John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I offered this resolution on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill about 10 days ago, and it was objected to at that time, so that is the reason I am back again today and yesterday. It took until today for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up with some reason not to support this amendment which condemns this ad against this four star general who wears the uniform of the U.S. Army and commands 170,000 soldiers currently serving in harm's way in Iraq. There is too much venom and too much poison in the political arena today. I do not like it any more than my colleagues on the other side. But we have a tradition in this country of, after the campaigns are over, trying to work together in the best interests of the American people. That is what we all try to do despite our differences, despite our party affiliation. But I would think we ought to rise up unanimously and condemn this character assassination of General Petraeus. And the fact that political campaigns in 2002 and 2004 involved ads that I think we all would find over the line as far as the political discourse in a contested election should not detract from or dilute our condemnation of this particular ad. You know, there is an unfortunate trend in our society today by people refusing to take personal responsibility for their conduct by saying: Well, we ought to condemn everybody, as if we should not condemn those individuals and those organizations which have clearly crossed the line in this case by saying: Well, we have to condemn everybody. Well, I think this is the place to start, by condemning this ad, this irresponsible ad run in the New York Times at a discount by that organization, by that business entity, in favor of MoveOn.org, for the kind of ad I would hope we would unanimously condemn. Rather than relitigating political campaigns in the past, my hope is we would vote for this amendment and vote against the Boxer amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in decrying the tone of modern politics where there are all too many personal attacks. But what they fail to recognize is those who volunteer to put ourselves up for public office, to run for public office, we know what we are going to be subjected to in the back and forth of a political campaign. What this amendment seeks to do, what the Boxer amendment seeks to do, is to change the subject. The subject is this ad. The subject of my amendment is this ad put in the New York Times on September 9, 2007, attacking a four-star general wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, the Commander of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq--not only this individual, but everyone under his command, 170,000, approximately, members of the U.S. military. What does it accuse him of? Cooking the books for the White House. The ad asks: Is it General Petraeus or General Betray Us? My friends on the other side of the aisle want to change the subject. They do not want to confront organizations such as MoveOn.org, which have the right to express their view thanks to the first amendment of the Constitution, thanks to people like General Petraeus and the brave men and women of the U.S. military who protect moveOn.Org's right to have its say. But we ought to have our say, too, and to condemn, in the strongest possible words and by our actions, this kind of irresponsible ad. It is clear, according to the New York Times Magazine of September 9, this was a part of an orchestrated effort, both on the Hill and off the Hill, to disparage this general before he even had a chance to make his report to the Congress. The Boxer amendment, with all due respect, is an effort to change the subject, is a smokescreen to try to distract colleagues on the floor from holding MoveOn.org and those who would slander and by character assassination attack the reputation of leaders of the U.S. military who are doing nothing more than their duty and what the Commander in Chief and this Congress asks them to do. This is an attempt to excuse this kind of conduct by trying to change the subject. I would urge my colleagues to reject it. Frankly, if colleagues are going to vote against my amendment, it will be tantamount to saying this kind of character assassination is okay. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis we would rise up and we would say it is not okay, it is unacceptable. If, in fact, there are colleagues who think the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from California is going to be a fig leaf, well, I tell you, it is not big enough, as most fig leaves are, to cover up the shame that will be on this body if we see colleagues vote against--basically vote for this kind of irresponsible ad. There is a difference in kind, and I hope colleagues would, on calm reflection, recognize the differences between those of us who run for public office and hold public office, and while we may all decry the kinds of personal attacks that have become all too common in political campaigns, it is a difference in kind for MoveOn.org and those who support them to make personal attacks against a four star general in the U.S. military commanding 170,000 American military servicemembers in a war zone in Iraq. It is my hope that colleagues would vote unanimously for the amendment which I have offered and reject the Boxer amendment as an attempt to change the subject and obscure the fact that this shameful ad is out there without the disapproval, so far, of this body. I think we all recognize that political campaigns are different. We do not necessarily like them, but we are all volunteers, and we volunteer to subject ourselves, unfortunately, to the tone of modern political campaigns today. I wish we could change it, and if there was a way to do so, I would support that effort. But I do not support the Boxer amendment because it fails to recognize the key distinction between those who are public figures by choice and those who are public figures by duty, people such as General Petraeus. It is a shame that we have not been able to get a vote yet on this amendment, but I am glad we will here in the next few minutes. