of ethnic cleansing by the Shia majority? Are we going to allow Iraq to become another failed state which will then serve as a launching pad for future terrorist attacks, perhaps including against the United States? The risks of that happening by doing nothing or by simply saying what we have been doing now is not working so we are simply going to refuse to endorse any alternative plan because we are not sure it is going to be successful is giving up before we should. While opinion polls should not govern our conduct, it is significant the one question I have heard, when asked by Opinion Dynamics Poll on the process we are engaged in today, the question was: Congress has been considering a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to the President's plan to send more troops. By almost two to one, Americans think passing a resolution would do more harm than good; 47 percent in this poll that was reported February 1, 2007, say it is likely to encourage the enemy and hurt troop morale compared with 24 percent who think it would make a positive difference to the policy of the United States toward Iraq. Regardless of the sincerely held beliefs that I know Senators have on this very important topic, the last thing we should be forced to do would be to vote on a single resolution when there are so many different points of view that deserve full and fair debate on what is the most important issue that conflicts our country and, literally, the world at this time and that is the global war on terror, the central front of that war in Iraq and what we are going to do about it, whether we are going to give up or whether we are going to try to secure that country in a way that will allow it to govern and defend itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have 33 minutes total.

Mr. CORNYN. That is correct. If I could, just in the interest of clarity, and I know this is confusing, Senator Specter will be allocated 7\1/2\ minutes, followed by myself for 7\1/2\ minutes, Senator Lieberman will be allocated 10 minutes, and then Senator Hagel, 8 minutes, on our side.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe under the previous UC, if I am not mistaken, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be the next in our queue on our side. If I may ask for clarification, the order that I believe was encompassed in the UC on our side was the Senator from Pennsylvania, then the Senator from Texas, then Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, and then Senator Hagel, the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent agreement stipulate that following Senator Reed's comments, I be recognized.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have a list of speakers on our side, and I would ask to be recognized to ask if the Senator would revise his request that following Senator Reed, Senator Specter be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes. Then if we can alternate sides, and on our side, then, it would be the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, for 7\1/2\ minutes; Senator Lieberman for 10 minutes; and then Senator Hagel, who would use the remainder of our time, which I believe would be 8 more minutes. If we could revise the UC to reflect that order of speakers for our time, I would appreciate it.

Mr. CORNYN. No objection.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments we have heard this morning from the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and I couldn't agree more with the comments they have made. I would like to add some, perhaps, even more eloquent words--and rest assured they are not mine--to this debate because I think it helps us understand in a way that we might not otherwise understand what is at stake and what the people who are most directly impacted believe is at stake in the war on terror, particularly the conflict in Iraq. I first want to quote the words of Roy Velez. Roy is from Lubbock, TX, and has lost two sons--one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Recently, Roy Velez said: It is not about President Bush. It is not about being a Democrat or a Republican. It is about standing behind a country that we love so much. I know it has cost us a lot in lives, including my two sons, and it has taken a toll on America. But we can't walk away from this war until we're finished. I don't know anyone who has earned the right to speak so directly to what is at stake, the sacrifices that have been made, and the consequences of our leaving Iraq before it is stabilized and able to govern and defend itself. Then there is also the story of 2LT Mark J. Daily. Lieutenant Daily was 23 years old from Irvine, CA. He was with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Bliss, TX. Lieutenant Daily was killed on January 15 when an improvised explosive device exploded and ripped through his vehicle, taking his life and those of three fellow soldiers. Mark had been, as so many of our military have done, keeping in touch with his family via e-mail, and he maintained a blog on the popular My Space Web site. In that blog, Mark specifically explained why he joined, and this is what he wrote: Why I joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Baath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever-present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else who happens to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging area for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I would say in closing that we can't claim to support the troops and not support their mission. If we don't support the mission, we should not pass nonbinding resolutions. We should do everything within our power to stop it. I do believe that we should support that mission. I do believe we should support our troops. That is why I believe we should send them the message that, yes, we believe you can succeed, and it is important to our national security that you do. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in response to the distinguished Senator from Oregon, I believe our morning business time has expired and we would yield back any remaining time so the Senator from Oregon can begin his remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. If there is 10 minutes remaining, I would like to take the next 5 minutes and then yield to Senator DeMint for the remaining 5 minutes, if the Chair would please advise.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, could you advise me how much time our side has remaining in morning business?