John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet tomorrow, June 27, 2006, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 215 purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Mr. Eric Solomon, to be Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury, vice Pamela Olson, resigned.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony relating to implementation of the Energy Policy Act provisions on enhancing oil and gas production on Federal lands in the Rocky Mountain Region.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet in an executive session today at 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 27, 2006. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of SAFETEA-LU Implementation: The Current State of Progress and Future Outlook.''

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 27, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing on recent North Korean Ballistic Missile Developments.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 106 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Henry M. Paulson, Jr., to be Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to address the resolution that is before us today and to speak in favor of its adoption. But before I do that, I think it is important first to read what the resolution says, because I think what we are actually going to be voting on has been misconstrued and, to some extent, inadvertently misrepresented. Also, during the course of my comments, I would like to address those who say that protecting Congress's prerogative to pass laws against flag desecration and those who say it is not important and emphatically disagree with them. And to those who say there are other things we can and should be doing, I say, well, we have been very busy doing a lot of very important things, but I certainly believe we have enough time in our crowded schedule to address this important issue as well. There are also those who say amending the Constitution is simply something we should not do, even though we have done so 27 times during the course of our Nation's history, and even though the 27th amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress can't increase its salary without having an intervening election. If we can amend the Constitution for that, which I agree is an important provision, we can certainly reinstate Congress's authority to pass laws protecting our national emblems and our national symbols such as the United States flag. There are also those who try to get off--and again, I know people of good faith have serious disagreements. I don't mean to disparage the good faith of those who say this, but I would challenge those who say we can pass a statute and avoid having to pass a constitutional amendment. All I would say to that is: Been there. Done that. Doesn't work. The Supreme Court held that subsequent statutory provision unconstitutional, just like it did in the Texas case in 1989, the Texas law that prohibited desecration of the flag. First of all, let me read the constitutional amendment being proposed, because there are some who say we are being asked to ban flag burning. In fact, this is a restoration of the authority under the Constitution to Congress to pass such laws as it deems appropriate, and we can talk about what the details of those bills would be later on, once the amendment is adopted. But it says, simply: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. The article says simply this: The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. As I said, this constitutional amendment doesn't actually make it a criminal act to desecrate the flag; it doesn't say what the penalties will be. What this constitutional amendment does is reinstate Congress's historical authority to protect the flag against desecration and leave for a later date what exactly that statute, that bill, would look like. The reason I feel so strongly about this provision is because of the unique nature of our national symbol. The American flag is a monument, a symbol of our freedom, our country, and our way of life. Why in the world would we refuse to protect it against desecration? As a former President of the United States has noted: We identify the flag with almost everything we hold dear on Earth. It represents our peace and security, our civil and political liberty, our freedom of religious worship, our family, our friends, our home. We see it in the great multitude of blessings of rights and privileges that make up our country. Another President has said it this way: Our flag is a proud flag and it stands for liberty and civilization. Where it has once floated, there must be no return to tyranny. We not only pledge allegiance to the flag each day in the Chamber of the U.S. Senate; children across America recite those words at the beginning of each school day, too. We celebrate Flag Day on June 14 of each year. We pin to our lapels flag pins and paste it to the windows of our cars and trucks. Following 9/11, you could hardly buy a flag, because they were in such demand as a rallying symbol of American patriotism and resolve in the wake of that awful attack, as depicted by this well-remembered picture of first responders in New York erecting the American flag out of the rubble following the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans. We insist on special rules of etiquette when a flag is handled. When I was a Boy Scout growing up, that was one of the things you learned. You learned flag etiquette, how to demonstrate respect for this unique symbol of our country, including learning how, when the flag is old and tattered, that special rules of etiquette dictate its disposal. By displaying the flag, we demonstrate our gratitude to the generations passed who have fought and died for our country. And we remind ourselves of the obligation that we have to preserve our freedom for the generations yet to come and to pass along to our children and grandchildren the blessings of liberty that we have come to enjoy because of the sacrifices of those who have gone before. We drape this emblem over the coffins of those who have died in service to our country, those who have given the last full measure of devotion to keep us and our freedom safe. We proudly fly the flag over our Capitol here in Washington, DC, and at State capitols and public buildings all over our country. Mr. President, recently I read a book about the most famous picture in the history of photography. This is a picture we are going to put up on this board that all of you will instantly recognize. This is a picture of Marines erecting the American flag on Iwo Jima in World War II, where thousands upon thousands of Marines gave their lives to take this island from the occupiers. The book I read recently is called ``Flags of Our Fathers,'' written by a man named