Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, I rise today to urge swift passage of S. 1156, which is essentially a conference report on various veterans' health care measures. This bill will dramatically assist the Department of Veterans Affairs in providing quality health care to our Nation's veterans. I would like to highlight some of the key provisions. The compromise agreement would authorize $17.5 million in advanced planning funds for a new medical facility in East-Central Florida. While this is only an authorization, I note that the VA-HUD appropriations bill will likely contain an unspecified pot of construction funding--up to $600 million total. These funds will likely be used for East-Central Florida and other worthy projects stemming from VA's realignment effort. Veterans living in East-Central Florida are in dire need of a full- fledged VA hospital. One VA report found that since 1996, ``the Central Florida market sustained the greatest workload expansion of the entire VA system--105 percent.'' Other VA studies have deemed the region as ``the logical choice for infrastructure investment for all major Inpatient and Outpatient categories.'' The decision about where to place a new VA hospital in this region falls to VA, but I encourage Secretary Principi to carefully study all the options to ensure that the most appropriate location is chosen. The demand for care in East-Central Florida heretofore has also been validated by the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) process. CARES is a multi-stage analysis that VA has undertaken of its assets and infrastructure nationwide, for the purposes of making according adjustments to meet the projected health care needs of veterans over the next 20 years. The process has reached its final stages, with the release of a Draft National Plan currently under review by a commission. The CARES initiative will have profound ramifications for hospitals all across the country. As such, the compromise agreement includes a provision that I fought for, granting Congress a 60-day notice and wait period before commencing any closures or consolidations that result from CARES recommendations. It is imperative that Congress have a role in this process, as the delivery of health care to our nation's veterans will be greatly affected by its outcome. This became particularly apparent when the Draft National Plan was unveiled, revealing the targeting for closure of up to 6,000 beds nationwide-- including some 1,500 long-term care and 800 psychiatry beds. As long- term care and mental health were not factored into the original CARES model, many questions were raised about the validity of the process. The Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act of 2003 would also authorize the construction of a comprehensive outpatient medical care facility at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, in Pensacola, FL. The clinic, as envisioned, would be a joint venture between VA and the Department of the Navy. This area of my home state is greatly underserved in terms of medical facilities for servicemembers and veterans, and I am pleased to be a part of bringing vital health care services to the region. Because of the need for quality, accessible hospital services for veterans in the Pensacola area and surrounding counties, this bill would require VA to develop a plan to meet their inpatient needs. While there is no doubt that the VA-Navy clinic would provide vital outpatient services, inpatient care will still be lacking. This provision seeks to address that facet of the health care continuum for veterans in the Panhandle. Another important provision of the compromise agreement would expand VA's assisted living pilot program to one additional site. The assisted living pilot program is designed to help the large numbers of men and women in the VA system over the age of 65, who either need long-term care now or potentially will need it in the future. The pilot program was first established through The Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, which gave VA clear authority to furnish an assisted living service, including to the spouses of veterans. The CARES Draft National Plan also puts emphasis on assisted living programs. No fewer than 19 sites are proposed to be converted into assisted living facilities. The assisted living pilot program seeks to help VA address inequities in availability of noninstitutional services by developing models for proliferating the program nationwide. I am hopeful that Network 8 will apply to be the next pilot program. There is a great need for long-term care services in my home state of Florida. I am proud to have worked on this valuable piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 2297, the proposed Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. The pending measure, which I will refer to as the ``Compromise Agreement,'' is the final version of an omnibus bill. This Compromise Agreement would improve a variety of veterans' benefits, most significantly for the survivors of those who lose their lives on active duty, or who die of their service-connected conditions. It is entirely appropriate that, at a time when we have called our servicemembers into harm's way, we should extend not only our sympathies but critical assistance to the families left behind by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I will briefly highlight some of the most important provisions, and refer my colleagues seeking more detail to the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill. I thank Chairman Arlen Specter and his staff for their efforts on behalf of our nation's veterans, and my colleagues in the House for working with our committee staffs to craft this agreement. While this Compromise Agreement enhances many veterans' benefits, it focuses particularly on meeting the needs of survivors. I am gratified that Congress plans to increase the rate of educational benefits for survivors and dependents of veterans. This bill would raise education benefits by 13.4 percent over current levels--to $788 per month from $695 for full-time study--creating parity with the benefits that the Nation provides to active-duty servicemembers. Family members who have already faced the loss of a father, mother, husband, or wife in service, or who have helped a servicemember endure total disability, should not have to face limited educational opportunities and fragile futures due to resulting financial hardships. I am very pleased that we have continued to build upon legislation of the past two years to assist the surviving spouses of servicemembers. In 2001, Congress passed legislation to allow survivors of severely disabled veterans to continue receiving VA healthcare coverage through the program called CHAMPVA after age 65. Congress extended this coverage last year, allowing eligible surviving spouses of veterans who died from service-connected disabilities or in the line of duty to retain their eligibility for CHAMPVA benefits even if they remarried after age 55. This year, the committees have agreed to allow the surviving spouses to retain survivors' benefits--Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, education allowance and home loan--if they remarry after the age of 57, placing these spouses on the same footing as those in other Federal survivorship programs. The committees were also mindful of those who must live with the possible health consequences of a parent's service. Recent scientific evidence has suggested an association between exposure to dioxin, a toxic chemical found in the herbicide Agent Orange, and an increased risk of the birth defect spina bifida in children born to those exposed. In 1996, Congress authorized VA to provide benefits to children with spina bifida whose fathers or mothers served in the Republic of Vietnam and might have been exposed to Agent Orange. The Compromise Agreement would extend theses same benefits to affected children whose parents served in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone during the Vietnam era, where Agent Orange was also used a defoliant. I am pleased that the Compromise Agreement also addresses the enduring, and sometimes invisible, scars of war. Recognizing the long- term effects of prolonged malnutrition and confinement, current law specifies a list of 15 disabilities that VA presumes are related to military service of former prisoners of war who were held captive 30 days or more. This legislation would eliminate the 30-day requirement for certain physical and mental disorders that could result from as little as a day of captivity. It would also add cirrhosis of the liver to the list of presumptively service-connected disabilities for those former POWs who were held captive for at least 30 days, as peer- reviewed studies have shown that former POWs have a higher incidence of this debilitating disease. Another group of veterans who struggle with potential long-term health consequences are those who were exposed to significant doses of ionizing radiation, particularly in post-war Japan and during subsequent nuclear testing. