Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Right.

Mr. GRAHAM. It is my understanding, the majority leader said on the floor of the Senate: Our goal is to try to get out by the 18th because we do not want to be here on Christmas Eve like we were last time. I think that was music to most of our ears. So could the Senator please walk through with me what the Senate has been dealing with since last Wednesday? The tax debate finally got finished when, last night?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield? As we play this out, I think there is a lot of bipartisan agreement that the United States needs to develop some form of missile defense. I know Senator Kerry does agree. I am sure the President does. We all live in a very dangerous world. The idea of a missile coming from Iran or North Korea or some other rogue nations is a reality. It is a different topic to talk about neutering a first strike from the Russian Federation. But the idea that an intercontinental ballistic missile coming to the United States from some rogue nation such as Iran or North Korea--does my colleague believe that is a possibility in the future?

Mr. GRAHAM. And I believe the President of the United States believes that too.

Mr. GRAHAM. Here is the problem, and correct me if I am wrong. If we enter into this treaty and the preamble is not clarified or stricken, there could come a point down the road, as we develop these systems to defend against what we all agree is a real national security threat to the United States, what damage would it do to our relationship and what kind of conflict would it create or anxiety in the world at large if the Russians say: We are going to back out of the treaty, because that is the one thing you do not want to happen. You do not want to sign a treaty where you are going to do A, and if you do A, they back out because you put the world in a state of confusion and danger. The idea that all the papers in the world would one day read: Russians back out of strategic arms limitation treaty because of U.S. deployment of missile defense--to me, that is something we need to deal with with certainty because if that day ever came, it would really be an unnerving event. It is clear to me that the Russians have taken the preamble language to mean that we have limited ourselves. It is clear to me that the President is trying to say we have not limited ourselves. Senator Kerry says it, I say it, you say it. But if the Russians do not agree with that, it would be better not to do the treaty, in my view, than it would be to create an illusion that the world is safer and have that illusion destroyed. Just think this through. No matter how much you want a treaty, the worst thing that could happen, in my view, is that two major powers with nuclear weapons sometime in the future have a falling out. That is where we are headed if we do not get this right. To my colleagues, this is a big event. It is a big moment in terms of our relationship with Russia. But you should not sign a treaty when there is a high likelihood, if we do what we think we need to do, that it will put them in a spot of having to withdraw. That has to be settled. Taking the preamble out--if we took it out and they still signed the treaty, that would make sense. If you leave it confusing, then you are asking yourself for a heartache down the road. Do you agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM. We are going to have a little exchange here in a minute about what the last week has been like. There have been some statements that Republicans have not been here offering amendments, that somehow we have sort of been letting time pass at the expense of a meaningful debate on the START treaty. I think we can catalog at least what three of us have been doing in the last week, and that might be informative to the body as to why it has been tough to talk about START in a meaningful way. But to Senator Levin, who is a wonderful man, if this preamble language being taken out of the treaty is a fatal problem, then that bothers me because I do not know if any Russians are listening to this debate, but I have a simple question for your government. Your government has been saying publicly that if we deploy--the United States--four stages of missile defense, you believe that allows you-- the Russian Government--to withdraw from the treaty. We all intend to do that. Our President is saying that we are going to deploy four stages of missile defense to defend this Nation against missile attacks from North Korea, Iran, anywhere else it may come from. If you do not agree with that, let us know now because it is not going to help you or us to sign a treaty and it fall apart later. So at the end of the day, this is a simple question that needs to be answered in a direct, simple way. Does the Russian Government believe the preamble language that Senator McCain is trying to strike gives them a legal ability to withdraw from the treaty if we move forward on missile defense, as we plan to? That is not complicated. That is a very big deal. And I do not care what an American says about that. I want to hear from the Russian Government as to what you say about that. So get back with me. Wednesday of last week, Senator Kyl said: Here is my view of how we should do START in the lameduck. I say to the Senator, you suggested that we should get the tax issue behind us, and we need to come up with a way to fund the government, and we could start the debate on the START treaty--last Wednesday. I ask Senator Kyl, do you remember saying that? Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. And I would assume, as part of the Senator's duties, and some of us who have been involved in immigration, we have been very concerned about that, trying to make sure the DREAM Act does not pass this way because we believe it would be bad for the country; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. OK. As I understand it, there is going to be another vote on the DREAM Act coming up maybe tomorrow?