James Bradley; his father was John. John Bradley, the father of the author, stands in the middle of the most reproduced figure in the history of photography. Only days before this photo was taken, John Bradley, a Navy corpsman, had braved enemy mortar and machine gun fire to administer first aid to a wounded Marine and then dragged him to safety. For this act of heroism John Bradley would receive the Navy Cross, an award second only to the Congressional Medal of Honor. One of the amazing things about this book, ``Flags of Our Fathers,'' about this photograph and about John Bradley's service to his country as a Marine Corpsman and the service of others of these Marines who erected this flag on Iwo Jima in World War II, is that John Bradley, like so many of the Greatest Generation, never spoke of this historic moment or really much of his military service to his family or friends. This reminds me a lot of my dad, who was a B-17 pilot in World War II who, on his 13th mission helping to knock out part of Hitler's war machine in Nazi Germany, was shot down and spent 4 months in a German prison camp. And like John Bradley, my dad never talked much about his military service. But James Bradley, John Bradley's son, discovered three boxes of artifacts his father had saved about Iwo Jima after his death, which launched him into a quest to find out a little bit more about his father's past and the past of the five other flag-raisers depicted in this picture. This book explores the lives of all of these flag-raisers, showing how in times of national crisis ordinary Americans have found within themselves an uncommon courage and a capacity to attempt, and achieve, the impossible. Indeed, that is one of the things that makes the American flag unique. What becomes of a country that has no special symbols; that somehow, over the passage of time, has deemed itself too sophisticated, too intelligent, too cynical to be choked by emotion when our flag is raised or when the pledge is spoken or when our National Anthem is sung? During the Civil War, as James McPherson, a internationally known historian of that period has noted: The most meaningful symbol of regimental pride were the colors--the regimental and national flags, which bonded the men's loyalties to unit, State, and Nation. He records one combatant as saying: When the American flag appeared above the battle smoke on the enemy works, it is impossible to describe the feelings one experiences at such a moment. God, country, love, home, pride, conscious strength and power, all crowd your swelling breast. Proud, proud as a man can feel over this victory to our arms. If it were a man's privilege to die when he wished, he would die at that moment. These are not my words; these are the words of those who, in the service of their country, gained inspiration and purpose from this symbol that is a unique symbol, unlike any other we have in this country. But ultimately, there are those on the floor of the U.S. Senate who ask: Well, is this really important enough to amend the United States Constitution? To those I would say, the question is not whether the Constitution should be amended; it already has been by judicial decree. The question then remains, who gets the final word? Five Justices on the United States Supreme Court or we, the people? Not important? I disagree. This, I believe, is the ultimate test of our form of government, based as it is upon consent of the government. Our Founding Fathers recognized that our Constitution might need to be amended over time and thus article V of the Constitution creates a difficult but nevertheless a way forward to amend the Constitution when the American people see fit. Of course, this process will not stop upon this body's passage of this amendment. Assuming we are able to get the two-thirds vote requirement in the Senate and in the House, then it will go to the States, where three-quarters of the States must ratify the amendment for it to become the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. I believe, to quote the Declaration of Independence, that the powers of the Federal Government emanate from ``the consent of the governed.'' In other words, I believe that we as a nation do not have to accept as final the judgment of five Judges who, in 1989, in the Texas v. Johnson case, held the Texas flag desecration law unconstitutional. The amazing thing about this debate is I do not think there are very many people who recognize that before 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Texas flag desecration statute, 48 States, including the District of Columbia, had laws criminalizing flag desecration--48 States. But, lo and behold, 200 years after its adoption, five Judges decided that the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees free speech, renders all of those 48 flag desecration statutes unconstitutional as being a limitation on free speech. Don't mind the fact that it is really not about speech, it is about behavior. It is not about what you say, it is about what you do. But the Supreme Court, five members of the Court, didn't seem to have too much trouble with that. Chief Justice Rehnquist, recently departed, in the dissent to that case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that struck down all 48 flag desecration statutes, wrote: The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another ``idea'' or ``point of view'' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans [Chief Justice Rehnquist said] regard it with an almost mystical reverence, regardless of what sort of social, political or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the first amendment invalidates the act of Congress and the laws of 48 of the 50 States which make criminal the public burning of the flag. Justice Stevens, not necessarily of the same sort of judicial ideology or bent as Chief Justice Rehnquist, also dissented, and he said: The flag is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of good will for the other peoples who share our aspirations. . . . The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Justice Stevens concluded: The case has nothing to do with ``disagreeable ideas.'' It involves disagreeable conduct that, in my opinion, diminishes the value of an important national asset . . . And that Johnson, the defendant in that case, was punished only for the means by which he expressed his opinion, not the opinion itself. I mentioned a moment ago that there are those of our colleagues who in good faith think that we can fix this problem by simply passing another flag desecration statute in the U.S. Congress. I would point out to my colleagues that we have already tried to do that right after the Texas v. Johnson case. The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed a statute which was struck down by the same