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress mandated that veterans who suffered from illnesses they believed were caused by such radiation could request that VA ``reconstruct'' the actual dose of radiation that they received during service. A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences reported that the contractor-operated program established by the VA to produce this data for veterans suffered from a shockingly cavalier approach to quality assurance, resulting in data that failed to meet the standards assumed by both VA and veterans. The Compromise Agreement would require VA and DOD to establish an advisory board to oversee this dose reconstruction program's mission, procedures, and administration to ensure that it collects and interprets data adequately and fairly. Congress required the Air Force to conduct a long-term epidemiological study of the veterans of Operation Ranch Hand, the unit responsible for aerial spraying of herbicides during the Vietnam War. This study is about to conclude, and experts agree that both samples and data could still provide key data for many unanswered questions. The Compromise Agreement would direct VA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to advise whether the study should be continued, describe the steps that would be involved in doing so, and evaluate the advisability of making laboratory specimens from the study available for independent research. Finally, the Compromise Agreement would ensure that the core funding for the Medical Follow-Up Agency (MFUA) would be extended for 10 more years. MFUA uses this funding to update, maintain, and improve long- term epidemiological studies of military and veterans' populations. Congress, VA, military, and independent scientists have relied on MFUA data since World War II to evaluate whether specific exposures might have long-term health effects that suggest a need for benefits, new treatments, or further research. Together, all of these provisions demonstrate that our nation will continue its commitment to those veterans who carry the burdens of the battlefield--whether obvious or invisible--long after the end of the fight. In conclusion, I want to thank Senator Specter and his benefits staff for their work on this comprehensive bill, specifically Bill Tuerk, Jon Towers and Chris McNamee, as well as my benefits staff--Mary Schoelen, Tandy Barrett, Ted Pusey, Amanda Krohn, and Faiz Shakir, along with Julie Fischer, who recently left the committee, and Patrick Stone, who has recently joined it. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans and their families.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, would the Senator from Missouri be willing to engage me in a colloquy?

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I have come to the floor today to speak about an issue of great importance; the need to construct new national veterans cemeteries. National cemeteries are reaching capacity throughout the United States as veterans, particularly those from World War II and the Korean War, die in increasing numbers. By the end of 2004, only 64 of the 124 veterans national cemeteries will be available for both casketed and cremated remains. Recognizing the need to establish new cemeteries, Congress recently passed the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003 (H.R. 1516). This bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to construct a new national veterans cemetery in the following six cities: Jacksonville, FL; Sarasota, FL; Birmingham, AL; Bakersfield, CA; Philadelphia, PA; and Columbia, SC. These cities were identified by VA as being the areas in the greatest need of a new cemetery. As cemetery service capabilities decrease, veterans in areas near cemeteries that are at capacity will lose access to burial options within a reasonable distance of their homes. In order to ensure that burial options are provided for veterans and their family members, we must develop new cemeteries and expand existing cemeteries. This process must start as soon as possible because the construction of a new cemetery takes an average of seven years. I respectfully request that the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee work to include advance planning funds in conference so we begin constructing these new cemeteries and ensure our veterans have the burial options they deserve.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman for his efforts and I look forward to the final conference report.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I join Senator Reid today in offering an amendment that would allow a group of 17 prisoners of war from the first war in Iraq and their families, to collect the damages that have been awarded to them in a court of law, that are being blocked by the Bush administration. Historically, foreign nations and their diplomats have been protected from lawsuits in the United States, for their actions. However, that historical protection has been limited in certain instances. In 1996, Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow American citizens and families of American citizens to sue nations that have been found to be ``terrorist states,'' for acts of terrorism such as torture or taking of hostages. Congress went on to enact the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, which included a provision to allow frozen assets of terrorist states in U.S. banks to be used to pay court- awarded damages. Relying upon this legal framework, 17 of 21 prisoners of war of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and 37 members of their immediate families filed suit against Iraq. I won't describe the horrific experiences of every one of these brave men or the unimaginable distress of their families. But I do want to tell you about the experience of three of these POWs: LTC Michael Robert; LTC Russell Sanborn; and LTC Craig Berryman, three service members from Florida. It is important for the Senate and the American people to understand what they suffered while they were held in captivity. These soldiers endured horrendous treatment and are fortunate just to have survived. LTC H. Michael Roberts was shot down while flying over Iraq on January 19, 1991, He was able to eject but was immediately captured when he landed. In captivity, he suffered repeated beatings-- his captors cut his head from repeated blows from their rifle butts and he was shocked with an electronic prod. LTC Russell Sanborn's plane was shot down on February 9, 1991, and he was taken prisoner by a group of Iraqi soldiers. He was brutally beaten and suffered severe malnutrition. He lost 14 pounds in 26 days. Upon his release, Russell was diagnosed with parasitic anomalies and hearing loss. LTC Craig Berryman's aircraft was shot down on January 28, 1991. In captivity he survived numerous beatings and torture. As a result of his abuse in Iraq, Craig has continued to experience health problems. After having to relive these horrors in court, on July 7, 2003, a judgment was rendered in their favor and they were awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The problem is that when they went to collect their damages against the frozen Iraqi assets held in U.S. banks, the money was no longer there. That is because on March 20, 2003, immediately after start of military action against Iraq, President Bush issued an executive order confiscating Iraq's frozen assets in the United States and placing them in the Iraq Development Fund for use in its reconstruction. The Bush administration has done every thing in its power to undermine the integrity of this judicial process and to protect the interests of Iraq over the interests of American former prisoners of war. On May 22, 2003, the President issued another executive order which prohibits any judicial action that would seek funds from the Development Fun for Iraq, or other Iraqi national assets. The Bush administration went on to interpret the language in the 2003 emergency war supplemental intended to remove restrictions to providing foreign assistance to Iraq as a bar attachment of Iraqi foreign asset. When repeatedly asked about why the administration is standing in the way of these veterans being paid their court-awarded damages, the White House spokesman, never answered the question, but reiterated, three times, that ``there is no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein.'' If the Bush White House has their way, there will, in fact be no amount of money to compensate these brave men and women despite having proven their case in a court of law. Earlier this month, Congress approved President Bush's $87 billion supplemental appropriation request for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. At that time, I raised some significant questions as to our national priorities. We are facing mounting national debt. While our roads, bridges, schools, water and sewer lines, and electric grids are deteriorating, we will be sending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. This is another one of those questions. We are sending money to rebuild Iraq, but we are turning our back on a judicial decision that was achieved under laws this body created. We are turning our backs on the torture inflicted upon these 17 veterans who were taken as prisoners of war while serving our country. Mr. President, the costs of war do not end at the borders of Iraq; veterans will continue to pay them for years to come. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to see this injustice is rectified. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the two unanimous consent requests that have just been made I am afraid might have come out of my 15 minutes. I would like to ask unanimous consent if I could have an additional 3 minutes so that I will have my full 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for his generosity. I intend to use much of my time talking about the issue that was discussed by my friend and colleague from West Virginia. But I would like to start with some comments on the subject which has been before us since 6 p.m. yesterday; that is, the issue of judicial confirmation. This is a fundamental issue in our democracy. One of the great figures in the development of the structure of our Nation's Government stands over us every day we are in session in this Chamber; that is, the first Vice President of the United States, John Adams. Concerned about the structure of government, preceding the War for Independence and anticipating there would soon be a new nation which would be striving to develop the appropriate structures to maintain its democracy, John Adams wrote a series of his thoughts on government. These became the essential ideas first for the constitutions of the newly independent Colonies and State constitutions, and then in Philadelphia the development of the U.S. Constitution. One of the central points of John Adams's thoughts on government was the essential role which was played by an independent judiciary. He said, as quoted in the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of John Adams by David McCollough: Essential to the stability of government and to ``enable an impartial administration of justice,'' Adams stressed the separation of judicial power from both the legislative and the executive. There must be an independent