John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I know the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is here. I would be glad to yield to him, if I can retain the right to the floor. I think he has a few comments he wanted to make in response to the chairman. If I can do that, I would ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. CORNYN. Responding to the distinguished Senator through the Chair, I would be happy for him to take whatever time he wishes to make comments now. Since he has made the objection, this would be a good time to do so, if he wishes.

Mr. CORNYN. In a moment I will offer an amendment, and I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is here, but I wish to lay 5 minutes of groundwork. The majority leader was down here earlier today talking about all the ``necessary votes'' that we have to have before everyone leaves town before the holidays. Of course, he was talking about a series of votes on nominees that he himself has set up since he is, in essence, the traffic cop for the Senate, and he gets to set the agenda unilaterally. We know that while the majority leader has set up this series of votes on nominations--none of which are urgent and couldn't be done in January, and all of which are controversial--the majority leader is refusing to allow any vote on restoring pension benefits to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Services. As we have talked about repeatedly over the last couple of days, the recent budget deal cuts their pension benefits by some $6 billion over 10 years, and we have learned that this agreement slashes the pension benefits of some of our wounded warriors, people who are medically retired. Senator Murray from Washington, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has called this a technical error--a technical error. She said it needs to be fixed, but we will do this next year. Merry Christmas to our wounded warriors whose pensions, by virtue of the legislation that passed yesterday, have now been cut. What makes matters worse is they have been discriminated against. No other Federal employee's pension benefits were cut, only those uniformed military members' pensions. She calls it a technical error. I called it a mistake that needs to be fixed--not next month, not next year, but right now, today. Why is it that the majority leader won't let us fix this right now. Why is it that he is blocking a vote on the relevant amendment? Why does he want to keep our veterans and our active duty military, including our wounded warriors, in limbo during the Christmas holidays? Does he have a good reason for it? Is it really more important to confirm some mid-level appointees than to make sure that our wounded combat veterans get the pensions that they have earned? Is it really more important for the Democrats to jam us with nonessential, nonurgent nominees than to take care of the people who sacrificed so much for their country? One last question. Is it really more important to approve all of these nominees than to honor the men and women who lost their lives in a homegrown terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas, some 4 years ago at the hands of MAJ Nidal Hasan, a radicalized major in the U.S. Army who shouted the words ``Allahu Akbar'' before he proceeded to mow down 13 people, costing them their lives, and to injure 30 more soldiers and uniformed military who were injured that day. The majority seems to think of this group of nonurgent, and controversial mid-level nominees that we have to get this done. That is why he is jamming this through and not allowing us to amend this legislation with a fix to the military pension or to allow us to honor the victims at Fort Hood with the recognition and the benefits that they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, like so much around here lately, it is politics all the time, even if that means sleighting our wounded warriors and refusing to honor 13 brave Americans who were killed by a terrorist attack at a U.S. Army base. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion so that I may offer a motion to concur with amendment No. 2602, which is filed at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is unfortunate that the Senate schedule is chock-full of pending cloture motions that are controversial or completely nonurgent nominations. So I would ask the Senator to amend his consent request to say that the pending cloture motions on executive nominations be withdrawn and that following the disposition of the Defense bill, the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 1845, the unemployment insurance extension, and that the majority leader and the minority leader be recognized to offer amendments in an alternating fashion so these important issues can be considered this week. I ask for that amended consent request.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. As we all learned in civics class in high school, the purpose of the Senate was to ensure that every State in the Nation had at least two votes on important matters that might affect not only the country generally but also our States. Some of us represent small States and some of us represent large States. I am privileged to represent one that has 26 million people in it, and we are growing by roughly 1,000 or more people a day. They are moving to Texas because that is where the jobs are. Our economy is prospering relative to the rest of the country because, as I like to tell my friends in this Chamber from time to time, we still believe in the free enterprise system in Texas and the private sector that creates jobs, opportunities, and where people can move to pursue their American dream. Regardless of which party we come from or which part of the country we come from or who controls this Chamber, the Senate has historically recognized two fundamental rights; the right to debate legislation and the right to offer amendments to legislation. When those