John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I yield 1 minute.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have an amendment and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation that would increase the income tax rates on taxpayers. Yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee graciously indicated his support for this amendment. I hope nothing has changed overnight, and so I would hope my colleagues would support this taxpayer-friendly amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CORNYN. I am happy to yield to the ranking member of the Budget Committee. Amendment No. 466, As Modified

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this amendment establishes a deficit- neutral reserve fund for the Finance Committee if it reports a bill that reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, better known as SCHIP, but the important distinction is that this bill must cover children. One might ask: Why in the world would a program known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program, why would it be necessary to offer an amendment directing the Finance Committee to cover children? That is because the current proposal does not limit Federal funding to pay for health insurance for children. In fact, it creates a patchwork system which allows States to spend money that should go to cover children to cover adults and other individuals. While I certainly understand that, it leaves many children uncovered. The chairman's mark, the base bill that is on the floor, states the SCHIP program of the budget is to expand coverage of the estimated 6 million children eligible but not enrolled in either SCHIP or Medicaid. This is a more limited goal than covering every uninsured child, as has been stated on the floor as the goal. It assumes $15 billion in new SCHIP funding and includes an additional $35 billion in an allegedly budget-neutral reserve fund for SCHIP authorization, for a total of $50 billion for SCHIP reauthorization. This triples the size of the current program. There are no offsets outlined in the Democratic budget, and they can either be from spending cuts or tax increases. The Democratic reserve fund is for passage of legislation that meets three conditions. Let me point out the problem. The original purpose of the SCHIP program was to provide health insurance coverage for children below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. However, today some States have expanded their programs using Federal taxpayer dollars to include children up to 350 percent of poverty, not 200 percent and lower, but up to 350 percent, which is currently about $70,000 for a family of four. States have used this money without covering all their children to cover adults, parents, and even childless adults. Nine States cover children at 300 percent and above of poverty level. Here again, it is not an effort any of us could necessarily criticize in the abstract, but to take money that is designed for children at 200 percent of the poverty level and below and to cover children from families with much greater income and to cover adults and other individuals who are not part of the SCHIP purpose is off track. Twelve States will spend almost $807 million of their SCHIP money on more than 671,000 adults this year. The State Children's Health Insurance Program will cover 671,000 adults this year. Three States have more adults as enrollees than children. This is a matter of false advertising by the Federal Government. We have passed legislation, which I support, designed to cover low-income children, and the Federal Government has authorized a situation where now 671,000 adults are being covered, and people not from low-income families but middle- income families are being covered. Here again, I don't begrudge them the coverage, but to take a program designed for low-income children and use it for a purpose other than advertised is simply not honest, and it is not what Congress intended. Several States spend half of their SCHIP allotment on adults, so it is no surprise that more than one-third of the 14 States experiencing shortfalls have expanded coverage to adults. The other problem with the underlying SCHIP provision is, with more than 6 million SCHIP and Medicaid-eligible children still uninsured, shouldn't States cover the intended population before they expand their program? Why in the world wouldn't Congress support an effort to cover low-income children before we approve the use of that money to cover unintended and nontargeted populations? The SCHIP match rate is more generous than Medicaid's match rate. The children eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP should be covered by their respective programs. The other feature in the underlying bill this amendment would correct is this underlying provision supports States in their efforts to move forward in covering more children, but it has no income level cutoff. In other words, the stated objective of Chairman Dingell and Senator Clinton to cover children up to 400 percent of poverty level, which would translate to an income of $80,000 for a family of three, simply represents an unprecedented wealth transfer from the pockets of the American taxpayers to these families who should be expected to pay a portion of their own health coverage. The SCHIP amendment which I offer would instead focus the reauthorization of the SCHIP program on its original intent--low-income kids--by creating a budget-neutral reserve fund for the passage of this legislation. It would reauthorize and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It would emphasize