judiciary. ``Men of experience in laws of exemplary morals, invincible patience, unrivaled comments and indefatigable application should be subservient to none and appointed for life.'' There were a number of provisions placed in the U.S. Constitution in order to carry out that essential independence of the judiciary. Many of those occur after an individual assumes his or her judicial position, including lifetime appointments, and the fact that Congress cannot reduce the salaries of a member of the Federal judiciary. Those are designed to protect Federal judges, both politically and economically, from undue interference. But the issue of how do you maintain impartiality in the selection of judges was one of the most contentious issues of the Constitutional Convention. Up until the very end of the Convention, the provision that was in the draft Constitution was for the Senate to appoint Federal judges. But there was concern that would put too much authority in the legislative branch, and thus the final compromise was to have the President make the nominations for judges but the Senate to confirm those nominations. There was not intended to be a subservient position for the Senate. Rather, it was to be a position of equality as a fundamental part, as John Adams said, of maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. What we are debating to date is the fundamental question of how should the Senate exercise its equal role in the designation of those persons who will become lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary. I believe that in this most serious of responsibilities we have, it is appropriate that the rules which apply to the general conduct of the Senate, rules which were largely written by John Adams's successor, Thomas Jefferson, who also looks down upon us this morning--that those rules should apply in order to protect the interests of the minority. That is not just a political minority; it might also be an economic or a regional minority. It has been the practice in this body that there be the provision for extended debate and that the termination of that extended debate require more than a majority of the Senate. Why should that procedure which applies to all other activities not apply to one of the most important, if not the most important, activities of the Senate, which is to play its equal role in the determination of who will be the judges of the Federal system in our Nation? Let me suggest that maybe we need to look beyond the confines that have dominated much of this debate and ask how can we, within a system that is balanced between the President and the Senate, do a better job of selecting judges and avoid the kind of contention and delay we are currently experiencing. Let me make three suggestions. Excuse my egocentric discussion of this first suggestion. But for 12 years, the two Senators from Florida were one Republican and one Democrat. Over that 12-year period, for one period of time the President was a Republican and then later a Democrat. During that 12-year period, Senator Connie Mack and I established a process. The process was to have a nonpartisan panel of citizens roughly divided between lawyers and lay people review the applications of persons who were seeking Federal judicial appointments. We refused to allow on any of the documentation an indication, direct or indirect, of what the party affiliation of the applicant was. Senator Mack and I refused in our interviews with those who were selected through this process to raise any questions of their partisan affiliation. This process proceeded with interviews of the applicants and a recommendation of generally three persons to Senator Mack and myself. We would select one of the three jointly and then submit that to the President. Virtually, if not totally, without exception, the President approved the person selected through that process, nominated that person, and this Senate confirmed that person generally in an expeditious manner--I hope because of the confidence of my colleagues in the impartiality and the merit orientation of the process we had used. I suggest to my colleagues and to the President that maybe a system analogous to this could be more broadly utilized at both the district court and the circuit court level in order to reduce the instances of the impasse in which we currently find ourselves. A second recommendation: There are some scholars who are now looking at the issue of the judiciary and its relationship to the executive and legislative branches, and they are beginning to suggest that possibly we should move away from a lifetime appointment of Federal judges at the district and circuit court levels--not at the Supreme Court level-- and to establish a fixed term such as 12 years rather than the current lifetime appointments. That 12-year term would be nonrenewable. This would have the benefit of persons knowing that the person appointed, nominated, and confirmed to the Federal judiciary at other than the Supreme Court level would serve an extended term but would not be permanently in office. Therefore, some of the concerns particularly about the philosophical views would be reduced. Finally, I think the President should be encouraged to reexamine what has become I think an unfortunate pattern and which has elevated the importance of the circuit courts, and it has elevated the attention given to the nominees for the circuit court, and that is the practice that almost all of the recent nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court were nominated directly from their service in a circuit court. In fact, every U.S. Supreme Court Justice since 1990 came out of the circuit court. I think serving on the Federal circuit court is a perfectly appropriate preparation for the Supreme Court. What I disagree with is that the entire Supreme Court should be made up of persons with that background. This Nation has been well served with Supreme Court Justices who had a variety of backgrounds, including people such as Hugo Black who had been a member of the Senate before he was appointed to the Supreme Court; Earl Warren, who was Governor of California before being appointed to the Supreme Court; persons who came from an academic background, such as Felix Frankfurt, or from the active practice of law, Louie Brandeis. I encourage the President, when there is another opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, to look more broadly than has become the pattern at least since 1990. With those comments I turn briefly to a discussion of the issue of the loss of manufacturing jobs and what we might do to put a tourniquet, to a degree, on that loss. A very fundamental question facing our Nation is, How can America maintain its standard of living substantially higher than the rest of the world, during a period of globalization of the economy where so much emphasis is going to what parts of the world can produce a product at the lowest unit cost. There are some things that we need to do in order to revise our trade policy. Many of them were discussed by the Senator from West Virginia. I particularly emphasize the importance of having the context of trade, issues such as labor, human rights, and environmental protection, become part of the trade negotiation. I am not suggesting the way to do this is by writing all those provisions into each trade agreement; rather, that we look to organizations such as the International Labor Organization, if not the oldest international organization in the world, an organization to which most countries belong and have accepted the labor protocols of, the International Labor Organization, to determine which of those protocols are appropriate to a specific trade agreement; include that, and then either through enhanced enforcement by the protocol itself, which I think is the preferable approach, but failing that, through mechanisms of the trade agreements, to see those standards become reality. Beyond changes in our trade law, we need to look at what is going to be required in America to make us as competitive as possible. I particularly reference two things: One, we have to have the best educated, the most productive workforce in the world if we are going to be able to compete globally and maintain our standards of living. John Adams was instructive on this point as well. John Adams urged the widest possible support for education: Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant. I agree with that assessment of John Adams and add to it the importance of training for adults who are finding their current skills are less in demand and need to either enhance those skills or to add new skills to their capabilities. Finally, before I conclude, we need to make a greater investment in our infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems are critical to our economic productivity. They are deteriorating. This Congress will have an opportunity soon to deal both with adequate funding of education, particularly for retraining of adults and to enhance our capability to provide a modern set of support systems for our economy.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the significance of Veterans Day and to honor the Americans it celebrates. On Veterans Day we pay tribute to the men and women who have fought for our freedom and those who continue to do so right now--they are far from their homes and families, striving to keep us safe from terrorism. These service-members exemplify what it means to be an American-- courage, selflessness, and a deep love of and commitment to his or her fellow countrymen. First proclaimed by President Wilson in 1919, Veterans Day was initially known as Armistice Day and was intended to commemorate the armistice between the Allies and Central Powers that ended the fighting of World War I. In 1953, a Kansas citizen named Alvin King lobbied to change the holiday's name to honor all veterans, not just those from World War I. On June 1, 1954, President Eisenhower signed into law an act proclaiming November 11 to be Veterans Day. Yesterday, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of that celebration. There are currently 25 million American veterans. Every day more and more service-members return home from Iraq and Afghanistan becoming new members of that elite group of citizens. These heroic Americans freely offer their lives to protect those they leave behind, and those they've never even met. For this sacrifice, we owe them our continued support and care. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has established a disturbing pattern of behavior that seriously undercuts this long-held ideal. In the past 2 years, the President has been full of patriotic words and speeches--rhetoric that has proven hollow. At a time when 133,000 service-members celebrated their Veterans Day in the deserts of Iraq, the Administration continues to undermine our veterans' ability to receive the quality health care they have earned. With the recent Iraq supplemental spending bill, the administration took an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to our troops and twisted it into another way to short-change our veterans. In that appropriations bill, my Senate colleagues and I worked hard to secure an additional $1.3 billion for VA healthcare. These desperately needed funds were subsequently removed at the insistence of the Bush Administration. Nationwide, 80,000 veterans--including more than 10,000 in my home State of Florida alone--are forced to wait longer than 6 months to see a VA doctor. When the service-members currently serving in Iraq return home and become veterans, they will be entitled to 2 years of priority VA health care after they have separated from military service. This added influx of patients, when coupled with the administration's refusal to give VA the money it needs to care for them, will only strain the system further. During debates on that same supplemental spending bill, my fellow Democrats and I joined together to offer an amendment that would have helped rectify a longstanding inequity in the retirement pay our veterans receive--or, should I say, don't receive. Currently, the earned retirement pay of veterans who are both disabled and eligible for military pensions is reduced simply because they receive disability benefits as well. This practice of denying concurrent receipt does not apply to other Federal workers, only to the courageous men and women like the ones currently serving overseas, who made the armed services their careers. I spent Veterans Day working alongside employees at the Miami VA Healthcare System and saw first-hand the number of veterans turning to VA for health care. As part of my duties there, I assisted the nursing staff on a patient floor and enrolled veterans for health care in the admissions area. This workday gave me an opportunity to see the numerous challenges facing VA. I stand in awe of both the VA staff and the heroic men and women they serve. As we honor our veterans this week, we must not follow the administration's lead of making empty promises. We must fight to ensure quality health care for all of veterans, just as they have fought to ensure our quality of life. We must pay this nation's service-members, past and present, the highest tribute we can and finally give them what they have so bravely earned.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a fine humanitarian and Floridian, Dr. Oswald P. Bronson, Sr., who will be retiring in June 2004. An educator and spiritual leader, Dr. Bronson has spent his life building bridges between the college and the community. Throughout his 28-year career as President of Bethune- Cookman College, Dr. Bronson has overseen tremendous growth and improvements on campus. Dr. Bronson's dedication to excellence in education and community advocacy has enriched the lives of Floridians and Americans. Dr. Bronson's leadership and achievements at Bethune-Cookman College are a benchmark in higher education. Under his guidance, the college has nearly doubled its enrollment to 2,500. It has raised its community economic impact to $250 million, boosted endowments from $1.2 million to $25 million, and increased its total operating budget from $6 million to more than $45 million. His vibrant personality, genuine concern for the growth of the institution, and commitment to the founder's vision, enable him to bring unprecedented private, corporate and governmental support to the institution. Active on campus and off, Dr. Bronson's belief in service to the community is evident in his numerous outside activities, including his appointment to an advisory post by former President Bill Clinton. He has served as chairman and president of prestigious educational and religious organizations nationwide, including his most recent appointment to the Board of Directors for the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. Dr. Bronson is an ordained United Methodist Church minister, and former president of the Interdenominational Theological Seminary. He has served as a pastor in Florida, Georgia and Illinois for 16 years, and has lectured and taught in numerous mission schools, clinics, pastoral institutes and leadership training seminars. Dr. Bronson has fostered and strengthened Bethune-Cookman College's relationship with the local community and the world. A thoughtful and well-respected member of the Bethune-Cookman College family, Dr. Bronson has advocated for increased diversity and understanding on campus and off. I am pleased that outstanding Floridians like Dr. Bronson are setting an example for communities across our Nation, and I want to thank him for his service.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an innovative musician and Floridian, Dr. William P. Foster. For over 50 years, Dr. Foster was conductor of the internationally acclaimed Florida A&M University Marching ``100'' Band. Throughout his musical career at FAMU, Dr. Foster has been credited with revolutionizing marching band techniques and redefining the marching band as an art form. Dr. Foster's dedication to excellence in education through the arts has enriched the lives of Floridians and Americans. In June of 1946, Dr. Foster came to Florida A&M University to establish the Marching ``100'' Band. Since its inception, the band has participated in more than 200 half-time pageants, has appeared in three films, three commercials, and numerous magazine and newspaper articles. The band has appeared on 60 Minutes, 20/20 and PM Magazine telecasts and thirty-four nationally televised performances on all networks with a viewing audience of over five billion people. On October 26, 1984, the FAMU Marching Band was presented the prestigious Sudler Intercollegiate Marching Band Trophy. In 1989, the band was selected by the French government, to serve as America's official representative in the Bastille Day Parade, celebrating the Bicentennial of the French Revolution. The band also appeared in both of President Bill Clinton's inaugural parades, in January of 1993 and 1997. This list of band appearances and honors is by no means exhaustive. Dr. Foster's contributions to FAMU have earned him State and national recognition as well. He is a member of the Hall of Fame for several organizations including the National Association for Distinguished Band Conductors, the Florida Music Educators Association and the Afro- American Hall of Fame, to name a few. In 1994, he was elected president of the American Bandmasters Association and in 1996, President Bill Clinton nominated, and the U.S. Congress approved Dr. Foster's presidential appointment to serve on the National Council on the Arts. In August of 2003, Dr. Foster's efforts were recognized again by the State of Florida, when he was inducted into the Florida Artists Hall of Fame. This award acknowledges individuals who contribute to Florida's national and international reputation as a State with a strong and sustained commitment toward the development of cultural excellence. Dr. Foster has taken an active role to ensure the continued musical involvement of the FAMU student body. As an inspired bandleader and advisor, Dr. Foster sought financial support to aid his undergraduate students in the Marching ``100'' Band. Initially, Dr. Foster gave thousands of dollars of his own money, and started to work with large and small corporations, and private citizens. However, Dr. Foster was never satisfied with the level of support he received for the students. When Dr. Foster stepped down as Director of Bands and Department Chairman, he set forth to dedicate his attention the creation of a foundation. To this end, and with the assistance of Mr. Harold E. Byrd, Sr., on April 22, 1998 the William P. Foster Foundation was established. Mr. President, I commend Dr. William P. Foster for his commitment to education, music and philanthropy. His commitment to education and philanthropy is an example to us all. For his many years of public service, I am proud to acknowledge the work of Dr. William P. Foster.