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment on this character assassination against this good man and to vote against the Boxer amendment for the reasons I mentioned. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when General Petraeus was confirmed, the majority leader called him a great man. My colleague from California referred to him as an amazing man, saying: Of course I listen to General Petraeus. The Senator from Delaware said: I do not know anyone better than Petraeus. This is the thanks he gets after 9 months of service in Iraq.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this amendment is about the difference between a uniformed leader of our U.S. military, GEN David Petraeus, the difference between him and a political candidate. Surely our colleagues--all of us in the Chamber understand, having run for office ourselves, that there are things said in political campaigns which many of us regret. But our focus should not be distracted from this character assassination against a great American patriot. I can't believe any Member of this Senate would vote against this amendment which condemns this character assassination and by their vote against this amendment would say it is OK. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will not speak long because I know my friend from Iowa is here to speak in morning business. I do want to say that Senators certainly have every right to offer any amendment they choose, but they don't have a right to require me to modify my amendment. I am sorry they don't acknowledge the difference between somebody who has volunteered to become a public figure, a political candidate running for election, and somebody such as General Petraeus who in the performance of his duty is reporting to the Congress on the progress in a war in which 170,000 Americans are exposed to loss of life and limb right now. To try to resurrect the old political battles of the past with regard to what happened in the Georgia Senate race, or what happened in the race for President of the United States, we are not going to achieve consensus here. Those were political races and those people are public figures. I don't like it when I am criticized any more than my colleagues do, including Senator Kerry or Senator Cleland. But that is an apples-and-oranges comparison to somebody who is wearing the uniform of a U.S. soldier who is performing his duty to report to Congress on the progress of military operations in Iraq. So we may head down that road. As I said, it is every right of my colleagues to offer other amendments. We will take those as they come. But I hope all of our colleagues will, as an act of solidarity and support for General Petraeus and our men and women in uniform, vote for my resolution and condemn this character assassination on the name of a good man. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am not willing to amend my amendment, as the distinguished majority whip requests. He keeps emphasizing this is a Texas-based group. I have no idea whether it is. But let me tell my colleague what the differences are between this ad and what MoveOn.Org tried to do to this good soldier and the difference between that and a political campaign. Senator Kerry chose to run for President of the United States. You and I and others may disagree with the tactics employed by third parties in the course of a Presidential campaign, but this is not a Presidential campaign. General Petraeus did not volunteer to run for political office and subject himself to the spears we all sometimes catch as part of the political process. All this general has sworn to do is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to protect this country from attacks from our enemies. So I would say it is apples and oranges to compare what happens in a political campaign with the attack on this general in such a premeditated and vicious way as MoveOn.Org did before he was to deliver his testimony before the Congress.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if this amendment sounds familiar, it is because I offered this amendment roughly 10 days ago. In response to my colleague from Illinois, this is virtually the same amendment I offered during the consideration of the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, to which the other side of the aisle raised a point of order, and it was judged not germane. I respect that ruling on that bill, but we are back here today, 10 days later, on the Defense authorization bill--a bill to which this amendment is clearly germane. I want to make a few points. First of all, for my colleagues' recollection, I have in the Chamber a copy of the ad that ran on September 9, 2007, immediately before GEN David Petraeus came to testify before the Congress, along with Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq from the United States. It is important for colleagues to recognize that this ad ran before the general came to testify, even though it had been well known the general would come back in September 2007 and report on progress on the fight in Iraq, both from a military as well as a diplomatic perspective. So it is clear, at least to me, the purpose of this ad was to smear the good name of this four-star U.S. Army general, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq, before he even had a chance to make his report to the Congress and to the American people on the progress of the surge of forces and of operations in Iraq. As the amendment, which has been read, indicates, General Petraeus is the senior commander on the ground for the United States and coalition forces in Iraq. Before the general testified, this ad placed in the New York Times--apparently at a discounted rate below the $167,000 ad rate which ordinarily would be charged for a full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times--this ad, which was sold at a discount by the New York Times to MoveOn.Org, asks the question: ``General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'' and accused this professional soldier of ``Cooking the Books for the White House.'' It goes on--and all of us can read--to further disparage the good reputation of this professional soldier and someone who is responsible for roughly 170,000 American men and women wearing the uniform of the United States military in Iraq. The reason why MoveOn.org bought this false ad was because they were afraid of what General Petraeus would indeed report when he testified before Congress a week or so ago. In fact, General Petraeus testified that ``the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.'' He told us the ``overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks,'' preceding his testimony. He said: ``Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq.'' He said: ``We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists.'' He went on to testify that ``Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well [as] bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December.'' He said: ``The number of civilian deaths has also declined during this [same] period.'' If that sounds familiar, it is because General Petraeus's testimony was preceded by the issuance of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, issued just the preceding month, which basically came to the same conclusions as General Petraeus. The National Intelligence Estimate, of course, represents the considered opinion of the intelligence community of the U.S. Government. It is delivered by the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to requirements of Congress in law. The National Intelligence Estimate, issued just last month by the U.S. intelligence community, found there have been ``measurable improvements'' in Iraq's security situation since last January before General Petraeus's implementation of the new strategy. The NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate, found that if our troops continue to execute the current strategy, Iraq's security environment will continue to improve over the next 6 to 12 months; and that changing the U.S. mission in Iraq would erode security gains achieved thus far. Well, it is not just General Petraeus's testimony. It is not just the National Intelligence Estimate that was rendered last month. We had a commission created by the Congress, headed by former Marine GEN James Jones, and with a group of commissioners whose cumulative military experience exceeds 500 years. Also on this commission were a number of police chiefs and other law enforcement personnel with more than 150 years of law enforcement experience. So it is clear by virtue of their experience they have a solid basis for the judgment they rendered. Well, it is important to note that not only did General Petraeus testify, as I have indicated, not only has the National Intelligence Estimate said what I quoted, the Jones Commission also found that the Iraqi Armed Forces--the Army, Special Forces, Navy, and Air Force--are increasingly effective and are capable of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq. The commission--we were told before a hearing in the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit--thinks that over the next 12 to 18 months the Iraqi forces will continue to improve their readiness and capability. I noted during the testimony of General Petraeus that this is one of the first times I can think of where the messenger was shot for delivering good news. In other words, this ad run in the New York Times before the general testified is contradicted by not only his testimony but by the National Intelligence Estimate I mentioned and the Jones Commission, representing more than 500 years of military experience. It is sad to say but true that this ad represents what I would consider to be a sign of the times. Now, I know the distinguished majority whip is on the floor, and I recall that when I offered this bill on the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, we had a colloquy talking about: Well, everybody makes mistakes. Occasionally, people will misspeak and not accurately say what they intend to convey. But since this ad ran, since the time the distinguished majority whip and I had this colloquy, MoveOn.Org has expressed its pride at running this ad. In other words, they said they were glad for what this ad conveys. They are not ashamed of it. They didn't say it was a mistake or they misspoke; they continue to stand behind this slur on the good name of General Petraeus, a man who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to do everything in his professional ability to win the conflict in Iraq. So even before Congress received the Petraeus-Crocker reports, we know some critics had already declared the surge to be a failure. There are those who said they didn't care what General Petraeus had to say. Now, after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have reported, some of these same people are, such as MoveOn.Org, questioning their judgment--which is their