five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called United States v. Eichman. It is clear that no statute can pass constitutional muster as long as the Texas v. Johnson decision is on the books. There are some who would offer an amendment--maybe during the course of this debate--who in good faith think that if they limit the reach of the statute to fighting words, in other words some act that would provoke violence in a public place, that somehow they have fixed the problem. But we are not just talking about provoking people by what is tantamount to fighting words by protecting the flag. We are talking about protecting a valuable national symbol of all of the things our country has come to mean, both to us and to those abroad; and that the good faith of our colleagues notwithstanding, no statute that we might pass could possibly fix the problem of five Judges assuming after 200 years that flag desecration is protected speech, that it violates the first amendment of the Constitution. We all know as a matter of constitutional law that no statute can fix a constitutional violation. So only a constitutional amendment, passed by Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the States, could possibly fix this problem. Those who complain and say this is an imaginary problem, that we do not have acts of flag desecration today or why are we talking about this in 2006 if the Supreme Court held this flag desecration statute unconstitutional in 1989, there is a very simple reason we are still talking about it today. It is because we have been working on it under the leadership of Senator Orrin Hatch and others for 11 years. I think the first constitutional amendment that was introduced was in 1995, and we have gradually been making progress each year by getting more and more support in the Senate. I hope our colleagues today will meet the challenge and deliver the 67 votes needed in this Chamber in order to move this constitutional amendment along. To those who say this is an imaginary problem, I will say simply look at the facts. The Citizens Flag Alliance has a Web site in which they demonstrate 17 acts of flag desecration in the United States over the last 2 years. It may be these are not widely reported in the press. I am not sure exactly what the reason is. But there are 17 acts of flag desecration just in the last 2 years. This is not a contrived or imaginary issue. I remember the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, saying he was vehemently against the constitutional amendment because he didn't think we ought to tamper with the Constitution--notwithstanding the Founding Fathers provided article V to give us a means to amend the Constitution when a sufficient number of people in the Congress and across the country see fit. But I think he said something like: If anyone had the temerity to desecrate the flag in his presence, they wouldn't need a statute criminalizing that act. They would have to get past him to get to wherever it was they were going, suggesting that perhaps individuals who were sufficiently motivated might, through acts of violence, perhaps, dictate justice. I do not think that is a sufficient answer. This is a real issue. It is not contrived, as demonstrated by the 17 acts of desecration in the last 2 years. It is not a problem we can fix by passing a statute and patting ourselves on the back and saying: Yes, we fixed that problem. This is a problem that calls for a constitutional amendment. Yes, I know how serious that is. I don't lightly suggest amendments to the Constitution. But I sincerely believe in my heart of hearts this unique symbol of our country and all of our aspirations and dreams--not only for people here but the kinds of aspirations and dreams that are a beacon to those who will come here in the future, and the generations that come here after--I believe it deserves special protection. Thus, I believe we ought to take this opportunity to say yes. Congress does have a voice in this. Yes, the American people do have a voice in whether the flag is protected. The only way we can do that is by passing this resolution by two-thirds of the Senate and moving this process along and then leaving it up to the people of America, the three-quarters of the States that will have to ratify this before it becomes final. Let them have a word. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, is there an order in effect for a time agreement? How much time do I have, in other words?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the main reason I wanted to come to the floor today was to talk about the important issue of private property rights. Today marks the 1-year anniversary of one of the most controversial decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is the case of Kelo v. the City of New London. In that decision, the Court held by a 5-to-4 vote that the government may seize private property, whether it be a home or small business or other private property, for the purpose--not of public good but, rather, to transfer that same property to another private owner simply because the transfer would create an increased economic benefit to that community. What made this such a profoundly alarming decision was that it represented a radical departure both from what the Constitution says-- that the power of government to condemn private property should be used only for public use--and it represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years. After all, protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and really a distinctive aspect of our form of government. Indeed, private property rights rank among the most important rights outlined by the Founding Fathers when this country was created. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the protection of such rights is: . . . the first principle of association, ``the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.'' These protections were enshrined in the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifically provides that private property shall not ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' The fifth amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of power by eminent domain by permitting the government to seize private property only for ``public use'' and only upon paying just compensation. The Court's decision in Kelo was sharply criticized by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent, in which she wrote: [The Court] effectively [has] . . . deleted the words ``for public use'' from the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment and thereby ``refuse[d] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution.'' Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns: . . . the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. She further warns that, under Kelo, under the Supreme Court's decision just 1 year ago ``any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,'' and she said, ``the fallout from this decision will not be random.'' Indeed, as noted in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the AARP and other organizations: [a]bsent a true public use requirement, the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly. Again, that is the brief of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and AARP and others. Suffice it to say that the Kelo decision was a disappointment. What I find particularly troubling is that the Kelo case is just one of many examples of the abuse of the power of eminent domain throughout our Nation. Its use for private development is now widespread. The Institute for Justice has documented more than 10,000 properties either seized or threatened with condemnation for private development during the 5-year period between 1998 and 2002. Despite the fact that so many abuses of that power were already occurring, the Kelo decision is particularly alarming, and local governments, the condemning authorities most often, have become further emboldened to take property for private development. As this pattern has continued elsewhere, courts very quickly used this decision to reject challenges by owners to the taking of their property for other private parties. In 2005, for example, a court in Missouri relied upon Kelo in reluctantly upholding the taking of a home so that a shopping mall can be built. As the judge commented: The United States Supreme Court has denied the Alamo reinforcements. Perhaps the people will clip the wings of eminent domain in Missouri, but today in Missouri it soars and devours. I firmly believe legislative action is appropriate and necessary, and I am not alone in that belief. Several State legislatures have taken immediate action. Indeed, my home State of Texas passed legislation that was signed into law by the Governor last summer that protects private property from seizure for purposes of economic development. But it is also necessary and appropriate that Congress take action consistent with our authority under the Constitution to restore the vital protections of the fifth amendment. That is why the week after the Court handed down its decision I introduced S. 1313 entitled ``the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.'' I am delighted that other Senators have joined in that in broad and bipartisan support, including the immediate support shortly after it was filed of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Bill Nelson. Today I am happy to report that a total of 31 of our colleagues have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. This bill would ensure that the power of eminent domain is exercised only for public uses, consistent with and guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Most important, though, it would make sure the power of eminent domain would not simply be used to further private economic development interests. The act would apply the standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: No. 1, all exercises of the power of eminent domain by the Federal Government itself; and No. 2, all exercises of the power of eminent domain by State and local governments using Federal funds. While we work to protect private property rights, we are mindful that the language we craft could have far-reaching implications. There is no question that where appropriate, eminent domain can play an important role in ensuring that true public uses are preserved. But now, just 1 year after the Supreme Court shut the door on Suzette Kelo and her fellow homeowners in New London, CT, it is imperative that Congress act soon to ensure that private property remains free from the long arm of government so that no American will have to worry about the Federal Government being involved in taking their private property for private development. Chairman Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, is working with me on legislation that I hope he will choose to move soon through the committee. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to develop a solution that reaffirms our commitment to the protection of private property rights, one that will help stem the tide of egregious abuses of private property rights that we have seen throughout the Nation by the illegitimate use of the power of eminent domain. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to speak about the important issue of private property rights in this country, but I did not realize the distinguished Senator from North Dakota was going to be talking about another issue that is very important, and that is the proposed civil nuclear accord between the United States and India. It is a subject I have been studying. I am interested in it. I just happened to be one of the two Senate cochairs of the United States- India caucus and, for that reason, I have been following the developments in this proposal from the beginning. As is so often the case, we agree on the ultimate objective, and that is to reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons, but we differ about the means. I happen to support this particular agreement because I think it is in the best interests of the United States. It will take another friend of the United States--the world's largest democracy, composed of more than 1 billion people, that has a good record for nonproliferation--and it will make us partners with them for peaceful civilian use of nuclear power while avoiding the threat of proliferation and the possibility that terrorists might acquire a nuclear weapon or it might proliferate to some other irresponsible party and then endanger the United States or our allies. The Congress, of course, will have a chance to get very much involved in this issue. Next week, Chairman Lugar and Ranking Member Biden are taking this matter up in the Foreign Relations Committee. They are going to mark up--I believe it is the Atomic Energy Act, if I am not mistaken, which is the one which needs to be amended if, in fact, Congress does consent to this agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Singh of India. I do know there are a lot of people watching to see just what the reaction of Congress and the United States to this agreement will be. I for one believe it is an important step in our strategic relationship, in our growing friendship. It will be another way the United States and India can work together to make the world a safer place and the United States can demonstrate its good will by providing civilian nuclear technology to a country that needs the energy. We know how much the geopolitics of the search for oil has distorted our foreign relationships, so it is important that we find clean alternatives to oil and gas. That is what nuclear power provides, that clean, efficient alternative--although it has problems in that it can, in the wrong hands, be abused. It can be used to create nuclear weapons. As we all know, India already has a nuclear weapon, so it is not a question of whether it is going to acquire one. It already has one. It has demonstrated its responsibility and its willingness to work with peace-loving partners like the United States in a way that looks to this alternative of civilian nuclear energy but at the same time makes sure that the dangers of proliferation are reduced to a minimum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield to Senator McCain and ask to be recognized following him.