rights are denied, our constituents--particularly of those of us who are serving in the minority--are essentially severed. They lose their voice. They lose their opportunity to have their views represented in the amendment process, the shaping of legislation that could be improved or not. We know that when the minority voice is quashed--as this majority leader has done time and time again--and when minority rights are trampled, the Senate becomes a very different place indeed. We have become a place where mistakes get made, where purely partisan legislation is passed. The most obvious current example is ObamaCare, which was jammed through this body on a party-line vote in the House and in the Senate. People are finding out that if they like what they have, they can't keep it. Families of four will not see their premiums go down by $2,500. That is the kind of thing that happens when the majority succumbs to the temptation to jam things through without giving the back-and-forth opportunity, the deliberation that national legislation--legislation that will affect all 300-plus million Americans--should have. When the majority leader denies those rights and those opportunities or those sorts of checks, balances, and the natural correction that comes from building consensus in the Senate and instead resorts to a partisan power play, mistakes get made and people get hurt. Since the majority leader has taken that role, Senator Reid, the senior Senator from Nevada, has filled the amendment tree more than 70 times. For those who get bored at the concept of Senate procedure and how the Senate's rules actually work, I wish to say what that means is effectively the majority leader has denied the opportunity to offer any amendments to legislation by ``filling the amendment tree.'' That is the way he actually accomplishes that. By comparison to this majority leader who has done it more than 70 times since he has been majority leader, the previous majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, did it 12 times in 4 years. Before him, majority leader Tom Daschle only did it once in 1\1/2\ years. Majority leader Trent Lott of Mississippi did it 10 times in his 5-year tenure as majority leader of the Senate. Majority leader George Mitchell did it only three times in 6 years and majority leader Robert C. Byrd did it only three times in 2 years. In other words, this used to be an extraordinarily rare use of the tool that the majority leader has to block amendments to legislation. Majority leader Bob Dole did it seven times in 3\1/2\ years, about once every 6 months. By contrast, Majority Leader Reid has done it 70 times. What recourse does the minority have when they are blocked out of the legislative process on the Senate floor? The only tool we have available to us is to block cloture because it still takes 60 votes to get to a final passage of legislation. But when the minority exercises its rights, then we are called obstructionists. Because the majority leader has blocked any amendments and denied us an opportunity to have a choice in shaping legislation, the only recourse we have is to say that 41 Republicans will stick together and block the legislation, and, hopefully, set up a negotiation. But what happens more often than not is it is a politically posturing exercise and the majority leader will pull the bill down and rail against the minority as obstructionists. Well, this is a manufactured crisis. This place did not always work the way it does now. Last month this resulted in an unprecedented power grab by our friends across the aisle when they violated the Senate rules in order to further weaken the rights of the minority and to help President Obama turn the second most important court in the Nation into a liberal rubberstamp. I am talking about the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the fact this court has the lightest caseload of any of the circuit courts, the intermediary appellate courts in the Nation, it literally doesn't have enough work to do, while there are other judicial emergencies both at the district court and at the appeals court level that need additional judges--but because this court is the one that reviews many of the administrative regulations issued by the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency--in other words, they are the ones that will do the review of ObamaCare regulations or Dodd-Frank regulations-- the President and his allies saw this as an essential way to stack the court in a way that will rubberstamp his agenda. So what happened is the majority leader decided to further erode or basically deny the minority any right in the process for executive nominations and judicial nominations and said: You know what. With 51 Democratic votes, we can do anything we want--anything--when it comes to nominations. By using the so-called nuclear option, as it has been called, the majority leader and his allies went against the advice of some pretty wise Members who have been in the Senate for a long time, and I am thinking particularly about the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, who has served for six terms in the Senate and who is going to be retiring at the end of this next term. Prior to that vote, Senator Levin warned his fellow Democrats not to take up the nuclear option, to leave it on the table and to walk away, because he said pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach, which is central to our system of government. It is the checks and balances that are so important that Senator Levin was talking about. I know most people get bored when talking about the process by which things happen here or don't happen or the Senate rules, but they happen to be pretty important to our democracy and demonstrating respect for minority rights. And when minority rights aren't respected, we make some pretty bad mistakes, and I am thinking about two of them right now. We are currently debating the Defense authorization bill, which