providing health insurance to low-income children below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. It would limit the use of SCHIP funds for coverage of nonpregnant adults unless States are covering their low-income children first. It would allow parents to cover their children on their own health insurance plan with SCHIP funds. That is an important feature. Some parents have no alternative but to basically drop their own health insurance for their children in order to get them to be eligible under their State SCHIP funds. This would allow parents to cover their children on their own health insurance if, in fact, they have health insurance, by allowing the additional cost to cover their children to be paid from SCHIP funds. It is important flexibility that I would think all Members would support. It increases State flexibility so States can use innovative strategies to cover kids, and it improves and strengthens oversight of the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. I offered this same amendment in the Budget Committee last week, and it was opposed unanimously by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think we need to make a clear statement that SCHIP is a program for low-income children. Otherwise we ought to call it something else. Let's be honest with the American people. Let's not take something called the State Children's Health Insurance Program and make it a program for adults. That is simply dishonest. I don't think it is appropriate. I am concerned that using SCHIP dollars to provide coverage for childless adults diverts limited resources from covering children first, which is the original purpose of this program, a laudable purpose which I support. The fact is, more than 10 percent of those enrolled in SCHIP are now adults, approximately 639,000, according to the Government Accountability Office. These 639,000 adults are from nine States. The GAO agrees covering adults is not the point of SCHIP, certainly not what Congress said it intended to do. These State coverage expansions mean funds are being diverted from the needs of low-income children who go uncovered because those States choose to use it for other purposes. Adults accounted for an average of 55 percent of enrollees in the shortfall States compared to 24 percent in the nonshortfall States. Congress needs to make a firm statement that SCHIP is for children. If States focused on covering kids, it would have been much easier for them to stay within their allotments. This amendment makes clear that in the SCHIP program, our priority must be for low-income children. In addition, as I noted a moment ago, my amendment would allow States to continue to use innovative strategies to cover kids and will improve and strengthen the oversight of the SCHIP program to weed out waste, fraud, and abuse. I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment. I know the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, wants to use a portion of the time we have remaining on the amendment. I certainly reserve the remainder of the allotted time for him. I thank the Chair and the managers of the bill.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess, listening to the comments of my distinguished colleague from New York, we know this is about an effort to find the truth and follow the facts wherever they may lead, and I guess we should all be satisfied that this has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he chairs, because he wants us to believe this is about getting the facts--although the President today offered to produce his former White House Counsel and his adviser, Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove, for an interview to provide information to the investigators, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But we have just been told now that is unsatisfactory, that we will not be able to get to the truth. Well, I am as interested as anyone is, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as to what the facts are. But let me tell you, while I have some question as to all the information this investigation might turn up, I am not in doubt about this: President Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys appointed by his predecessor, a Republican President, and that was not about politics. This President has replaced eight U.S. attorneys whom he himself appointed, and that, for some reason, is supposed to be all about politics, all about dirty pool. Well, it just does not stack up. The fact is, this President, just like President Clinton, could replace U.S. attorneys for no cause. I think the real problem here--and I do agree it has been mishandled--is the suggestion that we somehow ought to be demanding in the public domain whether there are performance-related reasons why these particular U.S. attorneys were replaced that caused them to feel the necessity to defend their reputation in the public arena. Frankly, I do not think they should have to be put to that sort of debate. These distinguished lawyers ought to be able to move on in their careers with their reputations intact. But because of my colleague, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who is leading the charge in this effort, it, I believe, undermines what should be a legitimate inquiry into the facts. So I don't think anybody should be under any illusion of what the goal is here. It is not to get the facts or else the Senator from New York would have accepted the offer and said: Sure, we would be glad to talk to the witnesses who have been subpoenaed and who will appear from the Department of Justice. We will be glad to hear what Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers have to say. We will be glad to look at the 3,000 pages of documents produced by the Department of Justice yesterday, and we would be glad to look at the other documents that are being proffered by the White House. Instead, he has already reached a verdict. He has already concluded there is foul play regardless of the facts and regardless of what this information will yield. I think we shouldn't be under any illusion that this is about politics. It is not about a search for the truth. Frankly, I think this Congress and the Senate deserve better than that. We deserve the ability to conduct an inquiry to find out where the facts may lead without this conflict of interest the Senator from New York has. Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pointed out that this calls into legitimate question the whole basis for this purported investigation, and while he didn't call on him to recuse himself, he did suggest--and I think he is exactly right--that it undermines the legitimacy of what should be an inquiry into the facts. I think it is appropriate to point out to our colleagues that this sort of campaign by the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who is using this incident to raise money on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, of ethics complaints filed against colleagues is inappropriate and unworthy of this institution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, my concern is that amendments that are accepted or taken by voice vote are sometimes looked upon by the conferees as having less dignity and likely not to make it out of the conference committee as compared to amendments on which there is actually a rollcall vote. It would be my preference to ask for the yeas and nays and to have a rollcall vote. We can stack it along with other votes we will be having. I don't think it will delay the work of the chairman or the ranking member. That is my preference.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, there is nothing in this amendment that would preclude the action he described.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is also correct. This would not affect collecting taxes from what people are not paying that they do legitimately owe now.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that is correct.

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for their courtesy.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that raises income taxes on taxpayers. Now, I have served on the Budget Committee, and we have had discussions during the course of marking up this budget resolution in the committee. The chairman tells me it is not his intention for this budget to reflect a tax rate increase. I say good for him and good for us if that, in fact, is true. The problem is that this budget, over the next 5 years, contemplates a $146 billion increase in discretionary spending. That money has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, during the committee's debate on this budget, I offered this amendment, but it was opposed. I am told the chairman may have some different views today after additional clarification and explanation. We will see. But let me make sure it is clear that this amendment will not hinder our efforts to shut down and close illegal tax shelters or perceived loopholes in the IRS Code. This amendment deals with the tax tables contained in the 1040 form that the IRS annually sends to every taxpayer. It will not--let me be clear--it will not hinder efforts to reform or overhaul the Tax Code. Any tax simplification effort will need bipartisan support in the Senate, and if it is revenue neutral, I am confident it will be forthcoming. Rather, this point of order is an insurance policy when Congress decides to look at the pocketbook of taxpayers for even more revenue instead of looking for ways to eliminate Government waste, fraud, and abuse. The former Chief Justice, John Marshall, said: The power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to tax is the most powerful tool Congress has at its disposal, and my amendment puts it in a place where it will be a safeguard that will protect the pocketbooks of middle-class families, college students, and entrepreneurs. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are advocating that we pull the rug out from our economy and roll back the President's tax relief or simply let it expire on its own. That is the last thing we should do to protect growth policies of this Government that have helped this economy perform well. Similar to millions of Americans out there, I am very optimistic about where we are headed. Frankly, I am surprised that our numbers, the good numbers that are reported almost weekly and monthly have not made more headlines because we have one of the strongest economies of any industrialized country in the world despite the present-day challenges we experience. The economy's performance speaks to its resiliency and its strength. We can and we should take pride in this economy's performance and look for optimism toward the future. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that almost 100,000 new payroll jobs were created in February and that the unemployment rate remains at a historic low, about 4\1/2\ percent. The progrowth policies we have been working and living under have given rise to 21 straight quarters of growth and 7.6 million new jobs over the past 42 consecutive months--a tremendous accomplishment and a trend we must work to continue as we face significant fiscal challenges ahead. As we move forward, the last thing we need to consider is reversing the policies that have helped bring about this well- performing economy. We need to continue to generate more revenue, not by raising tax rates but by allowing this economy to create those revenues which are unprecedented in our Nation's history, as we allow more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money. In fact, I think we should go a step further and make the President's progrowth tax relief permanent, because if we don't, we will not only jeopardize future economic growth but also the financial well-being of millions of Americans--families, small business owners, seniors, all will face higher tax bills beginning in 2011. Not making this tax relief permanent will result in an increase in taxes to every American taxpayer. For example, a family of four with two children making $50,000 in annual income would see an increase of $2,092 in its tax bills or a 132-percent hike. The chairman of the Budget Committee argues that his budget does not raise rates to the American taxpayer, and I am hopeful that is the case. Frankly, there is no way the chairman can guarantee this policy assumption will remain, short of my amendment. I see this amendment as an insurance policy when Congress decides to look at the pocketbooks of the American taxpayers for more revenue, which would contemplate applying the brakes on the economy instead of eliminating Government waste, fraud, and abuse. I have had conversations with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. He has indicated to me that perhaps there are some questions he has about the import or the impact of this amendment. I would be glad to respond to any questions he may have.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would answer the Senator's question by saying it would not. The import and the effect of this amendment would be to prevent an increase in the rate of taxes but not to close loopholes on those who are not paying taxes or not their fair share of taxes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for John Krukameyer of my office to have floor privileges for today's session of the Senate. I also ask unanimous consent that a law clerk on my staff, Melanie Edwards, be granted floor privileges until March 31.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to point out some of the bitter ironies of this debate. Since roughly January, when the new majority took charge of this Congress, there have been numerous proposals with regard to how we should conduct ourselves in Iraq. I have tried to keep track of the various resolutions that have been proposed and, as my colleagues can see, there have been, according to my count, at least 17 resolutions. They start with the Biden and Levin resolutions, the Reid-Pelosi resolution, the Murtha resolution, the Biden-Levin resolution, the Conrad funding cut resolution, a waiver plan, a timeline plan, the Feingold resolution, the Obama resolution, the Clinton resolution, the Dodd resolution, the Kennedy resolution, the Feinstein resolution, the Byrd resolution, the Kerry resolution, and then the latest, the Reid resolution we are on today. Under this current iteration before the Senate, it says: The President shall commence the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructures, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. The reason I find this list of resolutions--and now with the culmination on March 15--somewhat ironic is we are beginning to see some of the signs of success of the new plan, the Baghdad security plan proposed by Prime Minister Maliki, with the support of the United States. For example, in the Associated Press yesterday, Robert Reid wrote that bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad since the security crackdown that began a month ago and that execution-style slayings have been cut nearly in half. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for the Senator from California, but I couldn't disagree with her more on this topic, and I will explain why. This resolution that is currently before the Senate calls for the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days. It calls for withdrawing all combat forces from Iraq--all combat forces from Iraq--by March 31, 2008, and it calls for limiting the flexibility of our military commanders to go after the enemy. None of these provisions strikes me as wise or a good idea. And it is not just me. Let me quote from January 31, 2005, a speech made by one of our distinguished Members at the National Press Club. This distinguished Senator said: ``As far as setting a timeline, that is not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there.'' Who was that speaker? Well, none other than our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, who said, ``It is not a wise decision to set a timeline, because it only empowers those who don't want us there.'' Senator Reid was not the only one. Senator Clinton said, ``I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.'' That was a comment she made on February 13, 2007. Senator Joe Biden, Democrat from Delaware, said: ``A deadline for pulling out will only encourage our enemies to wait us out.'' He said that on June 21, 2005, in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. I think we find ourselves in a time warp, but it is hard to know whether the distinguished majority leader's position is what he says today, when he says we ought to set a timeline for the withdrawal of troops, or whether we ought to credit his remarks made in 2005, when he said it is not a wise decision because it only empowers the enemy. I think we know