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I start by telling the Senator from Missouri how much I appreciate his leadership on this issue. As the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, he knows as well as anyone what is at stake in Iraq and in the global war on terror. I know his son, Sam, is a member of the Marine Corps and has served in Iraq. I believe he is either back or headed back here very soon, so this is a matter in which the Senator from Missouri has a personal investment, in addition to the larger investment all Americans have in making sure our security is protected to the extent possible. That is what it boils down to. Some say we have to do this for the Iraqis. I suggest, as laudable as that is, we need to do this for us. What do I mean by ``this''? I mean what the Iraq Study Group--the bipartisan group created to look into the challenge of the conflict in Iraq--recommended. They pointed out quite clearly that it is in America's vital security interests to leave Iraq when we do. Of course, that is the goal we all share. We want to leave Iraq, but we must leave Iraq based on conditions where Iraq can sustain itself, defend itself, and govern itself. It is bewildering to see a vote like we saw last Friday in the Senate where GEN David Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, was confirmed unanimously by this Senate, yet there are those who say: Yes, we are going to confirm you, General, unanimously. We are going do say nice things about you and your talents and dedication and patriotism that you have demonstrated by your service, but the plan that you are the architect of, we are not going to support it. We are going to pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which, in his own words, undermines his ability to be successful in America's ability to protect its national security interests by leaving Iraq in a condition that it can sustain, govern, and defend itself, and which sends a wrong message to our enemies. The consequences of failure in Iraq are best summed up by the Iraq Study Group on page 34. They said that a chaotic Iraq would provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region around the world. It will surely be a failed state if we leave Iraq before conditions on the ground permit the Iraqis to govern, sustain, and defend themselves. It will likely lead to a failed state much as Afghanistan was after the Soviet Union was run out of Afghanistan in 1979. What was that condition? We know all too well on September 11, 2001, when America was hit by al-Qaida on our own shores, that what happened in the interim between the time the Soviet Union left Afghanistan was a rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida, including Osama bin Laden, who was plotting and planning and training and then exporting terror attacks against the United States and against our allies. It is entirely probable, in my opinion, that if we leave Iraq prematurely, before it can sustain, govern, and defend itself, Iraq will become another failed state like Afghanistan, another place where terrorists can train, recruit, and then export terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies. It is also likely that if we leave Iraq prematurely, it would lead to a broader regional conflict, probably involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and we may have to later return at a greater cost to our Nation. This is another matter to which I don't think the people have paid enough attention: to leave Iraq prematurely would lead to massive human suffering. The other day, the Judiciary Committee had a hearing on Iraqi refugees. Of course, there are brave Iraqis who have worked alongside America and our allies to try to restore democracy to that country after Saddam's bloodthirsty reign. They are worried, as they should be, that if America pulls out, along with our coalition partners, before Iraq is able to sustain, govern, and defend itself, they will be slaughtered. It will be ethnic cleansing where Shia will kill Sunni. It will draw in, likely, the Sunni majority nations such as Saudi Arabia to defend the Sunnis against ethnic cleansing. We are at a crossroads. The choices are not necessarily good ones, but they are the choices with which our Nation is confronted. We can either stay with the status quo which, frankly, I don't know anyone who believes the status quo is working or, No. 2, we can, as some have suggested, cut off funding for our troops and result in a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq or, No. 3, we can devise a new strategy in an effort to succeed where the current strategy has not in Iraq. I believe the obvious choice is No. 3. If we are going to confirm a new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, as we have done; if we are going to confirm a new general leading coalition forces in Iraq, like David Petraeus, as we have done; if we are going to confirm a new commander of Central Command, Admiral Fallon, as I am confident we will do; we need to ask for their advice, get their advice, and, frankly, take their advice. I am afraid this has become far too political and not focused, as it should be, on a bipartisan basis, on what is in America's strategic and security self-interest. The Washington Post summed it up in an editorial this way. They said legislators need a better way to act on their opposition to the current policy than passing a nonbinding resolution that may cover them politically but have no practical impact other than perhaps the negative one suggested by the general--and they are talking about General Petreaus. What are the negative impacts? General Petreaus made that clear in the nomination hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Senator McCain asked: Suppose we send you additional troops and we tell the troops, while we support you, we are convinced you cannot accomplish your mission, and we do not support the mission that we are sending you on. What effect does that have on the morale of the troops? General Petraeus: Well, it would not be a beneficial effect, sir. Senator Lieberman: A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that well, some clear expression that the American people are divided? General Petraeus: That's correct, sir. I understand as well as anybody the reservations that Members of the Senate have about the new plan. The question we all have is, Will it work? Obviously, there are no guarantees. However, I know there is one sure plan for failure that will embolden our enemies, undermine our allies, and demoralize our troops, and that is to pass a resolution of no confidence in the only plan that has now been proposed for a new way forward in Iraq: working with the Iraqi Government, Prime Minister Maliki, making it clear there are benchmarks they need to meet; that it is their country, and they need to take the lead. We will support them. We will help stiffen their spine, particularly when it comes to preventing sectarian violence and taking on the militias which have ruled the streets in so much of Iraq. But this is the only chance and the only alternative that has been offered by anyone, so far, as to the way forward. I make an appeal to our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. On November 7, we had an election. As a result of that election, Democrats no longer were a minority party but became the majority in the Congress, both in the House and in the Senate. While I understand