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, there have been some comments by my colleagues that the people who are concerned about this issue and who are at risk are Governors, State legislators, mayors, county commissioners, and other officials at the State and local level. I beg to disagree. The people who are at risk include that child who is in an overcrowded classroom. The people who are at risk are those persons who have suffered a heart attack and are waiting for the emergency medical service to arrive. The people who are at risk include that woman whose car is broken down on a dark highway and who is waiting for the State trooper to come give assistance. Under this concept of federalism that our Government has followed since its beginning, those responsibilities--education, emergency response, law enforcement--have been placed in the hands of the States. It is their responsibility to provide for a governmental structure of State and local response that will fulfill those and literally thousands of other responsibilities. It has been said that federalism is the most significant governmental concept which has been developed by the United States. It is a philosophy which has always been in flux. We are looked down upon in this Chamber by two of the figures who represent the divisions within federalism: Our first Vice President, John Adams, who was a strong advocate of a central government; Thomas Jefferson, our second Vice President, who was an equally strong advocate of responsibility being placed as close as possible to where the people affected by that action of government live. Federalism depends upon certain fundamental principles. One, it depends upon the principle of a respectful relationship between the central government and the States. It depends upon the ability to accept diversity. Most countries have a ministry of education which is responsible for education on a nationwide basis. We have gone a different course. We have 50 States which have the primary responsibility for education from prekindergarten to graduate school. We have the concept that the States should be given significant latitude so they can be the laboratories for experimentation in our Nation. We also believe under federalism that there should be, to the greatest degree possible, a matching of power and responsibility. If the States, for instance, have a certain set of responsibilities, they should have the commensurate power to organize to meet those responsibilities and to determine what level of revenues are going to be necessary to meet those responsibilities and from what source or sources those revenues should come. We recognize that under our Constitution, the Federal Government has ultimate authority. If there is a conflict between the States and the national government, the national government prevails. That concept was engrained in our Nation through the Civil War which settled the question of which level of government was supreme. The Federal Government should not use this power that it has in an arrogant manner but, rather, with discretion and respect. State governments have all power that is not delegated to the Federal Government. But they, too, should not use that residual power in an arrogant way but recognize that, while they are serving specifically the constituents of their State, they also are serving ends that benefit the Nation. Education is the most obvious example of a responsibility which has national service but which is directed at the State and local school district level. Mr. President, the term ``situational Federalist'' has come into vogue to describe people who will be Federalist, particularly in representing the role of State and local government when the ends to be met will be achieved through decentralization, and they are not Federalist when the ends they seek to achieve will be better accomplished through centralizing power. I reject the concept of ``situational Federalism.'' I believe, for this great, large, diverse, dynamic country to best function, we in Washington should be very respectful of the role of the States, even when the end result of that may be a policy position with which we do not necessarily agree. I think we have arrived at one of those moments tonight. In this case, almost everyone in this Chamber supports the principle that is in the national interest to have an expansion of access to this wonderful new world made possible by the Internet. But we believe we should carry out that objective with discretion. That is what we have done to date. We have incrementally, 2 years at a time, extended the moratorium on the ability of State and local governments to have taxation of access to the Internet; and we have been carefully defining just what the range of that moratorium on taxation would be. And outside of that definition, we have given the States and local governments significant authority. That authority has resulted in a not insignificant totality of the revenue of State governments. As an example, last year, on a nationwide basis, State governments collected between $4 billion and $9 billion of revenue from sources which this legislation would render immediately and permanently nontaxable. I believe that is not an example of the respectful way in which the Federal Government should deal with our Federal partners at the State level. As Senator Voinovich has said, and as Senator Carper and as Senator Alexander will say, we will make a proposal tomorrow that I think represents that appropriate respectful relationship. It does what we have done now twice before--provide for a 2-year moratorium on Internet access. It keeps, with one exception, the same definition of interstate access that we have had from the beginning of this series of moratoriums. It does not preemptorily eliminate the ability of those States that were grandfathered in to continue to collect those taxes. It will anticipate a gradual phaseout of that grandfather status, but not one that could have a shock effect on the ability of those 11 States, which does not include my State, and which does not include the State of the Presiding Officer. We should not look at this parochially from our own interests but, rather, what best serves our responsibilities as Federalists. Mr. President, I intend to speak at somewhat greater length tomorrow as we get into the details of why we believe S. 150, as submitted, is not in our tradition of federalism, and to suggest an alternative, which will be offered by four of us who are now colleagues, but previously in our life did have the responsibility of the chief executive of one of our 50 States, and therefore know from personal experience the challenges that States have in educating its young people, providing critical law enforcement and emergency services to our people, and the necessity of having the capacity to fund those services, which is the equivalent of the responsibility itself. I believe the proposal that will be offered tomorrow is a reasoned proposal that assures that there will be no further encroachment on access to the Internet through increased taxation, while at the same time respecting the fact that taxation on telecommunications revenues represents a significant capability of the States to meet their obligations. Mr. President, with that somewhat philosophical introduction, I look forward to a debate on the specifics of this issue when we meet again tomorrow.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has some of the most dedicated volunteers in the country, and today I would like to shine a light on those at the Gainesville VA Medical Center, VAMC, in my home State of Florida. The Malcolm Randall VAMC in Gainesville is a tertiary care facility that specializes in an array of services including cardiology, neurosurgery, and nursing home care. With its symbiotic relationship to the University of Florida, it is also an active teaching hospital. In 2002, the hospital had 388,471 outpatient visits, and it continues to draw hundreds of volunteers. The hospital currently has over 800 registered volunteers. The Gainesville Sun profiled some of these selfless individuals and their commitment to service at the VAMC. Included among these volunteers was an 82-year-old widow named Dorothy ``Dot'' Caldwell. The article described how every Tuesday, Dot leaves her home at 3:30 in the morning to make the 1-hour drive to the medical center and then spends 10 hours there. She makes this 100-mile round trip every week so she can repay VA for the care if gave he husband William, a World War II veteran, her father, and two of her brothers. Dot has been volunteering at the Gainesville VAMC for 21 years. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude to those who risked their lives defending our country, and I am thankful to all of this Nation's hardworking, compassionate volunteers for helping to repay that debt. I am especially proud that such shining examples of this kind of service hail from my own State, one that is so highly populated with veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Gainesville Sun highlighting the work of these volunteers, as well as the complete list of volunteers who work at the Gainesville VAMC be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, every November organizations throughout America recognize the spirit of community service with National Philanthropy Day. This November, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate an outstanding Floridian, Mrs. Carol Kanarek of Vero Beach, who is receiving the 2003 National Philanthropy Day Unsung Hero Award from the Treasure Coast Chapter of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. The Unsung Hero Award is given to an individual who has been an exceptional volunteer. Carol Kanarek certainly fits this description. Carol Kanarek is a valued member of the Vero Beach community for her leadership, commitment, and extensive knowledge and experience. She is known as a coalition builder--someone who brings people and resources together to further the goals of the organizations for whom she volunteers. She has a true love of people, and a compassion for all causes. For more than 20 years, Mrs. Kanarek has volunteered her time and energy to numerous organizations in her community including health care organizations, religious organizations, schools, and charities. For example, Mrs. Kanarek has worked with the Riverside Children's Theatre, the March of Dimes, the United Way, the Visiting Nurses Association Hospice House, St. Edwards School, and the Temple Beth Shalom. This list is by no means exhaustive. No project is too big or too small for Mrs. Kanarek. From chairing the Rabbi Selection committee at Temple Beth Shalom to working the concession stand at a Riverside Children's Theatre event, she always makes time. When working on committees, Mr. Kanarek is known as a consensus builder, always considering the concerns of others when developing a solution. Her gracious manner and gentle persistence have made Mrs. Kanarek a valuable asset to the many organizations of which she is a member. Mrs. Kanarek's patience and tireless enthusiasm for community service distinguish her as a woman who places others before herself. Mr. President, philanthropy is one of defining characteristics of American society. Service for the benefit of others and commitment to something greater than personal reward strengthen our communities and neighborhoods, bringing us together and improving our quality of life. I commend Carol Kanarek for her commitment to community service, volunteerism, and philanthropy. I am pleased that outstanding Floridians like Mrs. Kanarek are setting an example for communities across our nation, and I want to thank her for her service.