Mr. GRAHAM. How many efforts have there been since the Wednesday in question dealing with the DREAM Act? How many opportunities have we had to deal with different versions of the DREAM Act that may come before the Senate?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am allocated 10 minutes, I think. Can you let me know when I have used 9 minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus. I guess the first observation I would like to make is that we are here on a Saturday morning. This is democracy, in many ways, at its best. People understand the two votes are going to fail. But it is good for Americans to have genuine differences to be able to discuss what makes us tick, why we want to go one way versus the other. So the fact that America is divided on a lot of big issues is just the result of living in a free country. What was the lesson of the last election? They are what you would like them to be. But here is my observation, for what it is worth. Our Democratic friends took a beating. As Republicans, we have been there. In 2006 and 2008 we took a beating. In 2006, the Iraq war was going very badly, and Americans were very frustrated. President Bush's popularity plummeted. In 2008 we had an economic meltdown that I thought was related to housing, where we lent money to people who could not afford to pay their mortgages. The mortgages were being packaged and sold as all kinds of exotic instruments throughout the world. It brought the whole world economy down, and we have been struggling ever since. We can talk about how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the cause of this problem, how loose the practices were when it came to lending, but I think most people understand that our economic crisis was created by the housing market being overextended and people getting into that market in exotic ways without a whole lot of regulation. Here we are a couple of years later. I think the last election was a message to our Democratic friends: For the last 2 years, you have been going down the wrong road. The health care bill, which about 80 percent of Americans, if it ever becomes law, will be under government- controlled health care, was an overreach. The stimulus package was $780-something billion that has not done what it was billed to do. When we look at the amount of spending the Democratic Party is engaged in, way above what every American has been able to do, this was an election basically not to pro-Republican, just to our Democratic colleagues. Stop. And the way you get stopped around here is to get replaced. So the House had a dramatic election. We picked up seats in the Senate, and some of us thought maybe we could pick up about two or three more. We made some pretty poor choices when it came to candidates, but that is now behind us. What I would like to tell my colleagues is, when I look at America I do not see an undertaxed nation. I think our Tax Code is far too complicated. Now 35 percent is the rate. How much is enough? Is it 39.6? Is that the difference between a social justice country and a land of the rich? I mean, are we going to increase taxes for the upper incomes by 10 percent when we cannot create enough jobs for Americans who are unemployed? I do believe in this idea that upper income Americans are the ones who create most jobs for the middle class and people looking for work. That is just the fact. Here is how our Tax Code works today. Forty percent of Americans pay no Federal income tax. Forty percent of us really do not pay any income tax at all. Of those who do, 50 percent of those who pay Federal income tax pay 3 percent. The other 50 percent pay 97 percent. The top 10 percent of wage earners in this country pay 70 percent of the taxes. Now, I am for a progressive tax system, but that is not right. That seems to me to be taking the country in the wrong direction. There are 750,000 small businesses who will get a tax increase if we do not extend the Bush tax cuts for everybody. I will make a prediction. There are a lot of unsolved mysteries in the world, a lot of things we would like to know that we do not know the answers to. This is not one of them. What will happen, hopefully, next week, is all of the Bush-era tax cuts will be extended because we have high unemployment, and now is not the time to pass on to businesses or upper income Americans more taxes. I hope we can extend some of the Obama tax cuts. I do not want to raise taxes on anyone. If you do not pay taxes, then you should not be getting a tax cut because you have no tax liability. But if you were in the EITC before, you have some tax liability. The Obama tax cut and the stimulus helped you. I am one who considers that to be something we should be looking at, that no one's taxes should go up, Bush-era tax cuts or Obama tax cuts. When it comes to the unemployed and unemployment insurance, we are going to extend that. But we have to have a package that makes sense. So once we get this vote behind us Democrats on the other side will join with Republicans on this side to say no to the class warfare approach. One of my good friends from New Jersey said something that got everybody stirred up, that negotiating with Republicans is like negotiating with terrorists. Well, I know Bob Menendez. He is a fine man. But these are heated times. We say things that sometimes maybe sound good to our base but upon reflection we should not say. Nobody over here should be considered in that light. To our Democratic friends, we have a genuine disagreement. That is all it is. The one thing we have in common, when the real terrorists do come to visit America, they could care less how much money one makes. They will kill the janitor and the business owner just as quickly because they don't see any difference based on income. The one thing Americans have in common is, we do believe in free speech, open debate, religious diversity. That is not something we believe in based on income. That is something we believe in based on being an American. I ask my colleagues on both sides to understand that not only are we in this war on terror together, we are in this economy together. A lot of Americans are suffering, some more than others. The ones who are struggling in the middle class and lower incomes are trying to do one thing everybody agrees on--get a job. I believe the best way for struggling Americans to get a job is not to raise taxes but keep them low in a weak economy. That is what I genuinely believe. I did not come from a rich family. I am the first person in my family to ever go to college. My mom and dad owned a liquor store and a restaurant. They worked long and hard to make sure my sister and I could go to college. When my parents died, I was 22 and my sister was 13. If it were not for Social Security survivor benefits, we would not have made it. She received Pell grants to go to school when her college days were there. I was in the Air Force and helped where I could. I get it. People are struggling. There is a role for the government. But this is not the time for our government to raise taxes on anybody because all of us are struggling to try to find a way out of this economic mess. There are tough days ahead, economically. There are tough days ahead in the war on terror. Let's have these votes, come back next week, and see if we can solve some problems that all Americans are dying for their Congress to solve: get us back on sound economic footing, deal with debt. Hats off to Senator Durbin, Senator Crapo, and Senator Coburn for their votes on the debt commission. They did some very hard things. That product is going to serve the country well. We are all in this together. I wish everyone good holidays and maybe a time to reflect that we do have more in common than we have in differences. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Lucy S. Garvin on the occasion of her retirement as chairman of the board and president of the United States Tennis Association, USTA. Lucy's truly outstanding career in the world of tennis directly reflects her over 30-year commitment to advancing and improving the game. She has impacted tennis as a competitor, instructor, referee, industry representative, and an avid volunteer. As a recreational player, she won titles at all levels between 1976 and 1990, and in 33 years as a certified referee, she has officiated at countless tournaments. Leading with charm, determination, and humility, Lucy has worked to expand the sport of tennis at every level around the country. On a local level, she has been a tireless advocate of tennis in South Carolina and in the Southern Region. A former president of the USTA Southern Section and USTA South Carolina, she was inducted into the USTA Southern Tennis Hall for Fame in 2005. Lucy has also been recognized with the USTA Southern Section's Jacobs Bowl Award in 1999 and the South Carolina President's Award in 1998. The South Carolina Tennis Association established the Lucy Garvin Volunteer of the Year Award in her honor, and she was inducted into the South Carolina Tennis Hall of Fame in 1998. Lucy was elected chairman of the board and president of the 730,000 member USTA in January 2009. In doing so she became the first South Carolinian and only the third woman to hold the position in the organization's 129-year history. Prior to her appointment as esident, she served one term as first vice president, two consecutive terms as vice president, and one term as a director at large. In addition to her responsibilities as USTA chairman and president, Lucy is also the chairman of the U.S. Open, and represents the USTA on the Grand Slam Committee. During her tenure as USTA president, tennis has grown to over 30 million recreational players. On an international level, Lucy was elected to the board of directors of the International Tennis Federation, ITF, in 2009, serving as a vice president. She currently serves as chair of the ITF Junior Competitions Committee and a member of the ITF Development Committee. Because of her career of dedicated leadership and commitment to tennis, Lucy was elected to the International Tennis Hall of Fame Board of Directors in 2008. Beyond being respected for her numerous leadership positions, Lucy is equally admired for being a devoted volunteer. She has tirelessly advocated for growing the game of tennis both by focusing on younger players and through outreach to traditionally underserved groups. As a result of her commitment and volunteerism with the QuickStart program, which focuses on bringing children to the game of tennis, four recently constructed QuickStart tennis courts were dedicated in Lucy's name. Lucy's well deserved acknowledgments and recognitions highlight the impact she has had on both the game of tennis and its worldwide community. She is an invaluable asset to the tennis community, and as a leader has set an example for future USTA presidents to follow. She continues to live by her personal motto, ``Teamwork: One Team, One Goal: To Promote and Develop the Growth of Tennis.'' I am confident Lucy will continue this mission. I ask that the U.S. Senate join me in celebrating Lucy Garvin's lifelong dedication to both the game of tennis and to the State of South Carolina, and I wish Lucy the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated public servant and leader, Senator Ted Stevens. After a lifetime of unprecedented service to his State and Nation, Senator Stevens passed away in Alaska on August 9, 2010, at the age of 86. His death was a loss to the U.S. Senate, the State of Alaska, and the Nation. A decorated World War II pilot who survived a deadly 1978 plane crash, Senator Stevens was the longest-serving Republican Senator in the Nation's history and Alaska's most beloved political figure. Known as a giant in the Senate and affectionately referred to as ``Uncle Ted'' by his constituents, Stevens helped usher Alaska into statehood in 1959 and was instrumental in its economic growth. He was first and foremost a devoted advocate of Alaska and its people. Born in Indianapolis, IN, Senator Stevens attended Oregon State University before serving as an Air Force pilot in World War II. He went on to graduate from the University of California Los Angeles-- UCLA--with a bachelor of arts degree in political science, and from Harvard University with a juris doctor degree in law. After a successful career as a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, Stevens was appointed to the U.S. Senate, making him the third Senator in the State's history. Senator Stevens is greatly admired for what he did during his four decades of service in the U.S. Senate. I had the pleasure of seeing the Senator in action on many occasions and particularly admired his deep commitment to working across the aisle to get things done. Senator Stevens was one of the Senate's most effective Members, both as a valuable ally and worthy opponent. Stevens' colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats alike, greatly enjoyed working with him and respected his views. We can all learn from the example he set. I ask that the U.S. Senate join me in commemorating Senator Ted Stevens' lifelong dedication to the service of our country and to the State of Alaska. He was a courageous advocate for his State, and a dear friend who will be greatly missed by all.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator makes a good point. He has been ranking member. Obviously, his military record is well known. He was promised-- I took it as a promise--last year that we would not change don't ask, don't tell until we got input from those who serve our country in uniform. That process is ongoing. But now the law we are expected to vote on tomorrow changes don't ask, don't tell. It completely reverses that policy but allows us to get input later. That is quite offensive. We know there isn't going to be a snowball's chance in hell they are actually going to listen to what the men and women say because the whole goal is to get that vote for a specific constituency. Special interest groups are dominating this bill unlike any time before. We have changed the law about abortions in military hospitals, we have the DREAM Act which has zero to do with national defense, and now we have a major change in don't ask, don't tell in a way that is contrary. I spoke to the incoming Commandant of the Marine Corps who will be up for a vote soon. He said he was very concerned about making this change now. We are in two wars. There is a lot going on in the world. This is a major social change. He thinks it would be smart to listen to the marines and other servicemembers before we make the change. If the bill becomes law, we will not have done that. That is a huge mistake. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his leadership to make sure the men and women in uniform are heard from before Congress acts.