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks this afternoon by recognizing the ultimate sacrifice paid by one of our soldiers, one of my fellow Texans, who gave his life this week in Iraq. PFC Kristian Menchaca, age 23, of Houston, joined the military last year and was soon deployed to Iraq as part of the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry, 2nd Brigade, of the 101st Airborne based in Fort Campbell, KY. According to military reports, Menchaca and his fellow soldier, PFC Thomas Tucker of Oregon, were part of a unit checking vehicles near the Euphrates River south of Baghdad. They were taken when their checkpoint was attacked and, as we now know, they died in service to their Nation, and their bodies have since been recovered. Private First Class Menchaca is described by his family in various reports as a man who loved basketball and Mexican food. His cousin, Sylvia Grice, is quoted as saying: He talked about how happy he was that he was serving his country. Everyone he met liked him. He had that kind of personality. He liked to help people. He was just the kind of person that you enjoyed being with. Private First Class Menchaca was married in September of last year, and he often talked of joining the Border Patrol when he finished his military service. Mr. President, I know I speak for a grateful Nation when I say I am thankful for the service of good men and women like Private First Class Menchaca who serve our country day in and day out and who place themselves in harm's way in the service of freedom. I am glad there are people like Private First Class Menchaca, who was happy to serve his country, not knowing perhaps that that service to his country would end in the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate so far on the amendments on the floor. I cannot help but be struck by those who would cast the only options available to America, when it comes to what is now the central front in the global war on terror in Iraq, as open- ended, unconditional commitment versus arbitrary deadlines. We have more choices than that, and it is indeed the policy of our Government at the present time not to offer open-ended, unconditional commitments, or to set arbitrary deadlines that serve as an encouragement to the enemy, knowing that if they hunker down long enough and wait us out long enough, the American people will lose their resolve and simply give up. Mr. President, our policy is one based on conditions on the ground, and based on the sound advice of our professional military experts, people such as GEN John Abizaid, head of Central Command, and General Casey, head of the coalition forces in Iraq. These are the professional generals--those with knowledge of the facts on the ground--who are making the judgments and recommendations to the President and the Secretary of Defense and to this Congress about what our policy should be, and that policy is based on conditions on the ground. Those who suggest that our only choice is between open-ended, unconditional commitments and arbitrary deadlines are presenting us with a false choice, one that, in the end, simply looks a lot like giving up. I speak in opposition to any proposal to impose an arbitrary deadline for the removal of our troops from Iraq and to speak about what I believe and know others of my colleagues believe is our need to win the war on terror and, while doing so, to stand beside the Iraqi people as they work to build their fledgling democracy and work to expand their growing ability to secure themselves. The fundamental question we have before us today is: Are we going to base our military strategy in Iraq on an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal based upon defeatism, a policy of retreat, a policy of appeasement, a policy of surrender, or are we going to rely upon the military judgment of those who are currently leading us to victory in Iraq? It is clear, as in all wars, that our Nation is being tested. This is not so much a test for our professional military, which is the preeminent fighting force in the world today and no doubt the premier fighting force that the world has ever known--there is no military force that can defeat the United States of America--the only thing that can defeat the United States of America, when it comes to the global war on terror, is America itself, if we lose the courage of our convictions, if we simply give up. On October 11, 2002, 77 Members of this body voted to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I will be interested to see, when we vote on these various amendments, how many of our colleagues have simply lost the courage or conviction they displayed then, in saying it was important to remove a terrible, bloodthirsty tyrant from Iraq. I have stood on the mass burial grave sites in Iraq where at least 400,000 Iraqis lie who were victims of that bloodthirsty dictator. We know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq more than a year before American forces went in. We all know that Saddam Hussein, with his fantasies of developing weapons of mass destruction, teamed up with terrorists and presented a clear and imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. We have much unfinished work to do. But we must not forget to honor the sacrifices of those 2,500 people, like Private First Class Menchaca of Texas, who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Are we going to tell those brave patriots and their families that they have sacrificed in vain, that we were not really serious about our commitments both to the American people, to preserve their safety and security, as well as to our allies, the Iraqi people? I hope not. There is no victory in arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq, and victory must remain our sole resolve. Any suggestion that a withdrawal from Iraq would somehow accelerate or pressure the Iraqi Government, and Iraqis themselves, into supporting democracy more fervently is simply inconsistent with the facts. The people who are probably most anxious for the American and coalition forces to leave Iraq--second only to the American people's desire to have their sons and daughters come