Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued -- (Senate - May 22, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from South Carolina for their leadership, but I also wish to congratulate Senator Webb, the Senator from Virginia. I do believe that all of these Senators, and those of us who join them, are operating with the best of intentions, and that is how do we modernize the GI bill that helped provide my father an education after he left the Air Force after World War II? How do we modernize the GI bill and provide the maximum benefit we can but also make sure it provides for benefits to military families by allowing for transferability to spouses and children under some circumstances? And, I would think, fundamentally to our national security, how do we preserve and protect the All-Volunteer military force?

I know it is not his intention, but Senator Webb's bill actually would encourage people not to reenlist by providing a perverse incentive to leave early in order to obtain the benefits they would receive after 3 years of service. We need to make sure we encourage continuation of service, retention in the military in the best interests of our All-Volunteer military force.

To me, it is ironic--I remember the Senator from Virginia had an amendment where we would restrict the amount of time a servicemember could be deployed and then provide for a minimum time they had to be back home before they could be deployed again. Again, it was a noble aspiration that he had but, unfortunately, because our forces were spread too thin because we had allowed the end force, the end strength of our military to degrade over time, we had to, as a matter of our national security and success in our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, ask these servicemembers to return to service without an adequate dwell time.

Perversely, I think the Senator's bill, by encouraging early exit from the military and hurting retention, according to the CBO, by some 16-percent, would actually be at cross-purposes with the very proposal he advanced earlier about allowing our military more time at home because it would reduce the number of people in our All-Volunteer military and make it necessary that they be deployed more often and at greater sacrifice.

I do believe we ought to reward those who continue to serve. We ought to reward the families by allowing transferability of the benefit upon continued service to spouses and children.

I can tell my colleagues, speaking to groups in Texas this last weekend, that one feature was something they very much appreciated. We ought to do everything we can to strengthen and nurture our All-Volunteer military force and not to cause a 16-percent decline in retention rates.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. I yield to him for a question.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Texas will yield for two questions I have.

Mr. CORNYN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I absolutely agree with the Senator from Texas that we have to get to a point where we can debate and vote on alternatives to assist our veterans. It is very distressing to me to hear there are TV ads running against the Senator from Texas and against my colleague from Arizona that call into question your commitment and his commitment to the veterans of our country.

I am informed that one of the ads says:

Senator Cornyn is fighting tooth and nail against giving adequate benefits to our troops and veterans, using it as a wedge in partisan politics.

Is the Senator aware that language is being used in an ad against the Senator from Texas.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am aware of the ad. I have to say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, it is not the first time I have seen a phony ad on television. Of course, as he suggests, there is no basis for it.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may just say, the Senator from Texas, as you just heard and as we all know, has been speaking on the floor of the Senate and in meetings we have been having about this issue. He has been working very hard to find the best way to support our veterans with their educational benefits. I want that crystal clear on the record.

Secondly, is the Senator aware that there is also an ad--my understanding is it says that ``Senator McCain, as the leader of the Republican Party, must send a signal to his colleagues in the Senate that now is not the time to play politics by forcing Senators to choose between his bill and the Webb-Hagel measure.''

It seems to me that statement is exactly right, that we should not be forced to choose between one or the other, but procedurally, the way the bill comes before us, we have two choices: to vote for or against Webb; whereas if the President were to veto this bill, there is an opportunity to negotiate between the two different approaches, both of which have some merit, and get the best of all worlds.

Will the Senator from Texas comment about the process by which we might actually get the best bill to assist our veterans with GI educational benefits?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is exactly right. We need to have a fair debate and fair opportunity for a vote on these competing proposals, both of which I say, again, were borne out of the best of intentions, and that is providing educational benefits for our military service members and their families.

But I have to add that calling into question Senator McCain's commitment to veterans is laughable. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. No one serving in the Congress and few serving anywhere in the United States have given more to support our military servicemembers, both active and retired, and, obviously, Senator McCain himself is a war hero. To me, that is the kind of phony ad that I think causes most people simply to dismiss it because there is just no basis for it.

I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this procedure, whereby we are asked to vote on what started out to be an emergency funding bill to support our troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq, has now been larded up with a bunch of pet projects and other spending which have nothing to do with supporting our troops in harm's way.

Congress, by engaging in this sort of conduct, is actually slowing down delivery of the money to the troops who need it. We have been told by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Veterans' Administration--particularly the Secretary of Defense--that unless we act----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the colloquy has expired.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Unless we act promptly, we are going to find out our troops are not going to get their paychecks, and the services that are available for our military families are going to be denied unless Congress acts. So why would we engage in this kind of delay?

Finally, the Graham-Burr bill does provide for the full cost of a 4-year public school education in my State of Texas, which costs roughly $55,000 a year. This bill provides $58,000 a year worth of benefits and added to items such as the Hazlewood Act, which allows tuition forgiveness, is a good benefit and one certainly deserved by the veterans who take advantage of their GI benefits in my home State, and I am proud to support them.

Source