Mr. GRAHAM. I say to the Senator, his point is well taken. If the DREAM Act is not considered part of comprehensive immigration reform, it will be a huge mistake. The reason we have 12 million people here illegally in our country is because you can get to America pretty easily illegally, obviously. You can walk across the street in some places. So you have to control the border. Visa overstays are 40 percent of the illegal immigration problem. If you do not do that, then you are never going to stop the third wave of illegal immigration. You have to deal with why they come: to get jobs. We need better employer verification. We need a temporary worker program so employers can hire people in a win-win situation, where people from other countries can come here and work, make some money, and go back home. It helps us; it helps them. That is what you need to do with immigration, comprehensive reform. The DREAM Act is about November politics. It is an emotional topic that if you did it in isolation would be undercutting comprehensive reform. Certainly it has nothing to do with defense authorization. It is trying to check a block. For the people who came to my office last week who were literally praying that I would vote for the DREAM Act in the Defense authorization bill, you are certainly being used and abused, in my view. This is an emotional topic, and at the end of the day, all I can tell you is, this is not a way to change immigration. This is not comprehensive immigration reform. This is not good defense policy. This is just sheer, raw politics at a time when we could do better and should do better. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Sherlock Holmes said what is left on the table, when you rule everything out, is the answer. It makes no sense to me for us to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor of the Senate at any time where the Senator from Arizona and I cannot offer an amendment about how we try a terrorist. Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be given a Federal court right? Should he be put in New York City or any other Federal court and tried as a normal criminal, or should he be tried in a military court as an enemy combatant? These are big issues. Under the construct created--and the reason I will vote no when I would normally vote yes--I cannot offer amendments. We are going to be voting on the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act is a hot topic in the immigration world but not very hot among our troops. I have been to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times. I haven't had one soldier or airman or sailor or marine or Coast Guard member ask me about the DREAM Act. They want to know are they going to get paid more and do they have the tools to win the war. This is politics at its worst, may I say. As a Republican, I stand here knowing our party has probably abused power in the past but not like this. This, to me, is going to a new level. We are in two wars. Iran is on the verge of making a breakthrough on the nuclear weapons front. We have a Defense bill where we can't amend it to talk about the war on terror or about legal changes--stop reading terrorists their Miranda rights. We will be voting on the DREAM Act which is checking a block. We will be voting on don't ask, don't tell in a way in which I think is offensive to the men and women who serve. The Senator was promised last year, as the ranking member, when he asked the question, that our men and women would give us input before the administration would move to change don't ask, don't tell. That has all been turned upside down. The law is now that it will be repealed and we ask later. This idea about secret holds in the Senate, that is probably an internal matter that needs to be resolved but not on Defense authorization. The answer is, this is politics.

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the upcoming vote tomorrow at 2:15 on the Defense authorization bill. I don't know the state of play, but it looks as though we will bring to the floor a Defense authorization bill without any ability to amend the bill beyond a very limited set of amendments. If one is watching the political discourse at the moment, they would not realize we are at war in two different theaters and that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, and that maybe a year from now they will have one. We are talking about domestic politics and spending. That is good. But what is equally important is national security. The Defense authorization bill is coming to the Senate floor tomorrow, and we have a don't ask, don't tell policy change within the bill that basically says we are going to change the law that would get rid of don't ask, don't tell; a policy that has worked very well, that we would receive input from the military, and we are going to change the law before we ask our men and women in uniform about their opinion. That is a huge mistake. We were told last year there would be a study among all the services about the effect of don't ask, don't tell on recruiting and retention and how it would affect the Armed Forces. Before we can get the study done, I think the Congress is going to repeal the law because our Democratic friends believe in the fall there will be more Republicans. So they are going to try to do it now. We should not repeal don't ask, don't tell until we get input from our men and women who are serving. That is one thing that is driving this bill. The DREAM Act is a piece of legislation that would give legal status to young children who were brought into the country illegally, brought here as children as illegal immigrants. They have lived most of their lives here. It would allow them to go to school under State tuition. It would give them legal status. That is an issue that needs to be talked about in terms of comprehensive immigration reform, not the Defense authorization bill. If someone were listening to the debate on the Defense authorization bill, they would believe the biggest national security threats we face are abortions in military hospitals, the DREAM Act, which has to do with citizenship for young illegal immigrants, and don't ask, don't tell. We are not talking about what happens if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, how we win in Afghanistan, or what we need to do to get Iraq right. We are on the 10 yard line, but we are not there yet. I have an amendment I would like to offer to the body that would get 99 votes. It says stop reading terrorists their Miranda rights. This is not crime we are fighting. We are fighting a war. I don't believe in torture; I believe in living within our values. But there is a difference between a law enforcement activity and fighting a war. When we capture a terrorist who just tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit, the last thing we need to do is read them their Miranda rights. We should take them off the airplane, turn them over to the military, the CIA, and let them be questioned about future attacks within our values--not torture but firmly and effectively asked about intelligence. The moment we read somebody their Miranda rights, we go into the area of law enforcement. We are fighting a war, not a crime. I have a bill that would change our habeas review process where an enemy prisoner is allowed to go to Federal court under Supreme Court holdings, and when they go to court, the habeas review doesn't have any uniform standards. In one case they let the guy go because the government couldn't prove he was a member of al-Qaida on the day he was captured. But they could prove without a doubt that he had trained with al-Qaida, swore an oath to al-Qaida right after 9/11. The burden should be on the enemy combatant to prove they are not a member of al-Qaida once we have established they were at some point in time. The whole habeas review system needs to be looked at. Our judges are crying out for some congressional involvement to give them uniform standards. We have 48 people in prison at Guantanamo Bay held for years without trial. Under