is a very important piece of legislation, because this is the authorization given to our national security agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, to be able to function and to keep our country safe. Yet once again, the majority leader is refusing any amendments to this underlying piece of legislation, including an amendment which would address the military pension cuts that were part of the recent budget agreement that passed yesterday. It was amazing to hear the mock horror of people in this Chamber when they found out that our Active-Duty military were being discriminated against and punished by the budget agreement that was passed yesterday to the tune of roughly $6 billion over 10 years. In other words, among everybody else in the Federal Government, they were singled out for worse treatment and were not grandfathered in to the pension reforms that were part of this deal for other Federal Government employees. This is one of the things that happens when things get jammed through: Mistakes are made and people get hurt. In this instance, the people who happen to get hurt are those who wear the uniform of the U.S. military and who have served with great hardship in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Some of these people have suffered the wounds of war--lost a leg, lost an arm, suffered traumatic brain injury or post- traumatic stress syndrome. What is the majority leader's answer to our attempt to fix that mistake in that legislation? You are out of luck. And not just those of us who are trying to fix it, he is telling those wounded warriors: You are out of luck. So when power plays take place in the Senate, when minority rights are denied and an opportunity to amend and improve and fix mistakes in legislation because of this power play by the majority leader, and the majority party that supports him, people get hurt. These pension cuts will impact veterans across the country. As I said, they will even impact combat wounded veterans who have been medically retired. This is a provision my colleague from Washington State, the Senate Budget Committee chair, called a technical error. As I said, not surprisingly, Members of both parties have come to the floor since this was highlighted and they have called either for rescinding those cuts to the pension benefits of our Active-Duty members or those who have been medically retired or they have proposed to come up with alternative measures to reduce the deficit by a commensurate amount. At the very least, the military retirees who have already sacrificed so much for our country should have been exempted. Well, they weren't. I am encouraged there has been some talk across the aisle about acknowledging the problem and the mistake. Yet instead of taking action today or yesterday, when we passed the budget deal that discriminated against other Active-Duty military, we were told: Just wait until next month; we will take care of it then. It sort of reminds me of why the most feared words in the English language are sometimes said to be: Don't worry, we are from the government. We are here to help. These wounded warriors need more than our rhetoric. They need our action. And they are the ones who are being punished by the strong-arm tactics of the majority leader and the majority party. Why should they have to wait? We know things don't always happen on schedule around here. There is time as the world knows it, and then there is Senate time, and those are very different things. Shouldn't we do everything possible now, today, to make sure these folks have peace of mind, particularly during this season of the year? If it was a technical error to include military retirees in the pension cuts, why are we not fixing the problem today? There is no good reason. There is zero good reason. These kinds of strong-arm tactics need to be called out. Because while some people seem to think these are technical rules of the Senate and they are bored by them--the press doesn't want to write any stories about them--what I am here to say is that people get hurt by hyper partisanship and strong-arm tactics in the Senate. People get hurt. Let me tell you about some other folks who are being shown disrespect as a result of the strong-arm tactics by the majority leader. I have introduced legislation that would allow for medals to be awarded to members of the armed services and civilian employees of the Department of Defense who were killed or wounded in an attack perpetrated by a home-grown violent extremist who was inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization. Of course, what I am talking about is what happened about 4 years ago at Fort Hood, TX, when MAJ Nidal Hasan, who had been radicalized by a Muslim cleric the President subsequently put on his kill list, and who was killed in a drone attack in Yemen--Anwar al-Awlaqi. Nidal Hasan had communicated with al-Awlaqi more than 20 different times by email, and over the years he had shown increasing tendencies to blame the United States for what was happening in the Middle East. He basically ended up declaring war against his own country, even while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army. Hasan killed 12 people in Fort Hood, TX--Killeen, TX--while standing up and yelling ``allahu Akbar,'' the cry often used by suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere. Clearly, this was not a case of workplace violence. That is what the government called it: workplace violence. This was a terrorist attack, pure and simple; no more, no less than what happened that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. And we know what the U.S. Government did in 2001, quite appropriately, in my view. The Secretary of Defense exercised his discretion to award Purple Hearts and the appropriate and commensurate benefits that go along with being casualties of war. That was war being declared against the United States. And the U.S. Congress issued an authorization for the