that as a minority party frequently we do not have the opportunity to set the agenda or to provide the leadership and are left with criticizing what the majority party does, my hope would be that the new majority would rise to the occasion, would set partisanship aside as much as possible, particularly with regard to our national security interests, would not focus on the 2008 election or worry about individual political outcomes. My hope is the new majority would use this as an opportunity to work with the new minority to send a vote of confidence and to provide a plan, support for the plan that has been drafted by General Petraeus and supported by all our military leadership for the possibility of a successful way forward in Iraq. Frankly, for our friends on the other side of the aisle to merely criticize and offer resolutions of no confidence that are not binding is not an act of encouragement. It is not an act of patriotism but, unfortunately, as General Petraeus said, it will undermine our troops' morale and embolden our enemies. We all owe it to the troops who have risked their lives, to the families who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom and to protect our security, to do our very best to work together to try to support a way forward in Iraq which has the best chance of success. My hope is, in the coming days, through this debate, we will agree to do that, and we will avoid making political statements that have no binding effect and which serve only to embolden our enemies and undermine our friends. I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona on the floor of the Senate, and I yield to him.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have two amendments before the body I would like to explain briefly. Then I am impelled to respond to some of the argument we have heard from the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I guess the question he put was what do Republicans have against hard-working Americans? I will respond to that in a moment. Amendment No. 135 My first amendment has to do with the Federal unemployment surtax. In the 1970s, the Unemployment Trust Fund faced financial strains, so Congress imposed a surtax to bring money into the unemployment system, the unemployment compensation system, in order to meet its obligations. That debt was paid off in the 1980s. Congress has continued, however, to collect the unemployment surtax, proving the maxim once stated by Ronald Reagan that the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a temporary government program. I think this proves that. The Federal unemployment surtax should have expired 20 years ago. Since 1987, the surtax has taken approximately $28 billion out of the pockets of U.S. businesses. Is that $28 billion over 20 years worth the broken promise to eliminate it? I think not. Elimination of the surtax, which this amendment will do, will save businesses across the country-- and in my particular State, $135 million--but it will save businesses across the country proportionate amounts. This is an easy and logical way to trim payroll taxes. The FUTA tax without the surtax is sufficient to fund State and Federal unemployment administrations. Without the surtax, the Federal unemployment tax generates nearly $6 billion a year, and all accounts associated with the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund have ample balances. It is simply a matter of keeping the faith with the American people, when we tell them we have a temporary program and that program runs its course and serves its purpose, to eliminate it. That is what this amendment would do, and I ask the support of my colleagues for that amendment. Amendment No. 138 My second amendment addresses the issue of preventive health care. You might ask what does that have to do with regulatory and tax relief to small businesses and the minimum wage? Well, this amendment, which asks for the adoption of a stand-alone bill called the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act, would put small businesses on a level playing field with big businesses to provide health benefits to their employees that they can deduct but for which small businesses cannot deduct the same benefits they might want to give by outsourcing those to health clubs, for example. Let me explain where I am coming from. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce the risk of contracting chronic diseases. A physically fit population helps decrease health care costs, 50 percent of which, by the way, are borne by the Federal taxpayer. A physically fit population reduces Federal Government spending, reduces illnesses, and improves worker productivity. The costs, though, are not just measured in dollars. According to the Surgeon General's ``Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity'' published in 2001, 300,000 deaths per year in America are associated with being overweight or obese. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing or dying from some of the leading causes of illness and death in the United States. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer, and arthritis. It is important we not only treat these diseases once they are manifested but that we also explore ways to prevent them in the first place. Consider this statistic--the numbers are staggering. This is from the American Diabetes Association: The total annual economic cost of diabetes in 2002 in the United States of America was $132 billion. Direct medical expenditures totaled $92 billion and $23.2 billion of that was for diabetes care, $24.6 billion was for chronic diabetes-related complications, and $44.1 billion was for excess prevalence of general medical conditions related to diabetes. Indirect costs resulting to lost work days, restricted activity days, mortality, and permanent disability due to diabetes totaled $40.8 billion. One NIH study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that modest changes in exercise and diet can prevent diabetes in 58 percent of the people at high risk for the disease. What is more, the trial showed that participants over 60 years of age benefited the most, preventing the onset of diabetes by 71 percent. Even assuming that intervention with modest changes in exercise and diet is only half that effective, they estimated the possible 10-year savings to the health care system would be $344 billion. I think it makes enormous sense, as we look to try and level the playing field for small businesses as part of this comprehensive package, that we seriously consider leveling the playing field by providing an ability to prevent the occurrence--the incidence, I should say--of obesity-related diseases, namely diabetes, which causes so much human misery and so much unnecessary expense that could be avoided if we could encourage more Americans to a more active lifestyle and a better diet. So I ask my colleagues for their consideration of this amendment as well. Mr. President, could I ask how much time I have remaining?