the law of war, we can hold an enemy prisoner indefinitely without trial because it is part of a war. Under domestic criminal law, we have to charge somebody with a crime or let them go. That is a dilemma we should not face. If someone is being held as an enemy combatant, there ought to be a legal process to make that determination with an annual review. I would like to create that legal process. I would like to create some rational legal system that recognizes we are at war, not fighting a crime. But the only thing I can talk about is don't ask, don't tell and the DREAM Act. This is ridiculous. We have men and women in harm's way. This Nation is under siege. We have not adjusted our laws since 9/11 to be at war within our values. The extremes can't be the norm. The choice between waterboarding and the Army Field Manual in terms of interrogation should not be the two choices. The CIA today is out of the interrogation business. The Executive order issued by President Obama denies the CIA the ability to use enhanced interrogation techniques that this body passed under the Detainee Treatment Act, so the CIA is basically an organization without any ability to question someone. If we capture terrorists tomorrow, where will we put them? Guantanamo Bay hadn't been used in years. We are a nation without a jail. These are big issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. The Defense authorization bill is the natural venue. But under the process before the Senate, it is being shut down, and the Defense authorization bill is no longer a vehicle to deal with defense matters. It is now a political checklist before the November elections. The Hispanic community, check; they got a vote on the DREAM Act.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I appreciate the kind comments of the Senator from Minnesota. I have enjoyed working with her on the committee and hope to be able to work with her on a lot of different topics, including confirming judges. My view of Elena Kagan is quite simple. I found her to be a good, decent person; well qualified in terms of her legal background to sit on the Court. The people who know her the best, who worked with her, have nothing but good things to say about her. She is not someone a Republican President would have picked--she is definitely in the liberal camp when it comes to judging--but I think within the mainstream of the left wing of the Court. The Court has two wings to it. A lot of decisions are--not a lot, some decisions are 5-4. But you know who the conservatives on the Court are and you know who the liberals are. The one thing they have in common is that they are highly qualified, great Americans who happen to view the law a bit differently in terms of philosophy. But they have brought honor to the Court. Justice Ginsburg is definitely in the left wing of the Court. Justice Scalia is definitely in the right wing of the Court. From what I have been told, they have a deep personal friendship; that Justices Scalia and Ginsburg have become fast friends and admire each other even though they often cancel out each other's vote and they have some real good give and take in their opinions. In that regard I think they represent the best in judging and the best in our democracy, and that is two different philosophies competing on the battlefield of ideas but understanding that neither one of them is the enemy. They have a lot of respect for each other. What brought me to the conclusion to vote for Solicitor General Kagan? I believe the advise and consent clause of the Constitution had a very distinct purpose. Under our Constitution, article 2, it allows the President of the United States to appoint Supreme Court Justices and judges to the Federal bench in general. That is an authority and a privilege given to him by the Constitution. You have to earn that by getting elected President. After having watched Senator McCain literally about kill himself to try to be President, I have a lot of admiration for those who will seek that office. It is very difficult to go through the process of getting nominated and winning the office. I daresay that Senator McCain would indicate it is one of the highlights of his life to be nominated by his party and to go out and fight for the vote of the American people. Senator Obama was a Member of this body before being elected President. I can only imagine what he went through, going through the primary process, beating some very qualified, high-profile Democrats to get the nomination of his party. When it was all said and done, after about $1 billion and a lot of sweat and probably sleepless nights, he was elected by the people of the United States to be our President. I want to honor elections. My job, as I see it--and I am just speaking for me--each Senator has to determine what they believe the advise and consent clause requires. From my point of view I will tell you what I think my job is in this process. No. 1, it is not to be a rubberstamp. Why would you even have the Senate involved if the President could pick whomever he or she chose? So there is a collaboration that goes on here. There is a check and balance in the Constitution where we have to advise and consent. So I do not expect myself or any other Senator to feel once the election is over, you have to vote for whomever they pick. You do not. There may be a time when I vote ``no'' to a President Obama nominee. But my view of things is sort of defined by the Federalist Paper No. 76, Alexander Hamilton, who was one of our great minds of this country's history. He said, ``The Senate should have special and strong reasons for denial of confirmation.'' I think his comment to us is that, yes, you can say no, but you need to have a special and strong reason because the Constitution confers upon the President the right to pick. What would those strong and special reasons be? Whatever you want it to be. That is the fact of politics. Those strong and special reasons can literally be whatever you want it to be as a Senator. But here is what Alexander Hamilton had in mind as to strong and special reasons. He continued: To what purpose, then, require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. I think that powerful and silent operation is meant to be a firm but not overly political check and balance; not a continuation of the campaign. Because the campaign is a loud experience. It is 50 plus 1, rah-rah-rah, build yourself up, tear your opponent down. So when Alexander Hamilton indicated to the Senate his view of the advise and consent clause, that it would be powerful, though in general a silent operation, I think he is telling us: The campaign is over. Now is the time to govern. So when this nominee comes your way from the person the Constitution confers the ability to pick and choose, you should have in mind a powerful but silent operation. ``It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism. . . .'' I think that is pretty self-evident, that one of the things we do not want to have with our judiciary is it becomes an award or prize for somebody who helped in the campaign, picking somebody who is close to you personally, related to you, so that the job of Federal judge becomes sort of political patronage. The Senate could be a good check and balance for that. I think that is one of the reasons we are involved in the process, to make sure that once the election is over, the President himself does not continue the campaign. The campaign is over and we have a silent operation in terms of how we deliver our advice and consent. So he is telling the President through the Senate that once the campaign is over, you should not pick someone who will help you politically or return a favor; you should pick someone who will be a good judge. It ``would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice.'' That is another view that Alexander Hamilton had, as to how the Senate should use its advise and consent duties, to make sure that unfit characters do not go on the Court. I can imagine that has probably been used in the past. ``From family