home-- the people most eager to see them come home, beyond their family members, are probably the Iraqi people themselves. But they understand that they are not yet prepared to defend themselves against the terrorists, against the insurgents, against the sectarian strife that is currently racking that country. Yet we find that the armchair generals in Washington, DC, are hardly in a position to determine the best military strategy. How could it be any other way? Who is in a better position to determine what that strategy should be, based on conditions on the ground, than those professional military men and women who study this issue daily, who live with it daily, and who have tremendous experience? Surely, they have a better idea about how we can win the war in Iraq than the armchair generals in Washington who are resigned to defeat and simply giving up. The Senator from New York quoted from a Washington Post article of yesterday and suggested that the National Security Adviser in Iraq had somehow endorsed the provisions of the Levin amendment. But I want to quote one sentence that clearly refutes that suggestion. The National Security Adviser said: This roadmap on foreign troop withdrawals is based not just on a series of dates but, most important, on achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq. In other words, Iraq's National Security Adviser understands the foolishness of setting arbitrary deadlines that have no relationship to achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq. Do we all wish that our troops could come home sooner rather than later? Of course we do. But it is simply foolishness and folly to impose an arbitrary timetable on our forces, requiring them to withdraw from Iraq before the job is done and while the going gets tough. I have in my hands a report from the U.S. Department of State that is 19 pages long. Anybody with access to the Internet could copy this or view it online. It is called ``Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961 to 2003; A Brief Chronology.'' It is 19 pages long. I ask our colleagues who counsel retreat, who counsel self-defeatism, what do they think is going to happen if we leave Iraq prematurely, before the Iraqi security forces can defend themselves in that new democracy? What do they expect will happen? I think what we know will happen is that power void would be filled by those who are currently fighting and killing innocent people in Iraq and who, given the opportunity, would use that failed state, if we were to retreat prematurely, as a platform to plot, plan, finance, and export terrorist acts to the United States and elsewhere around the world. It is pure folly to think that the terrorists somehow would simply give up if we decided to come home prematurely, or that Iraq could stand on its own to fight and defend itself and have any chance of nursing this fledgling democracy into full maturity. Just yesterday I heard some of the Members on the other side of the aisle say that they, too, thought that troop withdrawal should be based upon the judgment of military commanders. But they added: As long as the generals agree with them, that withdrawal will take place within 6 months. Another one of our colleagues who has a resolution that has been much discussed announced he would extend his initial proposal of a 6-month deadline to a 1-year deadline. I wonder what sort of wisdom he acquired over the course of a weekend that told him, no, the arbitrary deadline should not be 6 months but should now be a year. What sort of new information did he acquire that led him to the conclusion that a withdrawal in 1 year was better than a withdrawal 6 months from now? It is clear that such arbitrary decisions have no basis in military strategy. According to one news story last week, there were colleagues of ours on the other side of the aisle who were up all hours searching for a troop withdrawal position on the war on terror that would unite their political party. My question is: Can they really be serious? Can they really be serious that they are still searching for some unifying position? It appears that they have no unifying position, and they have no plan to lead the victory in Iraq, or to lead the American people during one of the toughest fights that our Nation has ever endured. It is indeed a time of testing for our Nation, and we must pass the test, not just for the safety and security of the Iraqi people, but for our own safety and security, and for the safety and security of our children and our children's children. So far, it appears that the only thing the critics can agree on is their willingness to criticize the efforts in the global war on terror, to harp on those things in a way that is not productive and certainly not helpful. And it has the consequence, unintended or not, of undermining public support and confidence for our efforts in Iraq and in the global war on terror. So it makes me wonder--and I am sure the American people must be wondering--are they more interested in the upcoming elections not in Iraq, but in America in November, or are they more interested in winning the global war on terror without regard to politics or elections? It is important that we put the situation in Iraq in perspective. We are moving forward. Every single day we are making progress. The Iraqi people and their military forces are reaching out and taking responsibility in their own country and the hope we are extending to them for democracy and freedom. Just over 3 years ago, Saddam Hussein ruled that country. We all know he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people whose only crime was to oppose his tyranny. Our military performed flawlessly in their march to Baghdad and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Then, in January 2005, the Iraqis held elections for a transitional national assembly to begin the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution. They overwhelmingly approved that Constitution in October of 2005. And then in December of 2005, they held elections for a permanent national assembly. The Iraqi Parliament then approved the Cabinet, including the most controversial post of Defense and Interior Ministers. I remind my colleagues that the Iraqi voter turnout during last year's elections for their national assembly and referendum on their Constitution was respectively 58 percent, 77 percent, and 63 percent. It is clear that the Iraqi people are participating in their political process and building their own institutions that will eventually allow them to govern themselves and determine their own future. On the security side, we have trained more than 260,000 Iraqi security forces and these forces are daily becoming more and more competent. They are now leading daily operations against insurgents and al-Qaida and the sectarian strife in