where the differences come down. There are those, as the distinguished Senator from California said a few moments, who regard what we are doing in Iraq, and she used these words, as ``mission impossible.'' In other words, there are those who simply have given up, who believe all is lost and there is nothing we can possibly do to reverse the tide in Iraq and in the global war on terror, what Zarqawi, the former head of al-Qaida in Iraq, called the central front in al-Qaida's war against the rest of the civilized world. What I would suggest is that this resolution, which calls for withdrawing troops beginning in the next 120 days, sets a hard deadline of March 31, 2008, to withdraw all troops and which limits the flexibility of our military commanders to go after the enemy. This is not a plan to succeed. This is a plan destined to fail. Because, in fact, to give the critics some credit, they have given up, so they believe all that is left is retreat, to admit defeat. But this Senator is not prepared to give up on either the mission or the members of our military who are carrying out that mission in Iraq. Arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal and micromanaging our military commanders on the ground is not a military strategy, it is a recipe for defeat. The problem is the new majority and the Democrat strategy can best be characterized as one of slow bleed, micromanage, and say nice things about supporting the troops but don't support the mission we sent them on. I have said before, and I will say it again, if you believe all is lost and there is no possibility of success in the war in Iraq, to me, the logical conclusion is you would defund the effort to support that mission there. In other words, you would use the tool that is available to Members of Congress, the power of the purse, to cut off the funds. I disagree with that. I don't think we should. But Senator Dodd and Senator Feingold have been the ones who have said, you know what, passing nonbinding resolutions is simply not worthy of the Senate. Nowhere else in life can you pass a nonbinding resolution, make a ``no'' decision and be credited for doing anything. Only here in Washington, only in the Senate can you pass a nonbinding resolution and somebody says, you know what, we have done something. Well, the fact is, the only thing we would have done is to lend encouragement to those who want to see us fail in Iraq and to possibly undermine the morale and support given for our troops who are in harm's way. Giving the enemy a timetable when American troops should withdraw from Iraq only helps the enemy plan on how to accomplish their goals, not ours. Our focus should be, how can we succeed in Iraq. The irony of this proposal--the best I can tell, the 17th proposal that has come from the majority since we began talking about Iraq resolutions--is it comes at a time when the new Baghdad security plan appears to be making some hopeful signs toward success. One of those signs is Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who is in charge of the Shiite militias in Iraq, has fled the country because he knows the American military and our Iraqi allies are beginning to enter areas such as Sadr City, which have been in his sole province and domain. He has left to go to Tehran, to Iran. Similarly, he has instructed the Mahdi armies, the Shiite militias, not to confront the American soldiers or Iraqi allies as they go in to clear, hold, and build in some of the previously most dangerous areas of Iraq, that of Sadr City. Democrats have offered 17 proposals on how to lose in Iraq but not a single proposal on how to succeed. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, recently conceded that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 members of al-Qaida in Iraq--specifically in Al Anbar Province. To pass legislation that sets an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing our combat forces without defeating al-Qaida in Iraq makes no sense. Rather, it would provide potentially a safe haven, a power vacuum into which al-Qaida could reestablish itself, gain a foothold, and use that platform as a place to launch terrorist attacks against the United States and other countries. The Iraqis know our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended, so it is simply not accurate to say that is the position of either the administration or anyone in this body. No one has made an open-ended commitment to Iraq. The Iraqis understand that the future of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis, and that is exactly where it should be. But to pass legislation that micromanages how our troops should fight and to try to make tactical decisions on how to handle those 130,000 or so troops on the ground from Washington, DC, is simply crazy. We unanimously confirmed GEN David Petraeus, who essentially is the architect of the counterinsurgency plan now being carried out in Baghdad. General Petraeus will lead our operations in Iraq and, frankly, he doesn't need armchair generals here in Washington, DC, trying to tell him what to do. General Petraeus knows what to do, and that is the reason the Senate unanimously confirmed him to carry out this new Baghdad security plan. If Members of this body really support our troops, then they will provide our troops with the resources they need to accomplish their mission and not engage in a slow-bleed strategy of cutting off resources or reinforcements. We all want our troops to come home as soon as possible. But any decision to withdraw from Iraq should be based strictly upon national security considerations and not on political