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a fine humanitarian and Floridian, Dr. Martha Rhodes Roberts, who is retiring on October 31. Throughout her 34-year career with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Dr. Martha Rhodes Roberts has contributed to Florida's agriculture food safety industry as a scientific authority, industry counselor, strategist, and partner in the endeavors of Florida agricultural producers. She has become an expert on minimizing food contamination for consumers, by helping to develop safer standards in food processing. Dr. Rhodes Roberts' dedication to safe food practices has enriched the lives of Floridians and Americans. Since beginning her career with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as a microbiologist in the Food Laboratory in 1968, Dr. Roberts has been a tireless advocate to ensure the food Americans eat is safe and abundant while at the same time helping the agricultural community to minimize their impacts on the environment. In addition to these achievements, she has the distinction of serving as the first female Assistant Commissioner of Agriculture for a State agency in the country. During her tenure at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Dr. Roberts was instrumental in Florida's food safety program becoming one of the preeminent State food safety programs in the country. She also has overseen the divisions of pesticides, fertilizers, seeds, agricultural water policy, soil and water conservation, animal feeds, aquaculture and dairy and animal industries during her long career with the department. Dr. Roberts has served on several Federal advisory groups for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and she has served as president of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, comprised of all States, FDA and USDA. She was instrumental in organizing the Conference for Food Protection, a national body to set food safety standards for all States. Dr. Roberts is a member of the Institute of Food Technologists' Science Advisory Board, which provides scientific review and analysis of issues in food safety, food processing and human health. Dr. Roberts has utilized her expertise in food safety to assist producers, packers and processors in implementing new technologies designed to minimize food contamination, ensuring the highest quality and safest food products for consumers. In 1996, recognizing that natural resource management was critical for Florida agriculture's long term viability, Dr. Roberts advocated the creation of the Office of Agricultural Water Policy within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Today it remains the only water policy office housed within a State department of agriculture. She also spearheaded the formation of the Suwannee River Basin Nutrient Management Working Group, a 26-member public-private partnership formed to assess nutrient loadings to the Suwannee River Watershed and effect reductions via voluntary, incentive-based programs. This innovative approach has resulted in dramatic environmental benefits to the watershed as a whole. Dr. Roberts was instrumental in the establishment of the Commissioner of Agriculture's Ag-Environmental Leadership Awards Program. This program, now in its ninth year, annually recognizes those Florida growers and ranchers who employ innovative management practices designed to optimize the protection of wildlife, effectively manage pesticides and nutrients, protect water quality, and conserve soil and water. Dr. Roberts has been recognized with numerous awards and commendations for her efforts. In 2003, she received Florida's agriculture industry's highest honor when she was inducted into the Florida Agricultural Hall of Fame. Dr. Roberts has been a strong advocate of using a common sense approach when implementing a regulatory program. She helped win passage of Florida's country of origin labeling law in 1979 and worked to see this law become a Federal reality in 2002. For her many years of service ensuring the food Americans eat is safe, abundant and affordable, I am proud to acknowledge the work of Dr. Martha Rhodes Roberts.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I would like to add my voice of support and commitment to this important language. I will work to ensure the final conference report includes this language. We can no longer wait to institute these important policies that will serve to protect our veterans from benefits buy-out schemes.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Florida.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, for a year, a joint committee of members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee carried out their responsibilities to do a comprehensive review of what happened before September 11 as it related to the role of the intelligence community; what happened after September 11, particularly in utilizing the information that was gathered around that tragic event; and then what recommendations for some fundamental change that would enhance the capacity of the intelligence community to reduce the prospect of another 9/11. That report took over 800 pages. It had some 19 recommendations for action. After the report was completed, it was submitted to the administration--primarily the CIA, the FBI, and the White House--for review as to whether there were any elements of that report that would be categorized as national security and therefore not for general public distribution. The section of the report that received the greatest degree of such classification, in fact, virtually 100 percent, was the section that related to the role of foreign governments in the events leading up to 9/11, and then how well our responsible agencies had followed the leads and tracked the developments and events before 9/11; after 9/11 for purposes of potential criminal prosecution, for purposes of understanding why we had these gaps; and what the role of foreign governments would be; for the purpose of diplomatic or other policies that might be instituted vis-a-vis countries that were found to have been cooperative or even complicitous in the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, and then finally to form the recommendations of what fundamental change should be made. The consequences of denying to the American people access to that section of the report are many. No. 1, the American people have been denied the opportunity to know fully what, in fact, happened. No. 2, they have been denied the opportunity to hold accountable those agencies or individuals who were responsible for that inappropriate action by a foreign government. We have been unable to hold the State Department accountable for its action vis-a-vis the foreign governments. Finally, we have taken a substantial amount of the impetus and sense of urgency out of the recommendations for fundamental reform. In fact, the Senate has yet to hold a first hearing on the 19 recommendations that we made. I think it is of the highest order of concern for the American people that they have access to this information and then they will do with that information what they believe is appropriate. But ignorance and secrecy serves no national purpose. I urge the adoption of this amendment to urge the President to reevaluate the decision to censure the chapter on the role of foreign governments.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, today the House passed important legislation that has already unanimously passed the Senate and authorizes the construction of six new national veterans cemeteries. By passing this bill, we ensure that America's veterans and their families have access to the burial honors they have earned. The brave men and women who fought for our nation are a population that is aging rapidly. In 2002, America lost 646,264 veterans. Projections show that this rate will continue to climb through the year 2008, when we are expected to lose over 700,000 veterans. By the end of 2004, only 64 of the 124 veterans national cemeteries will be available for both casketed and cremated remains. As cemetery service capabilities decrease, veterans in areas near cemeteries that are at capacity will lose access to burial options within a reasonable distance of their homes. In order to ensure that burial options are provided for veterans and their family members, we must develop new cemeteries and expand existing cemeteries. This process must start as soon as possible because the construction of a new cemetery takes an average of seven years. In anticipation of veterans' future needs, the Department of Veterans Affairs conducted a study that identifies veteran population centers not served by an open national or state veterans cemetery. The report, ``Future Burial Needs,'' was initially released in May 2002 and has been recently revised using veteran population estimates from the 2000 census. The report identified 31 locations as areas where cemeteries would need to be established. Recognizing that it would not be practicable to establish national cemeteries in all 31 locations, especially in areas where state cemeteries could meet the needs of smaller veterans' populations, VA established guidelines to determine the neediest areas. In locations that had more than 170,000 veterans residing more than 75 miles from an open state or national cemetery, VA would establish or expand national cemeteries. Based on revised population estimates and the new guidelines, VA identified 11 locations that required either a new national cemetery or an expansion of an existing national cemetery. Of these locations, five will be served by an already-planned state cemetery funded through VA's State Cemetery Grants Program or by expanding existing national cemeteries. This bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to construct veterans cemeteries six cities: Jacksonville, Florida; Sarasota, Florida; Birmingham, Alabama; Bakersfield, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Columbia, South Carolina. We cannot afford to wait any longer to fulfill this commitment to our nation's veterans. Mr. President, I am proud to have sponsored legislation to help provide peace of mind to veterans and their families at that difficult time. Now, I look forward to working with my colleagues on securing the necessary resources to begin construction of these cemeteries expeditiously.