right--but also their motivation, which I think if they are agreeing with the motivation that is expressed in this ad, I respectfully disagree with them. It is puzzling why some of my colleagues insist on moving the goalpost for our military. In fact, I think what they experience is what happens when anybody bets against the U.S. military. It is dangerous to do because they are going to lose if they are betting against the men and women of the U.S. military. I cannot fathom how the success of our troops in improving the security situation in Iraq could possibly be construed as a bad thing for our Nation, but some apparently, including MoveOn.Org, seem to think it is. I refuse to stand by while a group such as MoveOn.Org demeans the good name of an American soldier who represents, in turn, 170,000 American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and Coast Guard. I refuse to stand by while this group demeans the good name of our men and women in the U.S. military who have given so much for our country. The military service of General Petraeus alone is spotless, and he has proven time and time again, with his blood, his sweat and his tears, his patriotism and his love for our country. As a matter of fact, one would be hard-pressed to find another military officer with the qualifications that are as impressive as General Petraeus. Currently serving his third combat tour in Iraq, he has literally been there and done that, and he has done it with dignity, with honor, and devotion to service. Today, I offer all my colleagues a chance to clear the air and set the record straight. For some of them, voting for this amendment may represent a chance to show true moral courage and true political courage as well. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that GEN David Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces are to be supported and honored and that any effort to attack their honor and their integrity should be condemned; particularly before the general was able to even deliver his testimony, where MoveOn.Org and these critics could not have known what he was going to say, and that clearly the goal of this ad and MoveOn.Org was to undermine public confidence in the messenger before the messenger even had a chance to deliver that message. My amendment expresses a sense of the Senate that General Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces should be protected and defended against an attack on their honor and integrity. By introducing this amendment, I call on all Senators to tell America they do not condone such character assassination of those who are sworn to protect the very freedom we enjoy and the very system of government in which we all serve. Our military servicemembers simply deserve better. I hope all Members of the Senate would join with me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, that I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside to send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment mandates that the Department of Transportation can inspect Mexican trucks, Canadian trucks, and American trucks by exactly the same high public safety standards. If, in fact, under this pilot program those requirements are not met, it defunds this pilot program that is part of our compliance with our 1993 treaty agreements under NAFTA. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess I have to agree with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota that there is no legal issue because, frankly, the legal issues have all been decided, all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and by the NAFTA arbitration panel. So, in effect, the mandate to allow Mexican trucks that meet high safety standards is the law of the land. The question is whether we are going to comply with it in a way that protects the safety of the driving public in America. My amendment makes clear that we should maintain and mandate high standards, and my amendment does that. I would never tolerate an unsafe truck on our American highways, particularly on Texas highways. I don't care whether it comes from Mexico or Canada or from the United States, we should not tolerate unsafe trucks. What my amendment does is it makes sure that those high safety standards are enforced and maintained. I have to ask: How does it look if we are going to hold trucks coming from Mexico to a different standard than we are with trucks coming from Canada? The suggestion is that because trucks are coming from Mexico, they are somehow incapable of meeting these high safety standards. I can tell my colleagues, as somebody who comes from a border State with 1,600 miles of common border with Mexico, there are challenges along the border, but legal trade and legal commerce are important to the people in Texas, and they are important to the people of the United States. For every truck entering into the United States from Mexico that has to be tested, if it fails to pass a test, it will be put out of service; for every truck that is going to come into the United States under NAFTA, a truck will be able to travel from the United States into Mexico. So this is a matter of enforcing free trade requirements that are part of the law of the land that have been litigated all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and about which there isn't any controversy. The only question that remains is whether we are going to treat trucks from Canada and trucks from Mexico the same. I submit we should, and we should hold both to the high standards of public safety which my amendment will require. And as I said earlier, if in fact trucks participating in this program must be inspected every 3 months, the same standard as U.S. trucks, every driver entering