expediency. We find that even our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are conflicted internally about the best strategy as reflected by this now 17th iteration of their resolution strategy. A Washington Post editorial dated March 13 labels the restrictions on Iraq war funding drawn up by House Democrats--and the 17th proposal on Iraq, by the way--this is the Washington Post. They called it ``something of a trick,'' and is merely ``an inflexible timetable, conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls.'' Then an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday quotes House Appropriations Committee chairman, Democrat of Wisconsin, David Obey, saying this about the language contained in the wartime spending bill passed or being considered in the House--specifically regarding the benchmarks laid out for Iraq. Mr. Obey is quoted as saying: I don't know if these are the right benchmarks or right conditions or right timetable. Mr. Obey said: It's a huge mistake for people to look at this word and that word. . . . This language will change 10 minutes after it passes the House. The Vice President was quoted as saying this on March 12, and I couldn't agree with him more in this regard. He said: The second myth is the most transparent. And that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements necessary to carry out their mission. . . . When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they are undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory, but of time limits--when members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out. . . . Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word. But the proof will come when it's time to provide the money. We expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure. I couldn't agree with the Vice President any more than in those quoted remarks. We have now had 17 different proposals from Democrats in the Senate to date. Maybe there are more to come but 17 so far. For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to propose this ever- shifting plan of how to deal with Iraq is simply not constructive. I must say that it is simply absurd that we would tell our enemy when we plan to leave Iraq. I am joined in that belief by Senator Clinton and Senator Reid, from the statements I quoted earlier. This Senator is not prepared to give up on our men and women in uniform, and I am not prepared to agree to arbitrary timetables or strings on the money that we appropriate that will limit their ability to be successful. I hope all of us, Republican or Democrat alike--all Americans would hope that our American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen will come back home safely but after they have accomplished the mission we have asked them to take on, and that is to leave Iraq in a condition where it is stabilized, where it is able to govern itself and defend itself. Only then will we have eliminated another safe haven for al-Qaida and terrorist activities. Only then will we have reduced to the barest possible minimum the likelihood that we will have to return following a regional conflagration, following a vast humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing that is likely to occur if we do not take every possible step to see this Baghdad security plan succeed. Yes, we all want our troops to come home as soon as possible. Some of us are not willing to set arbitrary deadlines or to bring our troops back home based on some calendar that bears no relationship to conditions on the ground. We want them to come home as soon as possible, but after they have accomplished the mission that they so bravely have taken on and in which they are so nobly led by GEN David Petraeus. I believe S. Res. 9 is misguided. It should be defeated, and I will do everything within my power to urge my colleagues to so vote. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the majority leader and I agree about one thing: Securing America ought to be about doing just that and not about politics. But, unfortunately, the majority has demonstrated its interest in rewarding unions by providing a provision for collective bargaining for the Transportation Security Administration in this bill which elevates the union rights of the Transportation Security Administration over the national security and safety of the American people. So we should not be fooled by the rhetoric or the attempt of the majority leader to stand behind the 9/11 families. Unfortunately, I fear these 9/11 families are being manipulated for political purposes in order to justify promoting the union rights of Transportation Security Administration workers, which will hinder the safety and security of the flying public. This 9/11 bill should be about strengthening security, not about unions. Mr. President, I have another letter from 9/11 Families for a Secure America to Senator McConnell, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record after my comments.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains under the current order?