connection,'' that one is obviously self-evident. You don't want to pick someone from your family unless there is a good reason to do so. ``[F]rom personal attachment or from a view to popularity.'' When I add up all these things, I am looking at the necessity of their concurrence with a: ``powerful, though, in general, silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon the spirit of favoritism . . . to prevent the appointment of unfit characters . . . from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.'' In other words, we are trying to make sure the President, he or she, picks a good, qualified judge, not some unfit character, some person tied to him or her personally, not someone who would be a popular choice but would be a lousy judge. When I apply that standard to Elena Kagan, I cannot find anything about her that makes her an unfit character to me. Frankly, what I know about her from listening to her for a couple of days and having people tell me about her is I think she is a very fine person with stellar character. The letter that moved me the most about Elena Kagan the person, I wish to share with the Senate and read, if I may. This comes from Miguel Estrada. For those of you who may not remember, Miguel Estrada was chosen by President Bush to be on the court of appeals. For a variety of reasons--there is no use retrying the past--he never got a vote by the Senate. He never got out of committee. All I can say from my point of view is, it was one of the great mistakes. I am sure there have been times when Republicans have done the same thing or something like it to a well-qualified Democratic selection. But I happened to be here when Miguel Estrada was chosen by President Bush. So he had a very unpleasant experience when it came to getting confirmed as a judge. But here is what he wrote about Elena Kagan, a Republican conservative lawyer chosen by President Bush to be on the court of appeals, writing for Elena Kagan: I write in support of Elena Kagan's confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I have known Elena for 27 years. We met as first year law students at Harvard, where we were assigned seats next to each other for our classes. We were later colleagues as editors of the Law Review and as law clerks to different Supreme Court Justices; and we have been friends since. Elena possesses a formidable intellect, an exemplary temperament, and a rare ability to disagree with others without being disagreeable. She is calm under fire and mature and deliberate in her judgments. Elena would also bring to the Court a wealth of experience at the highest level of our Government and of academia, including teaching at the University of Chicago, serving as the Dean of the Harvard Law School and experience at the White House and as the current Solicitor General of the United States. If such a person, who has demonstrated great intellect, high accomplishments and an upright life, is not easily confirmable, I fear we will have reached a point where no capable person will readily accept a nomination for judicial service. I appreciate that considerations of this type are frequently extolled but rarely honored by one side or the other when the opposing party holds the White House. I was dismayed to watch the confirmation hearings for then-Judge Alito, at the time one of our most distinguished appellate judges, and find that they range from the-- Well, I am not going to read it all. . . . one could readily identify the members of the current Senate majority, including several who serve on the Judiciary Committee [and their partisan views]. Lest my endorsement of Elena's nomination erode the support she would see from her own party, I should make it clear that I believe her views on the subjects that are relevant to her pending nomination--including the scope of judicial role, interpretive approaches to the procedure and substantive law, and the balance of powers among the various institutions of government--are as firmly center-left as my own are center- right. If Elena is confirmed, I would expect her rulings to fall well within the mainstream of current legal thought, although on the side of what is popularly conceived as ``progressive.'' This should come as a surprise to exactly no one: One of the prerogatives of the President under our Constitution is to nominate high federal officers, including judges, who share his (or her) governing philosophies. As has often been said, though rarely by Senators whose party did not control the White House at the time, elections have consequences. Elena Kagan is an impeccably qualified nominee. Like Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, Byron White, Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist--none of whom arrived at the Court with prior judicial service--she could become one of our great Justices. I strongly urge you to confirm her nomination without delay. I think that says a lot of Elena Kagan. I think it says a lot about Miguel Estrada. She wrote a letter basically--I asked her to--to tell me what she thought about Miguel Estrada. I will read that in a minute. But at the end of the day, those of us in the Senate have to understand that every branch of government includes human beings and there is a rule that stood the test of time. I didn't make this one up. It was somebody far wiser than I am, somebody far more gifted than I ever hope to be, somebody I put a lot of trust in. It is called the Golden Rule. ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' That is probably one of the most powerful statements ever made. It is divine in its orientation, and it is probably something that would serve us all well if we thought about it at moments such as this. I am going to vote for Elena Kagan because I believe constitutionally she meets the test the Framers envisioned for someone to serve on the Court. I don't think the Framers ever envisioned Lindsey Graham from South Carolina voting no because President Obama picked someone who is clearly different than I would have chosen. Because if that were the case, the campaign never ended. It would undercut the President's ability to pick someone of like philosophy. My job is to make sure the person he chose is qualified, of fit character, not chosen for favoritism or close connection but chosen based on merit. I have no problem with Elena Kagan as a person. I have no problem with her academic background. I have no problem with her experience as a lawyer. Even though she has worked for Justices whom I would not have ruled like, even though she has taken up political causes I oppose, that is part of democracy. Her time as Solicitor General, where she represents the United States before the Supreme Court, was reassuring to me. She has had frontline experience in the war on terror. She has argued before the Supreme Court that terrorist suspects should be viewed under the law of war. She supports the idea that someone who joins al-Qaida has not committed a crime. They have taken up arms against the United States, and they can be held indefinitely without trial if, under proper procedures, they have been found to be part of the enemy force. She understands detainees held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan should not be subject to judicial review in the United States because they are prisoners of war in an active theater of combat. If she gets on the Court--and I am certain she will--she will be able to bring to the Court some frontline, real-world experience in the war on terror. She has had an opportunity to represent the United States before the Supreme Court, arguing that this Nation is at war, and the people who attacked us on 9/11 and who continue to join al-Qaida are not some common criminals but people subject to the law of armed conflict. Her testimony when she was confirmed as Solicitor General was reassuring to me that she understood that very important concept. How she rules, I don't know. I expect she will be more similar to Justice Stevens in the way she decides cases. The person she is replacing is one of the giants