the country under this program would have to verify compliance with safety requirements and they would have to do so every time they enter the United States. If in fact the Department of Transportation's inspector general fails to certify that the program actually makes sure every truck is inspected and every driver is verified--if the inspector general fails to certify to such--then funding for this program would be automatically suspended. So under my approach, for the first time, we will enshrine the principle that we inspect and certify every single truck, whether it comes from Mexico or whether it comes from Canada, that would enter the United States under this program. I know that previously a letter from the Secretary of Transportation has been made part of the Congressional Record here which addresses some of the concerns raised by the Senator from North Dakota with regard to border license checks of drivers working for Mexican carriers. The Department of Transportation has noted that there is a required check of the commercial driver's license of each driver of a Mexican domiciled carrier crossing the border. So I believe the concerns raised by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota have been addressed by the Department of Transportation, and given the stringent inspection requirements and public safety requirements of my amendment, I believe that is what my colleagues should support, one that is compliant with what in essence is the law of the land and which will protect the safety of the public. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are checking, and we will be able to let you know momentarily. Amendment No. 2842 Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2842 to the pending bill and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think it would be helpful for Members of the Senate to recount the history of this pilot program because it demonstrates that this pilot program was adopted as part of the treaty obligations of the United States, dating back to 1993. I know that seems like a long time ago. It was certainly long before I got in the Congress. But I do believe this is relevant to the debate. Of course, in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, was adopted. But, relevant to this amendment, it had the requirement that signatory countries--in other words, Canada, Mexico, and the United States--are to give each other access to each other's long-haul commercial trucks. There was initially a refusal to enact the provision with regard to Mexican trucks, and in 1995 Mexican trucks were to have been given full access to four U.S. border States. In 2000, under NAFTA, this 1993 treaty obligation, Mexican trucks would have been given full access throughout the United States. In 2001, this matter was taken to a NAFTA arbitration panel, which ruled that the United States is in violation of its commitments under NAFTA and must open up its highways to Mexican trucks. In 2001, Congress passes the 2002 Department of Transportation appropriations bill, which set 22 safety-related preconditions for opening the border to long-haul Mexican trucks. In 2002, the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, announced that all of the preconditions--those 22 safety preconditions--had been met and directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to act on the Mexican application. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed implementation of this provision. But then, in June of 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and ruled that Mexican trucks could operate in the United States pursuant to the 1993 NAFTA treaty. In 2007, the administration announced a pilot project to grant Mexican trucks from 100 transportation companies full access to U.S. highways. In May 2007, the Iraq war supplemental mandates that any pilot program to give Mexican trucks access beyond the border region cannot begin until U.S. trucks have similar access to Mexico and requires a report of the Office of the IG. In September 2007, the Office of the IG issued its report. The next day, the administration issued its first permit to enter the United States under the program. I wish to address the concerns many of my constituents have addressed to me regarding the Mexican truck demonstration program because I think we ought to be guided by the facts and not solely by fear. I understand, however, the fear people have of unsafe trucks coming into the United States. Frankly, I would not for a moment tolerate that, nor do I believe would any Member of the Congress. I firmly believe the American people must have confidence that their family's safety is not endangered by any truck, whether it be Mexican, American, or Canadian. As my colleagues know, as I have just recounted, the United States is under a treaty obligation through NAFTA to open our interior to long- haul trucks from Canada and Mexico, just as they are required to open their highways to American truckers. I believe we should live up to our treaty obligations, and I say that even if I don't necessarily agree with them because they are, as a matter of fact, the law of the land, and whether I agree with it or the Senator from North Dakota agrees with it, once the matter is adopted as a treaty obligation of the United States, it is litigated not only by the NAFTA arbitration panel but by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, and I think his opinion or mine about whether it is something we prefer to happen becomes pretty much a moot point if we are to be a nation of laws and respect the judgments of the courts, even if we don't happen to like it. I do believe we have a high obligation, however, to ensure that the trucks on our roads live up to the high standards of safety the American people demand. So I think it is important for people to understand what this demonstration program entails because there has been misinformation about it. Under this program, 100 precertified Mexican trucking companies would be able to expand operations beyond the U.S. border zones. At the same time--and this is an important part of the deal--100 U.S. trucking companies would be allowed to operate in Mexico. This is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street when it comes to international trade and commerce. As required by Congress, Mexican trucks must have a U.S.