use of military force, recognizing it as an act of war. But when I tried to offer this amendment to recognize the loss of life in the line of duty of 11 military members and a Department of Defense contractor being awarded the Medal for the Defense of Freedom, which is sort of the civilian equivalent to a Purple Heart, when we sought to make sure the 30 other people who were shot but who survived would also be recognized and given the appropriate benefits, what was the response of the majority leader of the Senate? Well, about the same as it was for those military pensioners--the people who are wearing the uniform today and are hoping to accrue a retirement they can live on when they leave the military service. The majority leader's response to both the victims at Fort Hood and to Active-Duty military with regard to their pensions that are now being cut back as a result of the vote yesterday, was exactly the same: Tough luck. Tough luck. I don't care. As I said earlier, while people may not care about the Senate rules and the traditions of the Senate, while they may not recognize this power grab that resulted in an unprecedented trampling of minority rights in the Senate, when these sorts of partisan power grabs happen, people get hurt. The ones most people feel today are the broken promises of ObamaCare, which passed on a party-line vote in the Congress. Mistakes get made. People get hurt. But today the people who are getting hurt the worst are the people we ought to be most concerned about--those who lost their lives in the line of duty in the war on terror, those who have been injured and survived those wounds, and those who keep us safe by fighting our Nation's wars. These are the people being hurt today. I will support the underlying Defense authorization bill, but I did vote against closing off debate yesterday because I felt the denial of the opportunity to offer amendments and the opportunity to vote on important corrections to the bill, which I described a moment ago, was a terrible mistake. But those cries for rationality and reason were simply ignored. I will vote for the underlying Defense authorization bill because it does contain some good work, but I am absolutely outraged on behalf of the people I represent in my State, some of whom I have described, by the majority leader's refusal to allow consideration of any amendments to the bill and his blatant disregard for the rights of my constituents. I close by reminding the majority leader what he himself said--words out of his own mouth--7 years ago shortly before his party took control of the Chamber. And it is amazing to me to see how people change around here when they get in the majority. Sometimes they forget they will not always be in the majority. I have been here in the majority, and I have been here in the minority. I can tell you that I enjoy being in the majority more. But we need to respect minority rights in the Senate because eventually, if you serve here long enough, you will find yourself in the minority, and what goes around comes around. But here is what the majority leader said before his party took control of this Chamber: As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. . . . The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. Back in 2006 I found those words inspiring. Today they are a bad joke. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I object.

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, it is unfortunate that the Senate's schedule is completely full with pending cloture motions on controversial or completely nonurgent nominations. I ask if the Senator would consider amending his request to withdraw all of the pending cloture motions on executive nominations and that the Senate would proceed immediately to consideration of S. 1797, the unemployment insurance extension, and that the majority leader and the minority leader would be recognized to offer amendments in an alternating fashion so that these important issues can be considered this week. I ask the Senator to consider amending his request and reserve my right to object.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we are going to be voting on the budget that was negotiated by Senator Murray and Paul Ryan. Sixty-seven Senators voted for cloture on that, so we will have a vote on passage this afternoon, I think about 4:30. But I wanted to raise an issue that has been raised previously-- yesterday; that is, the process by which the Senate is operating where no amendments are being allowed either on the budget or on the Defense authorization bill, which is the next bill we will turn to by the decision of the majority leader. I have congratulated Senator Murray and I congratulate Congressman Ryan for their negotiation. But I do think there is an error that has been identified that needs to be corrected in the bill and which could easily be corrected if the majority leader would reconsider his decision not to allow any amendments. This specifically has to do with the discriminatory way in which Active-Duty military pensions are being penalized in a unique way that not even Federal workers who are going to be treated differently prospectively, not even civilian Federal workers, are being treated in the same way our Active-Duty military are. Several of my colleagues came to the floor yesterday--the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Carolina and others--and pointed out the discriminatory treatment which could easily be fixed. I do not have any doubt but that the Senate would--as we attempted to do yesterday, the Senator from Alabama offered an attempt to take down the amendment tree the majority leader has filled. For people who do not follow the minutiae and the detail of what happens here in the Senate, the majority leader has basically blocked any opportunity to offer an amendment that would remedy this discriminatory treatment for our military servicemembers. I have heard at least