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Florida Marlins for their outstanding victory in the 2003 World Series. The Marlins, under the leadership of their Managing General Partner Jeffrey Loria, General Manager Larry Beinfest and Manager Jack McKeon, defeated the 26-time World Champion New York Yankees to garner their second World Championship in only their 10th year of existence. With their combination of youthful energy and veteran experience, the Marlins were able to defeat the defending National League Champion San Francisco Giants in four games in the divisional series before coming back from a three games-to-one deficit to defeat the Chicago Cubs in seven games to win the National League Pennant. Led by the enthusiastic leadership of veteran catcher Ivan Rodriguez and the pitching of budding superstar Josh Beckett, the Marlins have a bright future ahead of them. Floridians from Key West to Pensacola were riveted by the Marlins comeback style and gritty determination as they watched their home team defeat three of baseball's most storied franchises on their way to the championship. As a silence fell over the boroughs of New York City, a party of historic proportions broke out in my home state as our team emerged from the dugout to celebrate its second championship. The Florida Marlins continue to be a source of pride for residents of the Sunshine State and this year's team, so often faced with adversity, stood as a fine representative of all that our great state has to offer.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, for having offered this sense of the Senate. The sense of the Senate has an additional significance as we face some fundamental issues in the closing days of this session. First, I will talk about the base concerns. As the Senator from North Dakota said, the principal purpose of the joint inquiry was to determine what had been the role of the intelligence community in the events leading up to September 11. In many instances in the course of that pursuit, the committee staff came to unearth FBI reports, CIA reports, and other intelligence community reports. We were not in a position, either in terms of our staff capabilities or our jurisdiction, to then go behind those reports to attempt to validate them. These were reports written by agents of these appropriate intelligence agencies, but we could not, from primary sources, validate them. The FBI, primarily--and some other intelligence agencies, as well--were tasked to do exactly that, to find out if their own documents in many cases could be substantiated. Those requests were made approximately a year ago. Still, today, many of those requests have not been answered. The administration has said, either directly or in some cases through intermediaries, that our report is deficient in that there is not second- and third-party confirmation of the statements we include. We included exactly what the FBI or CIA or other agencies had written. We asked the appropriate agencies, primarily FBI, to pursue these to determine if they were substantiated, and in many instances that has not occurred. There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of the United States. There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this government have provided the level of assistance--financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response. My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued. An even more serious question is what would lead us to believe that if there was this infrastructure of a foreign government supporting some of the 19 terrorists, that as soon as September 11 concluded, as soon as the last flames were put out at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and on the field in Pennsylvania, all that infrastructure was immediately taken down? Again, this is my hypothesis: I don't believe it was taken down. I believe that infrastructure is likely to still be in place assisting the next generation of terrorists who are in the United States. Those are very fundamental questions, and if the public had access to these 28 pages, they would be demanding answers. As I mentioned in the beginning of my remarks, there is another issue which is going to emerge in the next few days. We had a long debate in this Chamber on the supplemental appropriations bill, the bill providing $87 billion for the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. We had a long debate as to whether some of that reconstruction money should be in the form of loans rather than, as the President has insisted, all of it being in grants. What is one of the practical effects of making all of the U.S. money which will go into the reconstruction of Iraq a grant? The answer to that question is that one of the consequences, ironically, will be that we will make all of the countries which currently have loans to Iraq that much more solvent because we will have, without any request for repayment, made a significant investment in enhancing the economic viability of Iraq and, therefore, the ability of whatever government is placed in ultimate control of Iraq more capable of repaying those loans. There is a further irony that some of those countries, which are disclosed in the 28 censored pages as having been complicitous with the terrorists, are among the list of those creditors of Iraq that are going to get this indirect economic benefit. I believe the Members of Congress, who are going to be called upon to vote on whether we should grant this indirect benefit to a country that has been less than supportive of our Nation's war on terror, ought to know that before we vote and then find out later the full consequences of what we have done. So there was an issue as to why these 28 pages should have been released when the report was initially completed in December of 2002. Those issues remain today. And there is the additional issue of whether we are going to inadvertently grant a significant financial benefit to a country that has been to say less than our ally in the war on terror would be a gross understatement. I commend the Senator from North Dakota for having offered this sense of the Senate. It is a very important issue. I hope this Senate will adopt the sense of the Senate. If not, if the President continues to refuse to allow the American people to have access to this information, then I hope the Congress will be willing to use some of the authorities that it has to declassify information. Because the higher interest is not in placating this administration's unwillingness to be forthcoming on the issue. The higher interest in this democracy is that the people have access to relevant information which is not an issue of national security but which is a significant issue in terms of understanding the consequences of decisions that we have and will soon be making. I urge adoption of the sense of the Senate and again express my admiration to the Senator from North Dakota for having presented it this afternoon.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Madam President, as ranking member on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I rise to lend my support to the Bond- Mikulski amendment for an additional $1.3 billion for VA health care. I think it is abundantly clear to everyone in the chamber that the VA health care system is in dire need of additional and significant resources. The administration has extolled the proposed VA budget as a historic increase, when in reality this type of increase is beyond what anyone could expect in the current economic climate. It has been touted as an increase of 7 to 11 percent over last year's budget, depending on who is speaking. When you look at the budget proposed by the administration, a different story comes to light. Once the new copayments and fees are stripped away, the theoretical management efficiencies discounted for what they really are, and the accounting tricks are identified, we are left with an appropriation that barely keeps pace with inflation. As we shape VA's budget for the next year, we must move beyond hopeful rhetoric and quack accounting to take an honest assessment of the needs of veterans. We all know--and many of us have mentioned--that more than 100,000 veterans must wait more than 6 months to see VA physicians. While VA's committed professionals are struggling to handle the increased patient load, they are doing it without a corresponding increase in resources. This must be rectified. When we debated and voted on the first war supplemental bill in April, I secured additional health dollars for VA to care for servicemembers returning from the Gulf. This money was simply a start, since VA will continue to see troops coming home and seeking health care in the coming years. If we can afford to send tens of billions of dollars overseas to support the troops while in conflict, how can we possibly not fully fund their care when they return home? Veterans groups know that the VA health care system is in crisis--and so do both the House and Senate. Congress passed a $3.1 billion increase in the budget resolution, meeting the mark for VA health care determined by experts in the veterans community. Yet, it has proven difficult to secure these funds for VA. It is important to note that there is still a $300 million deficit in veterans health spending for next year. While the Bond-Mikulski amendment ensures that a large portion of the money will be there for veterans without the subjective emergency spending designation, it is just a first step. We need to finish the job and make sure that health care is fully funded for our veterans. I am proud to lend my name to this amendment. Indeed, my good friend Jay Rockefeller and I were planning on offering a similar one to the VA spending bill. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment--we owe our servicemembers and veterans nothing less.