- based insurance policy, must comply fully with hours of service regulations, must maintain vehicles to U.S. carrier standards, and drivers must be able to communicate in English so they can understand the instructions of law enforcement and other safety personnel. They must also pass drug and alcohol testing requirements. Many of the safety provisions included in the program the Department of Transportation has adopted, in fact, go well beyond what Congress has required to date. I am here today to have a real debate about safety and what we in Congress can do to take concrete steps to ensure the highest standards of truck safety. The solution to me is simple, and it is embodied in my amendment, which we will have an opportunity to vote on. My amendment, for the first time, will make it U.S. law that every truck participating in the demonstration program must be inspected every 3 months to the same standard as U.S. trucks. Every driver entering this country under the program will have to verify compliance with safety requirements, and they would have to do so every time they entered the United States. The Department of Transportation's inspector general will be required to certify soon after the program is fully implemented that the Department has, in fact, inspected every truck and verified every driver. This is the Department of Transportation of the United States Government; no other government. They must verify every truck inspection and verify every driver. If the inspector general of the Department of Transportation fails to certify such, then funding for this program will be automatically suspended. Under this approach, for the first time, we will statutorily enshrine in American law the principle that we inspect and certify every Mexican truck that enters the United States through this program. It is also worth noting that this will be the first time in the history of the program that there will be an actual congressional requirement for the inspector general to certify the program. Previously, Congress has only required the inspector general to review the program. Finally, my amendment will require the administration to provide 60 days' notice to Congress should they wish to extend or otherwise continue the demonstration project. Such notice will give this body ample time to consider the merits of the program as implemented and what modifications, if any, we want to make. By moving forward on a conditional basis with a threat of a full shutdown if the inspector general finds the program is noncompliant, we will further incentivize the Department of Transportation to strenuously enforce the safety inspection and verification requirements under this new law. It is also worth noting that the Department has already taken a ``go slow'' approach--I am glad they have--planning to allow only up to 25 carriers per month into the program in the first 4 months. Even at the height of the program, the Department expects a maximum of 500 to 600 trucks to participate, compared to the millions of domestic and Canadian trucks that currently operate on our roads. I have heard the claim has been made that there are no site-specific plans for each point of entry to ensure compliance with new verification and inspection standards. The Department of Transportation did, in fact, develop site-specific plans for all 25 commercial crossings in full coordination with Customs and Border Protection, and other relevant agencies, although they did not finish them in time for the inspector general's data collection. Furthermore, the inspector general raised concerns about training of State enforcement officials. Of course, any time a new policy is enacted, there will be challenges as personnel become accustomed to the new rules. That is why the Department has conducted and will continue to conduct rigorous training with State enforcement officials. And it is important we not look to training as a one-shot deal. Many of the lessons on how best to ensure the safety of trucks entering this country will be learned on the ground. I believe that instead of trying to kill this program, which will violate the treaty obligations of the United States of America as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and international arbitration panels, we in the Congress have a duty to find workable solutions that ensure as much as humanly possible the safety of trucks on our roads and make sure, whether they be American trucks or Mexican trucks or Canadian trucks, that they are all held to the same high standard. My amendment will do this, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and Ohio would take ``yes'' for an answer. I agree with them. Public safety is No. 1. That is what my amendment guarantees. It guarantees inspections of trucks whether they come from Mexico or domestic American trucks or whether they come from Canada. The U.S. Federal inspectors perform and Mexican trucking companies must pass a preauthorization safety audit conducted in Mexico by Americans prior to granting authority to operate beyond the U.S. border commercial zones. This audit includes