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this letter says: On behalf of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization representing the families of 300 victims of the 9/11 attacks, we would like to thank you for your recent efforts to ensure and enhance America's security. This letter goes on and will be part of the Record. But I simply do not understand why the majority leader objects to our ability to have an up-or-down vote on whether dangerous criminal aliens who are currently being released into the population--because under a 2001 Supreme Court decision, they cannot be held more than 6 months pending deportation--why he would object to an up-or-down vote on that amendment. We started off this year with the majority leader and those in the new majority saying they wanted to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way to try to do what was important for the American people. Nothing is more important than the safety and security of the American people. But why, 6 years after this 2001 Supreme Court decision, the majority insists on allowing this condition to exist, where dangerous criminal aliens are released into the American population to commit additional crimes, is beyond me. That is not about safety and security. Frankly, the comments I heard this morning which say that somehow this is being politicized are just not correct. If anything, the majority has demonstrated that their desire to promote union rights as a reward for political support in the last election dominates their thinking on this bill. It is unfortunate. I hope that if, indeed, that provision, which I do believe in all sincerity will impair the safety and security of the American people, is included in this bill once it is taken to conference, I hope the President follows through on his promise to veto the bill because it will not elevate but, rather, it will diminish the safety and security of the American people. So I regret, Mr. President, that the majority leader has obstructed the ability of the U.S. Senate to have a full and fair debate on these important national security amendments. Frankly, the reasons for not allowing that just do not stand up to scrutiny. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 9/11 Families for a Secure America, March 8, 2007. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, an organization representing the families of 300 victims of the 9/11 attacks, we would like to thank you for your recent efforts to ensure and enhance America's security. As the parents of two men who lost their lives in the World Trade Center attacks, we take the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission more seriously than most. When President Bush threatened to veto the 9/11 bill over a provision related to airport security screeners, we were pleased by your efforts to strip the provision to ensure a presidential signature. We also appreciate your recent efforts to implement a number of new policies aimed at closing dangerous loopholes in existing security law. We represent an organization that advocates strengthening our borders as a way of improving national security, and your proposals would do just that. As you know, current law prevents us from holding dangerous illegal immigrants and from deporting anyone whose visa has been revoked for terrorist-related reasons. These loopholes must be closed. Those who would use the 9/11 bill as a vehicle for political patronage and stall its passage in the process do not have America's security interests at heart. Nor do those who would block a vote on measures aimed at securing our borders by screening those who come here illegally. Thank you for keeping faith with those of us who have made the security of this country a real priority. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely, Joan Molinaro, Treasurer, 9/11 Families for a Secure America, Mother of Carl Molinaro, FDNY. Peter Gadiel, President, 9/11 FSA, Father of James Gadiel, WTC North Tower 103rd floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we are on a very important piece of legislation, as we all know, the unfinished work of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We have been on this bill now for almost 2 full weeks, but we have been unsuccessful so far in being able to get votes on key amendments, which I do believe would fill a significant gap in the protections that are available to the American people in the post-9/11 world. We yesterday offered a package of amendments which actually represents a consolidation of previously filed amendments I want to discuss briefly, which I think fulfills that important role of gap- filling in the unfinished work from the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Last night, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, filed cloture on amendment No. 312, as modified. It is my hope, when we have that vote tomorrow--as currently scheduled under the regular order--we will have an up-or-down vote on provisions critical to addressing threats that terrorists employ in the United States and on U.S. citizens. This amendment contains five critical homeland security tools. It is imperative we include this legislation to give the appropriate Federal agencies the authority, No. 1, to punish those who recruit terrorists; No. 2, to revoke the visas of terrorists; No. 3, to allow the U.S. Government to detain dangerous aliens; No. 4, to punish those who provide material support--in other words, financial inducement--or I should say support to families of those who engage in terrorist acts; and, No. 5, to protect families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. These are all contained in amendment No. 312, on which a cloture motion has been filed, and upon which we will vote tomorrow, if not before by agreement. I want to explain these important tools so Members understand what is at stake. The first of these provisions is to provide the Federal Government, for the first time in our Nation's history, the ability to punish those who actually recruit terrorists. We know from intelligence products gained from--and now public--Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, they