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote no on final passage of this legislation. I am deeply concerned about the implications of this $87 billion expenditure on domestic fiscal issues, such as the enormous addition this will make to an already enormous deficit this fiscal year and the effect this will have on pursuit of important priorities within the United States of America. My fundamental reason for voting against this is that I think we have two choices: We can either continue to go it alone in Iraq, or we can seriously internationalize this occupation and reconstruction. By seriously, I mean something beyond the words of the U.N. resolution that was passed yesterday and the reality of troops on the ground and dollars in the Treasury for reconstruction. I believe this $87 billion blank check appropriation removes whatever incentive this administration may have had to negotiate seriously a burden sharing and a decisionmaking sharing with those countries which have the capability of providing real support in Iraq. Because I believe the effect of the $87 billion appropriations will be to make our troops less secure, more exposed to danger without any exit strategy, I will vote no. At an appropriate time after this vote, I am going to ask recognition to give a fuller statement of my position.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise this evening to elaborate on my vote against the $87 billion supplemental appropriations for the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan. This supplemental appropriation raises significant domestic issues for the United States as well as the fundamental question of what will be required for an honorable completion of our responsibilities in Iraq and an expeditious exit. The domestic issues include an enormous addition to our national debt. This year's deficit is now estimated to surpass last year's record-setting deficit of $455 billion. With this additional $87 billion, we are imposing another crushing burden on our children and grandchildren while assuring that we will escape most of the cost. The President, with our concurrence, has avoided any sacrifice by most Americans, including the sacrifice of paying for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. This is in sharp contrast with previous occupations and reconstructions such as the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan, from 1948 to 1952, was paid for by the generation of Americans who were in this country through the period at the end of the Second World War. In fact, the national debt--that debt owed to the public--actually was lower in 1952 than it was in 1948. But today the only Americans who are being asked to sacrifice are our brave men and women in uniform and their families, and our children and grandchildren who will eventually be called upon to pay this crushing debt. A second domestic reality is that while American roads, bridges, schools, water and sewer lines, and electric grids are deteriorating, there will be scant Federal funding to contribute to their reconstruction because we are making the decision that it is more important to rebuild Iraq. And we are making the decision to do it alone. In spite of my great concern about those domestic implications, I would be prepared to vote for the $87 billion of unpaid funds in this supplemental appropriations bill if I had been satisfied that it would achieve the goal of an honorable and expeditious exit from Iraq. However, it is my assessment that it will not do so. Rather, it could well extend our Iraq occupation into a 21st century sequel to Vietnam. It is my firmly held belief that we need to extricate ourselves from the quagmire that our policy has created in Iraq. We need to refocus our foreign policy on the greatest threat facing Americans at home and U.S. interests abroad: the networks of international terrorism. We must restart the war on terrorism, which has effectively been in abeyance since this administration shifted our military and intelligence resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in the spring of 2002. As I have said previously, that shift was misguided. We have allowed al-Qaida to regenerate. We have allowed other terrorist networks-- Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad--to continue their devious plotting against us and our allies. We still have not caught al-Qaida's and the Taliban's senior leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. We are witnessing a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. International terrorists operating from the sanctuary of Syria are now targeting United States citizens. As a result, we have again been forced to endure bombings and significant loss of life in Riyadh, Israel, the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere. Last October, I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime. I argued at the time that there was no question that Saddam Hussein was anything other than an evil man but, further, that he lived in a neighborhood with many evil men and women and that we needed to remain focused on the war on terrorism in order to deter additional attacks, such as the tragedy our Nation suffered on September 11, 2001. In fact, I offered an amendment to the Iraqi resolution to expand the President's authority to use force against al-Qaida to include five other terrorist networks that pose immediate threats to America. In the rush to war in Iraq, the amendment failed. I am tempted to offer that amendment again to emphasize we need to disengage from Iraq as quickly as we can honorably do so and to restart the war on terrorism, a war against our real enemies, not those with phantom weapons of mass destruction. I say: Let us take President Bush at his word, at least the words he uttered 9 days after the tragedy of September 11, when he told a joint session of Congress: Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. In his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002, President Bush restated our priority: Our Nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world. Frankly, I did not offer my amendment, although I thought it would have provided the legal basis for the President's objectives to be accomplished, because I knew my amendment would fail. It would fail because a coalition from the right, which has elevated the war on Iraq over the war on terrorism and now is attempting to confuse the difference between these two, with a coalition from the left which opposes any increase in President Bush's authority to use U.S. military force. So I did not offer the amendment. But I will remain true to my convictions, as I voted no on this supplemental appropriations bill. I know a vote against this bill will be described as a vote against our troops. I would say, however, the best way to support our troops is to get other soldiers from other nations into Iraq. First, we need troops from other nations as an addition to the presence of military force in Iraq to increase security and, hopefully, end the shooting gallery which we have forced our brave men and women to endure. I would suggest an additional 50,000 troops are needed to secure the peace. Second, we need to get additional foreign troops on the ground to substitute for American troops so our soldiers, our men and women who have been enduring long deployments in hot, dangerous conditions, can begin to rotate home. These additional foreign troops should number between 50,000 and 100,000. Secretary Powell's efforts at the United Nations resulted yesterday in a unanimous vote by the Security Council. But that vote was immediately followed by firm statements from the French, the Germans, the Pakistanis, the Russians, and others that they will not lend additional troops or financial aid to the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The fact that the Security Council passed a resolution is commendable, but not one of the 100,000 to 150,000 foreign troops needed to secure Iraq and relieve our troops has been provided. Without commitments of troops and Euros and rubles and rupees, there will be no additional protection or burden-sharing for U.S. troops who are on the ground in Iraq. I warn my colleagues, I have detected two clocks ticking on our almost unilateral occupation of Iraq. The first clock is the increasing reluctance of other countries, countries which are capable of doing so, to participate in the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. If the United States had requested immediately after the war that these countries participate and did so under respectful conditions, it is quite likely we would have significant support on the ground in Iraq tonight. However, almost 6 months later, as the violence and the cost of occupation and restoration in Iraq accelerates, those nations capable of sharing the burden and willing to do so have shrunk. On the current course their number may evaporate. The second clock has been the declining support of the American people, as evidenced by recent polls. The decline has steepened since the President's request for this supplemental spending bill was announced during a televised address on Sunday, September 7, of this year. Here are the poll numbers. When Americans were asked, do you approve of the President's policy in Iraq, as recently as April, 75 percent of Americans answered yes. By June, that 75 percent had declined to 67 percent. From the latest poll, which was published on October 14, just 50 percent of Americans said they approved of the President's policy in Iraq. Clearly, the American people are not willing to write a blank check for rebuilding Iraq when we have so many unmet needs here at home, when the cost of that occupation has been so great in terms of loss of life and American dollars. A component of this second ticking clock is the ominous state of morale among our troops in Iraq, as found in a nonscientific survey conducted by the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes. This survey demonstrated that fully a third of regular Army troops described their morale as either low or very low. Among reservists and National Guard members, 48 percent, almost half, described their morale as low or very low. I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of an article from the October 16 issue of Stars and Stripes in the Record.