inspection of vehicles the company intends to use in long-haul operations in the U.S. and a thorough inspection of the company's records to ensure compliance with Federal safety regulations. Vehicles not inspected cannot be used for long-haul operations in the United States. Every inspector reviews Federal safety regulations with the carrier, including those governing driver hours of service, to ensure the carrier is knowledgeable of and comprehends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations. This is not about safety, because we all agree that is nonnegotiable, and my amendment protects public safety. So what is it about? It is apparently about protectionism; it is apparently about fear of competition in the marketplace. It is fear of free trade, which, to my way of looking at things, provides new markets to American producers, new opportunities, more revenue, and creates more jobs right here at home. Why in the world would we want to do anything that would discourage job creation and greater prosperity here at home by opening up new markets and new opportunities to American producers? We can try the way of protectionism versus free trade, but I guarantee you that is a net loser for the American worker. So if this is about safety, then we certainly all agree. If this is about fear of competition and discriminating against Mexican trucks that are required to meet the same high safety standards as trucks that come from Canada, then I think that sends a very bad signal and not something the Senate should endorse. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. If all time has been yielded back or expired, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. Yes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the clarification. However, the objection still stands, inasmuch as it is premature to pose that unanimous consent request at this time.

Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am in support of this. I know we all are in favor of the Wounded Warrior legislation, as well as the troop COLA amendment, which I am proud to say passed by unanimous consent of the Senate. But it is not technically in order for the Senate to act at this time, as the bill is over on the House side. Therefore, I would object.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He is one of the most gifted speakers in the Senate, and he is a brilliant lawyer. We serve together on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I agree with him that sometimes people say things they later regret. He is right, both of us have been in that barrel, and we have asked for forgiveness. Hopefully--I do believe, actually, we have received that. But I do think he protests too much. This simple amendment--which would take us 15 minutes to vote on, if allowed to do so--has to do with more than just a simple disagreement with what General Petraeus has said. This is a direct attack, impugning the character of this distinguished member of the U.S. Army. It is not simply a poor choice of words. The Senator from Illinois said: I do not subscribe to that point of view. If we would have an opportunity to vote on my amendment, his vote in favor of my amendment would, in fact, confirm what he has already said on the floor--that it is a poor choice of words and he does not subscribe to that point of view. At the same time he asked: We are on the Transportation appropriations bill. Why are we talking about this now? Well, frankly, there are a lot of people who think the global war on terrorism and our success or failure in Iraq are just as important--I would submit more important--than an appropriations bill. But the fact of the matter is, we could do both, and we could get this amendment voted on in rather short order. So I do think this amendment is timely. General Petraeus testified yesterday before a joint committee of the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee in the House. He is testifying, even as we speak, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and will testify this afternoon before the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think this is a timely matter, where we should express our strongest repudiation of the kind of despicable attack on the character of this good man that this ad represents. This ad reportedly cost roughly $160,000 in the New York Times by MoveOn.org. I have already spoken to the coordination between these outside groups--including MoveOn.org, reported in the New York Times Sunday magazine in an article entitled ``Can Lobbyists Stop the War?'' talking about regular consultation and coordination between these outside groups and Democrats on the Hill. I agree with the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell. This is a way for our friends on the other side of the aisle to show some separation between the irresponsible rhetoric of these groups, such as MoveOn.org, and their own position. All I am asking is that the distinguished majority whip--who has already said this is a poor choice of words and that he doesn't subscribe to that point of view--allow the amendment to be voted on, and by voting for the amendment, he will basically confirm what he has already said on the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before I respond to the distinguished majority whip, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Inhofe, the Senator from Oklahoma, be added as an original cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, once the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota is sent to the desk, spoken on, if my amendment will then become the pending business, if I understand the request, I have no objection.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.