two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: We can come back and do it next year. Why do it next year if we could do it now? I believe that if the Senate was given an opportunity to make this correction--I don't blame the Senator from Washington and Congressman Ryan in their efforts to come up with a budget to do what they did. I do blame us if we don't fix it this week when it is within our power to do so, and it is within the power of the majority leader to allow us to vote on that and to make that happen. I don't have any doubt whatsoever that if we were able to come up with an appropriate pay-for and a substitute for this cut in military pensions, it would pass like a hot knife through butter in the House of Representatives when they reconvene. Unfortunately, this is a product of the way the majority leader has decided to run the Senate. I have another example of that, which I wish to turn to. This has to do with an amendment that I have offered on the Defense authorization bill, which is a bill we will turn to after authorization of the budget. The Defense appropriations bill is a very important piece of legislation, and I congratulate Senator Inhofe and the House, both in the majority party and the minority party, for coming up with a pretty good bill. The problem is once again the majority leader has decided to transform the Senate into basically a railroad and to jam this bill through this week, probably by tomorrow night, without any opportunity to offer any amendments. That is a terrible mistake. The last time in recent memory that the majority party decided to jam through a piece of legislation was ObamaCare. I remember voting on Christmas Eve--something I hope we don't repeat this year--and that was a party-line vote in the House and the Senate. We are discovering, as ObamaCare is being implemented, that a lot of the promises that were made to the American people, such as: If you like what you have, you can keep it, and the cost of your health care will go down an average $2,500 for a family of 4--all of those were false. That is what happens, the kinds of mistakes that are made, when there are not bipartisan efforts to come up with compromise legislation. Instead, the majority party uses the power it has to jam things through. We make mistakes. Things aren't adequately considered. I don't care who you are; we all can benefit from other people's ideas and suggestions, and that is the genius of the checks and balances under the Constitution and under our form of government. But the majority leader has decided to put all of that aside. I read today in Politico that he has said he doesn't care that people are complaining about his ``my way or the highway'' approach. But it is not only about our rights as Senators to participate in the process--it is not only about the rights of the 26 million people that I represent in Texas, who are essentially being shut out of the process--this is about making mistakes that hurt people, mistakes that we would not make if we had taken the time in a bipartisan way to try to address some of these concerns. This discriminatory treatment of the military pensions is one example. Another example is when members of Al Qaeda struck our Nation on September 11, 2001, they made it clear they viewed the entire American homeland as the battlefield. We were reminded of this again about 4 years ago when a radical jihadist, who happened to be wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, MAJ Nidal Hasan, opened fire at a Fort Hood Army base in Killeen, TX. That shooter killed 12 American soldiers, 1 civilian, and shot and injured 30 more. This is a terrible tragedy. I remember President Obama coming down for the memorial service where we honored the lives of these people who lost their lives in this terrible attack. But no matter how we slice it, this was a terrorist attack on American soil, not much different-- except in the means by which it was carried out--than what happened on September 11, 2001. Prior to committing this terrible terrorist attack, the Fort Hood shooter exchanged no fewer than 20 emails with a senior Al Qaeda operative, al-Awlaki, who was subsequently killed by a U.S. drone attack in Yemen by the President of the United States. The shooter, Major Hasan, had become more radicalized over time--and this is a problem with our military that seemed to have turned a blind eye. But there is also a problem when the Federal Government calls this workplace violence and doesn't call it a terrorist attack, which it actually was. He opened fire in the name of global jihad in the hopes of defending the Islamic empire and supporting his Muslim brothers. That is why he asked the late Mr. al-Awlaki if Islamic law justified ``killing U.S. soldiers and officers,'' and that is why he yelled out ``Allahu Akbar'' before committing this massacre. If a U.S. soldier is killed in Afghanistan by an Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist alongside the Taliban, he or she will posthumously be given a Purple Heart award and his or her family will receive the requisite benefits that go along with losing your life in service to your country. Yet the U.S. Government has chosen to discriminate against these people who lost their lives at Fort Hood 4 years ago at the hands of a terrorist, who tragically happened to be a member of the uniformed military of the United States, MAJ Nidal Hasan, who has subsequently been convicted of these crimes. Even though Major Hasan saw himself as an Islamic warrior serving the cause of an officially designated terrorist organization, the U.S. Government has chosen to treat this as something that it is not, which is an ordinary crime or, in the Orwellian use of the phrase, workplace violence. It is an exercise in political correctness run amuck. But the government's argument is that because the Fort Hood shooter was not acting under the direct and explicit direction of a foreign terrorist group, the victims of this terrorist attack 4 