of the Court from the progressive side. I expect she will follow his lead most of the time. I do believe she is an independent-minded person. When it comes to war on terror issues, she will be a valuable member of the Court and may provide a perspective other judges would not possess. That is my hope. I don't vote for her expecting her to do anything other than what she thinks is right, ruling with the Court most of the time in a way a Republican nominee would not have ruled. It gets back to my point of a minute ago. If I can't vote for her, then how can I ask someone on the other side to vote for that conservative lawyer, maybe judge, who has lived their life on the conservative side of the aisle, fighting for conservative causes, fighting for the pro-life movement, standing for the conservative causes I believe in, a strong advocate of a second amendment right for every American? That day will come. I hope sooner. But one day that day will come. What I hope we can do from this experience is remember that when that day does come, the Constitution has not changed at all. The only thing changed was the American people chose a conservative Republican President. I ask my colleagues to honor that choice, when that conservative President, whoever he or she may be, picks someone whom my colleagues on the other side would not have chosen. But that has been the way it has been for a couple hundred years now. Justice Ginsburg, the ACLU general counsel, got 96 votes. Justice Scalia got 96 or 97 votes. Senator Thurmond, my predecessor, voted for Justice Ginsburg. There is no way on God's green Earth Strom Thurmond would have voted for Justice Ginsburg if he believed his job was to pick the nominee. There is no way many of my colleagues on the other side would have ever voted for Justice Scalia if they thought it was their job or they had the ability to make a selection in line with their philosophy. No one could have been more polar opposite than Ginsburg and Scalia. But not that long ago, in the 1990s, this body, without a whole lot of fussing and fighting, was able to put on the Court two people who could not be more different but chose to be good friends. The history of confirming nominees to the Supreme Court is being lost. Madam President, 73 of the 123 Justices who served on the Supreme Court were confirmed without even having a rollcall vote. Something is going on. It is on the left, and it is on the right. I hope this body will understand one thing: The judiciary is the most fragile branch of government. They can't go on cable TV and argue with us as to why they are qualified. They cannot send out mailings advocating their positions. They have no army. All they have is the force of the Constitution, the respect of the other branches and, hopefully, the support of the American people. Having gone to Iraq and Afghanistan many times, the one thing I can tell my colleagues that is missing in most countries that are having difficult times is the rule of law. What is it? To me, the rule of law is a simple but powerful concept. If you ever find yourself in a courtroom or before a magistrate or a judge, you will be judged based not on what tribe you came from. You will be judged based on what you did, not who you are. The one thing we don't want to lose in this country is an independent judiciary. We are putting the men and women who are willing to serve in these jobs sometimes through hell. Judge Alito was poorly treated. I am very proud of what Senator Sessions was able to do as ranking member. We had a good, spirited contest with Sotomayor and Kagan. I thought the minority performed their role in an admirable fashion. I appreciate what Senator Leahy did working with Senator Sessions. I thought these two hearings were conducted in the best traditions of the Senate. The votes will be in soon. She is going to get a handful of votes on our side. I have chosen to be one of those handful. From a conservative point of view, there are 100 things one can find at fault in terms of philosophy and judicial viewpoint with Elena Kagan. I have chosen not to go down that road. I have chosen to go down a different path, a path that was cleared and marked for me long before I got here, a path that has a very strong lineage, a path that I believe leads back to the Constitution, where the advice and consent clause is used in a way not to extend the election that is now over but as a reasonable, powerful but silent check on a President who chose a judge for all the wrong reasons. Choosing a liberal lawyer from a President who campaigned and governs from the left is not a wrong reason. Choosing a conservative lawyer or judge once you campaign for the job running right of center, in my view, is not the wrong reason. The wrong reason would be if the person you chose was not worthy of the job, did not have the background or the moral character to administer justice. I cannot find fault with Elena Kagan using that standard. I will vote for her. I will say to anybody in South Carolina and throughout the country who is listening: She is not someone I would have chosen, but it is not my job to choose. It is President's Obama's job. He earned that right. I have no problem with Elena Kagan as a person. I think she will do a good job, consistent with her judicial philosophy. I hope and pray that the body over time will get back to the way we used to do business. If we don't watch it, we are going to wake one day, and we will politicize the judiciary to the point that good men and women, such as Sam Alito, Justice Roberts, and Elena Kagan, will not want to come before this body and be a judge. If that ever happened, it would be a great loss to this country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Coach Willie Jeffries on the occasion of his induction into the College Football Hall of Fame on Saturday, July 17, 2010. Willie Jeffries is a legend in the State of South Carolina. As the first African-American head coach of a NCAA Division I-A football program, he was a giant in the football world, and proved to be an incredible leader both on and off the field. Coach Jeffries was born in Union, SC, on January 4, 1937. He graduated from South Carolina State University, SCSU, where he would later return as the head football coach. If there was ever a ``glass is half full'' guy, it was Willie Jeffries. Coach Jeffries was defined by his optimistic outlook on life and the world around him. Willie Jeffries began his career at South Carolina State University where he served as coach from 1973-1978. From there, he went on to become head coach at Wichita State University in 1979. With his hiring, Coach Jeffries became the first African-American head coach of a NCAA Division I-A program. After winning only one game his first season, he held the post for five seasons and led his team to an 8-2 record his third year. During his tenure at Wichita State University, Coach Jeffries became the only man to coach against legendary coaches Eddie Robinson of Grambling and Paul ``Bear'' Bryant of the Alabama. He left Wichita State University with a record of 21-32-2, ranking him third in university history for total wins. From 1984-1988 Coach Jeffries took over the program at Howard University, leading them to the first of his seven Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference--MEAC--Championships. In 1989 he returned to his alma matter to take his position as head coach for the South Carolina State University Bulldogs. Coach Jeffries finished out his career as the head coach of South Carolina State. During his time in coaching, he led his teams to numerous post-season appearances, six Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference--MEAC--titles, and two Black college national championships. Coach Jeffries won almost 60 percent of the games he coached, and when he retired in 2001 he did so as the winningest coach in MEAC history with a 179-132-6 career record. In 2010, South Carolina State University further honored him by naming him Head Football Coach Emeritus by the University Board of Trustees. Throughout his career, Coach Jeffries was named coach of the year on eight different occasions. In 2002 he was awarded the lifetime achievement award by the Black Coaches Association. In addition to being an inductee of both the MEAC Hall of Fame and SCSU Athletic Hall of Fame, Jeffries was awarded the Order of the Silver Crescent in 2001. This is South Carolina's highest honor for Outstanding Community Service. Coach Jeffries success on the field is not only matched but exceeded by his actions off the field. He possesses a great spirit of optimism, humor, intellect, and decency that has made him a role model for all the young men he has coached and those of us who call him a friend. I ask that the U.S. Senate join me in honoring him for his impressive coaching career and newest honor as an inductee into the College Football Hall of Fame.