Iraq. We know there is a price to be paid, and I guess in the end, the difference between those who would retreat prematurely and simply give up and those of us who believe the fight is worth fighting for and the sacrifices that this Nation has made in the cause of freedom are unfortunate but worth it, the differences between those who believe war is bad and must never be fought and those who believe that war is bad but sometimes must be fought for the right reasons. It is dispiriting that some politicians reading the polls in Iraq want us to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, and this despite they have no plan for success for winning the war or what to do in the vacuum that will be created once we give up. We know that terrorists remain on the attack and, given our willingness to retreat, will simply take advantage of that vulnerability and attack America and other innocent people again. In conclusion, I think the policy of retreat and defeatism and simply giving up is not one that serves our Nation well. It does not serve the interests of the Iraqi people, and it would simply be the wrong decision for this Senate to make at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a tremendous public servant for his good work in leading an important Federal Government program for the past several years. Jim Williams, who currently holds the position of Director of the US-VISIT Program at the Department of Homeland Security, will soon leave this position to become the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration. There's little question that the Department's loss will be the Commission's gain. However, the good news is that one of our most accomplished, capable and experienced federal employees will continue serving his country. In May 2003, Jim Williams took over as Director of the US-VISIT Program, a critical border-management program that collects point-of- entry and exit information on visitors entering and exiting the United States. The program uses biometric identifiers--digital finger scans and photographs--to make entering the United States easier for legitimate tourists, students, and business travelers, while making it more difficult for those who might do us harm to enter and stay in the United States illegally. Hundreds of thousands of visitors cross the Texas border each year, and the US-VISIT system has improved security without slowing down legal trade and tourism. Mr. Williams' job was to develop a solid foundation of policies and practices that would guide the program for the foreseeable future. It was a critical moment for the program, and Mr. Williams skillfully seized this opportunity. In a little more than 2 years, Mr. Williams helped develop US-VISIT into a viable program. Mr. Williams built the team that developed and deployed the effort, which today is crucial to our immigration and border-management system. Under Mr. Williams' leadership, US-VISIT has met its congressional deadlines on time and under budget and has helped establish the foundation of the U.S. Government's 21st century immigration and border-management system. Jim Williams is a model public servant and leader. He has left a tremendous imprint on the US-VISIT Program and on the many people who work with him at US-VISIT and across the Government. Because of his leadership, US-VISIT has cultivated a talented team that will guide the program in the years ahead. They will continue to help overcome the challenges that face our Nation, and Mr. Williams will continue to provide the American people with the very best of Government service. We wish Mr. Williams well and thank him for his continued service to our country.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I was one of those last week who spoke to this amendment by the Senator from Florida. I know now the Senator from Kentucky, the distinguished majority whip, has introduced another amendment and has suggested perhaps it would be appropriate to vote for both of them, since what in effect was a misstatement by a low-level Government employee in Iraq has now been clarified, making it crystal clear that it is not the policy of the new Government in Iraq to grant amnesty to those who have killed Americans. But I have to scratch my head a little bit and wonder why it is we are having this debate. We are on the Defense authorization bill, an enormously important bill that is being shepherded on the Senate floor by the distinguished chairman, for the last time as chairman--at least this will be the last time he will serve as chairman because of term limits on that committee. But we are essentially having a debate over a nonissue, and we are being asked now to send a message to the new Iraqi Government that you are going to be admonished, in effect, because of some of the missteps of a low-level Government employee. I am really confused about the message our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to send our allies in Iraq. On the one hand, we have amendments that are offered suggesting that we leave them in 6 months' time and bring all of our troops home, and whatever happens as a result of that, well, it is not our problem anymore; it is their problem. On the other hand, amendments like these suggest that anytime a low-level government employee misstates the facts and has to be then corrected, and that person is then disciplined through dismissal, do we in essence want to pick a fight where there is no fight and where it is clear what the policy of the new Iraqi Government is? I think we should give this new Iraqi Government at least the benefit of the doubt that some would give to Saddam Hussein. There are some who come to the Senate floor and say, no, it was a terrible mistake for us to ever go into Iraq notwithstanding the fact that we know that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer. I, along with other of my colleagues, have stood on the edge of mass gravesites where at least 400,000 Iraqis lie dead by the hands of this mass murderer Saddam Hussein. We know the record is clear that al-Qaida in the form of Zarqawi, who was killed just last week, was in Iraq more than 2 years before the United States and our coalition partners took out Saddam Hussein. There are those who said no, no, no. Iraq has no less linkage whatsoever to international terrorism, and now we know the facts are that the worst al-Qaida operative of all, the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, was in fact in Baghdad and was in Iraq more than a year before Saddam Hussein was deposed. So I guess I am confused by those who would say, no, let's leave the Iraqis on their own, wish them luck, but so much for the loss of lives and lost treasure invested in trying to help the Iraqi people free themselves from this terrible tyrant and get on their own feet and create a stable democracy