years ago were not eligible for the Purple Heart awards or the benefits that they deserve. Al Qaeda, as we know, doesn't issue business cards or staff IDs, so sometimes it is a little bit difficult to say which terrorists are ``officially'' part of Al Qaeda and which ones are not, but the distinction is irrelevant. The war on terrorism, as we know, has evolved considerably since September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has evolved too. Whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, or now Yemen and in other places, Al Qaeda has morphed. Several months ago, the group's top leader, al-Zawahiri, urged his followers to conduct exactly the kind of terrorist attack that occurred at Fort Hood and occurred in Boston in 2013. Zawahiri said, ``These dispersed strikes can be carried out by one brother, or a small number of brothers.'' Let us imagine that a radical Islamist heard these words, contacted an Al Qaeda cleric to ask about killing Americans, and then went on to slaughter a number of U.S. soldiers. It shouldn't matter where those killings took place, and it shouldn't matter whether the killer had ``formal'' ties with Al Qaeda or not. There really isn't any doubt about Hasan's ties to Al Qaeda or his being inspired by someone who the President of the United States put on a kill list for a drone because he knew they were recruiting and inspiring attacks against the American people. If it is good enough for the President of the United States to order a drone attack on an American citizen in Yemen, it ought to be good enough for this body to recognize this was a terrorist attack because of Hasan's inspiration and communication with this very same terrorist. We ought to award these families the Purple Heart awards that these servicemembers are entitled to and the benefits that they deserve. It is clear that these casualties at Fort Hood were part of America's struggle against Al Qaeda and the global war on terrorism. They were casualties of a war that continues to rage in Afghanistan and that only recently claimed an additional four American lives. It also extended to places such as Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed. Whether or not the Fort Hood shooter had Al Qaeda stamped on his forehead is irrelevant. He was unquestionably a disciple of Al Qaeda's poisonous ideology, which has fueled death and destruction around the globe and here in our homeland. As I have indicated at the beginning, I have sponsored legislation that would make the Fort Hood victims eligible for the honors and benefits available to their fellow U.S. soldiers and troops serving in overseas combat zones. I offered a modified version of that bill as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, which we will take up immediately following the passage of the budget legislation this afternoon. The majority leader has refused to allow a vote on it. We may recall, before the Thanksgiving recess, we had, I believe, two amendments to the Defense authorization bill, and then the question was what other amendments might be offered. The majority leader made clear he wasn't going to allow any other amendments--except of his own choosing--thus denying the minority any opportunity to help amend and improve the Defense authorization bill, one of the most important pieces of legislation this body takes up every year. So cloture was not invoked, and now in the waning days before the Christmas holidays, the majority leader seeks to jam through this bill that was agreed upon by basically four people behind closed doors and deny me--representing 26 million Texans--and deny those of us who care about calling a spade a spade when it comes to terrorism an opportunity to offer an amendment on the Defense authorization bill. It is a mistake, no less a mistake than denying an opportunity to fix the mistake of discriminatory treatment of our servicemembers whose pensions are being cut as a result of the budget negotiation. Not only has the majority leader refused to allow a vote on this Purple Heart awards amendment, he has refused to allow any other amendments, both on this budget negotiation or on the Defense authorization. As I said, the budget agreement passed by the House of Representatives would slash military retirement benefits by about $6 billion over the next decade. I have heard on cable TV at least two Members of the other party of this body who said we need to fix that. The Senator from New Hampshire has offered legislation, I believe. I heard the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Kaine, say we could come in and fix this with a scalpel after the fact. We don't need to wait; we could do that today. I am confident that we could reach an agreement in this body today to remove that discriminatory treatment for our active duty military contained in this underlying bill, if the majority leader would only listen, listen to his own Members, listen to the American people, and listen to those who care about our servicemembers and want to make sure that they are not treated in such an unfair and discriminatory fashion. But, instead, the majority leader has decided ``it is my way or the highway.'' We know these cuts will even affect combat-wounded veterans who have been medically retired. My State is the proud home to more veterans than any other State other than California, and many of my constituents are outraged that the majority leader won't even allow us to vote on this issue. I would tell my friends across the aisle, it is going to come up again. It came up yesterday, and it will come up again. We will be reoffering these amendments to fix this discriminatory treatment as long as we are in session, and I hope Members of both parties can put politics aside for 1 minute, come together, and address the needs of our military families and those who have worked so hard and sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necesarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).