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate the life and career of Senator Robert C. Byrd. I have been in the body now since 2002, and Senator Byrd will go down in history as not only the longest serving Senator to date--maybe forever--but also as one of the most effective Members of the Senate. He was tough. During his prime, they tell me, there was no tougher opponent and no better ally than to have Senator Byrd on your side. And when he was on the other side, you had a long day ahead of you. He talked about his early life. He is a human being, like the rest of us. I think what he was able to do for his people in West Virginia, and the country as a whole, will stand the test of time, and he will be viewed for many things, not just one. That is the way it should be for all of us. I had the pleasure of getting to know him when I first came to the Senate and I walked into one hell of a fight over judges. The Senate was in full battle over the filibustering of judges. The Senate had gone down a road it had never gone down before--an open resistance to the judicial nominations of President Bush across the board. The body was about to explode. There were 55 Republicans at the time, and we all believed that what our Democratic colleagues were doing was unprecedented, unnecessary, and, quite frankly, dangerous to the judiciary. I am sure they had their view, too, and everybody has a reason for what they do around here. The Gang of 14--affectionately known by some, and discussed by others--was formed during that major historical moment in the Senate. I remember talking to some observers of the Senate who were telling me that if the rules were changed to allow a simple majority vote for the confirmation of judges, that would take the Senate down a road it had never gone down before, and where it would stop, nobody knew. At the same time, there was another constitutional concept that meant a lot to me and to others, and that is that people deserve a vote when they are nominated by the President. Well, Senator Byrd and 13 other Senators--and he was a big leader in this--came up with the compromise called ``extraordinary circumstances.'' We agreed that we would not filibuster judges unless there was an extraordinary circumstance. We understood that elections had consequences. What we had in mind was that we would reserve our right to filibuster only if the person did not meet the qualification test. I believe the advise and consent role of the Senate has to be recognized, and I respect elections but not a blank check. So there is always the ability of any Senator here, or a group of Senators, to stand up and to object--one party versus the other--if you believe the person is not qualified. The second issue we dealt with was that we all reserved unto ourselves the ability to object if we thought the person was an activist judge--a political person who was going to be put on the bench and the robe used to carry out the political agenda rather than to interpret the law. The law meant a lot to Senator Byrd--the Constitution did. One of my cherished possessions is a signed copy of the Constitution, given to all the members of the Gang of 14. That is just one example of where very late in life he made a huge impact on the Senate. As history records that moment, I daresay it is probably one of his finest hours. Because the consequences of not resolving that dispute the way we did could have changed the Senate rules forever, and I think the judiciary for the worse. So we have a lot to celebrate. His family, I know, mourns the loss of their loved one; the people of West Virginia, their best champion has passed. But we all pass. It is what we leave behind that counts, and I think he has left a lot behind and something both Republicans and Democrats can be proud of. Even though you disagreed with him, as I did on many occasions, I had nothing but respect for the man. He was a true guardian of the Senate and what it stands for. I don't think we will ever find anybody who loved the institution more than Senator Byrd. He will be missed. But the best way we can honor his memory is to try to follow in his footsteps when it comes to making sure the constitutional role of the Senate is adhered to, and that we understand the Senate is not the House, the Senate is not the executive branch, the Senate is something special, and let us keep it that way.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate tonight that last night the University of South Carolina won the College World Series. I never thought I would live long enough to hear myself say that. I have been a Gamecocks fan since high school. I went to the University of South Carolina, and there is no group of people who loves sports and their university more than the University of South Carolina, but we have been a long-suffering group. We have been waiting for next year every year I can remember, and we have knocked on the door and the door has never opened. But this group of young men and Coach Tanner of the University of South Carolina baseball team were down and out, one strike away from elimination, lost the first game, and made it all the way through to beat great teams such as Clemson. Last night's game, if you watched it--it was over about 12:30--was a nail-biter. It was probably the best example of college baseball I have ever seen, amateur athletics. And what a fitting tribute to Rosenblatt Stadium for that to be the last game. It was a well-played game. To the opponents at UCLA, I know your heart was broken, but you acquitted yourself well. I rise on behalf of the University of South Carolina, my alma mater, and the State of South Carolina to let people in South Carolina and throughout the country know that we finally did it, that this group of young men pitched incredibly well, had timely hits, and never gave up. It was about a lot more than baseball to the people in South Carolina. To those who have been following Gamecock sports, there is the legend of the chicken curse, that our mascot is a gamecock fighting chicken and we have been cursed because of that. I am here to tell you on the Senate floor tonight that the chicken curse is over. Long live the Gamecock Nation. To my friends at Clemson--I live 5 miles away from the baseball stadium at Clemson University--your day is coming. It won't be long before I will be able to take this floor and celebrate Clemson University's winning of the College World Series. Upon the passing of Robert C. Byrd, this body and this country has lost a great public servant. To the people of South Carolina, we have something to be proud of. As we go into the holiday season--the July 4th holiday is right around the corner--let's remember what it is all about: the birth of our Nation. I will be going to Afghanistan and Iraq, having the Fourth of July celebration with our troops. I ask every American to keep them in their prayers because what we are going to do on the Fourth of July, being with our family and friends, is only made possible because of their sacrifice. Mr. President, I wish you and your family a great holiday.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a few minutes in two areas, if the Chair can let me know when 10 minutes has expired.