in Iraq. But then, on the other hand, when this new democracy that has done miraculous things over the last few years has ratified their new constitution and created a unity government and have now finally gotten their permanent government in place, that when a low-level figure makes an unauthorized, incorrect statement, for which he has been disciplined, we want to come to the Senate floor and offer amendments admonishing our friends, the Iraqi Government. They are our allies in what has now become the central front in the global war on terror. If we don't finish the job and support our Iraqi allies in any way we can as they continue this fight against al-Qaida, against other foreign fighters, against insurgents who want to destabilize the government and put Saddam Hussein back in power, if we don't do everything we can to support them militarily and rhetorically provide them any assistance we can, then we are going to be in a less safe condition because we know that any power vacuum that would be created in Iraq would easily be filled as it was in Afghanistan by the likes of Osama bin Laden and others. I appreciate the fact that there are those who say, Well, we ought to just vote for both of these amendments. But I really think we are heading down a bad road here by slapping the Iraqi Government on the wrists for what clearly was a misstatement of a low-level government employee for which he has been disciplined and which has now been very much clarified that it is not the policy of the Iraqi Government to provide amnesty for those who have killed Americans in that country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Yes. Will the Senator yield for a question at this point?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority whip, isn't the real difference between those of us who believe war is bad and must never be fought and those of us who believe that war is bad but must sometimes be fought for the right reasons? What is the alternative to fighting the good fight that our troops are fighting in Iraq now? I just ask whether the Senator has heard any alternatives offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle?

Mr. CORNYN. I would answer the distinguished majority whip and say, I would feel much better about something that was constructive and encouraging in assisting the Iraqi Government in their determination not to give amnesty than I would in offering criticism where it appears to be gratuitous and where it is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have; that is, under what conditions do we want to leave Iraq, and are some of the proposals that some of our colleagues on the Senate floor have made about setting timetables, are those in the best interests of the American people or do they endanger America by allowing perhaps those who are America's enemies, the enemies of all civilization, to plot and plan, and then use that failed state as a platform to export their terrorist activities to other parts of the world? Amendment No. 4269 to Amendment No. 4265

Mr. CORNYN. I would.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would answer the distinguished majority whip by saying, that is exactly the quotation. The same individuals went on to say that who the Prime Minister is going to give amnesty to are those who have not committed the crimes, whether against Iraqis or coalition forces. He went on to say, they might probably have done some minor mistakes in storing some arms or allowing some terrorist to stay overnight or provided shelter. But he has expressly said: We will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.

Mr. CORNYN. I would.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't know what the question was, but let me just respond to the distinguished Senator from Florida. It makes no sense for the Senate to shake its finger at the new Government of Iraq and to criticize them, whether it is a condemnation or a criticism or an admonishment or whatever you want to call it, for something that they have expressed that they have no intention of doing. I don't dispute from a procedural standpoint the Senator's right at some point, perhaps, to have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but I just question the wisdom of proceeding in this way when we are a nation at war. We have done everything that we could to help the Iraqi people help themselves, from training their security forces to encouraging them and helping them in the development of a new government, something that is really a miracle to behold, if you think about it. Three years ago, they had a blood-thirsty dictator with his boot heel on the back of the neck of the Iraqi people, responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and a threat to the entire world because of the potential partnerships with terrorists who might export their terror to places such as the United States. Why we would gratuitously take an occasion like this, to distract us from the important business that we are about, to criticize in one way, form, or fashion the new Iraqi Government which is just beginning to show that they are able to take the first small steps toward self-determination and self-governance, why we would take this occasion to admonish them for something they have expressly indicated no intention of doing is beyond me.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since we are going to be on the amendment of the Senator from Florida for a few minutes, I have a couple other thoughts I would like to offer to our colleagues in response to those offered by the Democratic leader. First of all, I don't know why, after the Iraqi officials have disclaimed any intent whatsoever to offer amnesty to those who have killed an American soldier, we would gratuitously offer a sense-of-the- Senate amendment to condemn them for doing something they said they are not going to do, unless we are engaged more in gamesmanship than we are in working and passing serious legislation. The comment was made earlier that perhaps this is just a diversion. I thought we were going to have a serious debate about whether we were going to bring our troops back home and on what kind of timetable we were going to do that, whether it is some arbitrary timetable or, instead, whether it is based on conditions on the ground. I thought that was the kind of debate we were going to have today, not some sort of manufactured debate offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to divert public attention from an issue that does not exist about this amnesty that has been suggested which has been expressly disclaimed by the Iraqi leadership. My suggestion is that we move on to the serious work that the people of this country sent us here to do and not to engage in sideshows, which is clearly what this sense-of-the-Senate proposition is designed to do.