were actively engaged in recruiting terrorists within the United States--in our prisons, in some mosques, and elsewhere--with the idea of having a terrorist who could act within this country and who would, therefore, not be stopped by the various protective mechanisms we put in place, whether it be the Transportation Security Administration, improvement of our intelligence gathering and sharing to prevent dangerous aliens from entering the country and committing terrorists acts. The whole concept behind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's efforts was to recruit people domestically, people who would not meet sort of the typical description some would anticipate or the profiles the intelligence officials might have of the type of person who would be logically suspect for terrorist activities. So what this part of the amendment would do would be to punish recruitment of terrorists within the United States. This is a gap in our laws that needs to be filled. Senator Grassley had previously filed an amendment which is now included in this consolidation. This has to do with revoking the visas of terrorists. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officials are nonreviewable. That is overseas. If somebody applies for a visa, and they do not get it, then those are not reviewable. In other words, there is not a stream of litigation or successive appeals they can go through in order to challenge the denial of their visa. However, if a visa is approved but later revoked and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the consular officer is reviewable in U.S. courts. This amendment makes these revocations nonreviewable. This is both a practical problem and is actually a huge difficulty, identified by the Government Accountability Office in 2003. They said that even if an alien's visa is revoked on terrorism grounds after the alien reaches the United States, it is almost impossible to deport the suspected terrorist because persons with a revoked visa can stay in the United States and have a right to successive appeals of a consular officer's decision. Moreover, allowing the review of these revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified intelligence that may have led to the revocation in the first place and makes the FBI and CIA hesitant to share the information. We can see how that standoff would occur. They are hesitant to share the information; therefore, visas of dangerous persons are not revoked. So due to the practical delay caused by review, we would suggest-- this amendment suggests--we treat the visas exactly the same whether they are denied outside of the country or revoked inside of the country based on terrorism grounds. Also included in this package is an amendment that has to do with the detention of individuals who have entered our country illegally and are subject to being repatriated, particularly criminal aliens. This grows out of a Supreme Court decision in 2001, where the Supreme Court held, in the Zabidah case, the Department of Homeland Security could not detain a person longer than 6 months. In this case, for someone with a criminal record, who could not legally stay in the United States, they could not detain them more than 6 months. Unless they were successful in getting them repatriated or returned to their country of origin, the only thing the Department of Homeland Security could do is release them into the general population of the United States. That is simply an unacceptable result. What this amendment would do is change the statutory law of the United States, as invited by the U.S. Supreme Court, to authorize the Department of Homeland Security to detain dangerous aliens longer than 6 months if, in fact, there is a reasonable expectation that individual will be repatriated to their country of origin. For example, the Government had to release Carlos Rojas Fritze, who sodomized, raped, beat, and robbed a stranger in a public restroom and then called it, bizarrely, ``an act of love,'' and Tuan Thai, who repeatedly raped, tortured, and terrorized women and vowed to repeat his crimes. These are just two individuals who, under the Supreme Court decision, had to be released into the American public--obviously a great danger to the American people. We need to act to fix this gap, as invited by the U.S. Supreme Court, so dangerous aliens like these individuals can be detained and so the American people can be protected. One other element of this package of amendments is punishing those who provide material support for terrorists. We recall that Saddam Hussein was providing $25,000 for the families of Palestinians who engaged in terrorist attacks in Israel. The fact is, there is a practice in some quarters of providing financial support for families as an inducement to terrorists so they know that if they commit terrorist acts, at least their families will be financially provided for. Well, this provision of this amendment would punish material support for terrorists, and I think the reasons for doing that are self-evident. The provision will expand the section of the U.S. Criminal Code which punishes murder or assault of U.S. nationals overseas for terrorist purposes, so that it equally punishes attempts and conspiracies to murder U.S. nationals for terrorist purposes. Finally, protecting families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. The last provision necessary for the safety and security of all citizens is establishing the right of the American Government to protect the families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 2 more minutes in our morning business allocation.