Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will vote against the motion to proceed. Before Senator Lieberman leaves the floor, I want to say again, of all the people I have met in the Senate, he constantly amazes me, because there is no doubt he is doing this because he believes passionately that America is at a crossroads and this is making the problem worse, not better. I am on a bill with him--there are seven Republicans and seven Democrats--that is a comprehensive solution to our health care needs. It is the Wyden-Bennett bill. It mandates coverage, but we do it through the private sector. I want colleagues to know that Senator Lieberman has been constructive in trying to find a bipartisan compromise that will allow us to deal with health care inflation, which is a problem in the private sector. He practices what he preaches, trying to solve problems. As he explained it, the Senator from Mississippi and I were sitting here talking. There is not much of that around here in politics now, where one would come out and take on an issue that is being pushed by leaders of the Democratic Party. He is an independent Democrat, but he articulated the reason in a way most Americans really appreciate. Doctors have a problem. In 1997, we tried to balance the budget with President Clinton, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. When we looked at how we could sustain a balanced budget, we had to go to where the growth was in the budget. The big programs were Medicaid and Medicare, the entitlements. Eventually, those two programs will cost the equivalent of the entire Federal budget today in 20 or 30 years. If we want to balance the budget, we have to slow down entitlement growth. Medicare is one of those programs that have grown dramatically. When it first came about, it was a $4 billion safety net. They projected that Medicare would cost $37 billion in 1990. It was like $90-something billion. It is $400 billion today. Those who designed the Medicare Program as a safety net for senior citizens without health care did a good thing, but from then until now, it has become a $400 billion item that is eating up the entire budget. In 1997, we recalculated the growth rates to be paid to doctors and hospitals. Since then, doctors and hospitals have been saying that we cut reimbursements to the point that they can't take Medicare and Medicaid patients and it is hurting their ability to stay in business. About 60 percent of their income comes from the Federal Government. I don't doubt that is true. What we did is just nickel and dime doctors and hospitals and never reform Medicare. So Senator Lieberman is right. To help doctors and hospitals and the country achieve a balanced budget, we will have to fundamentally reform Medicare, and the doctor fix should be part of that effort. What we are doing here is making a promise we can't afford to pay. We are going to tell the doctors: Don't worry ever again about Medicare reimbursements being cut because for a 10-year period, we are going to hold you harmless. That is beyond cynical. We need to look at the doctor fix in terms of comprehensive Medicare reform. It is a $245 billion item designed to get the medical community to support the leadership version of health care. It is transparent. It is wrong. It is bad politics. It is bad policy. I hope my colleagues will reject it. The bill coming out of the Finance Committee--and I congratulate Senators who are trying to fix health care because it needs to be fixed--is about an $800 billion expenditure, a little bit more. It is revenue neutral over a 10-year period because it is going to be paid for. Four hundred billion in Medicare cuts are part of the payoff, the pay-fors. How do we take $800 billion of expense and make it revenue neutral? We offset it. One of the offsets is a $400 billion-plus reduction in Medicare spending over a 10-year window. I argue that not only is that not going to happen because the Congress hasn't reduced Medicare spending anywhere near that, it is just politically not going to happen. Two years ago, we tried to slow down the growth of Medicare to $33.8 billion over a 4- or 5-year period and got 24 votes. If colleagues think this Congress is going to have the political will and courage to reduce Medicare by $400 billion over 10 years, show me in the past where we have had any desire to do that. The doctors fix is the best evidence yet of what will come in the future. We are contemplating doing away with the reduction in physician payments that was part of the balanced budget agreement because our medical community has been hit hard and is complaining. Look at the $400 billion. Do we think if people are going to be on the receiving and of a $400 billion cut over a period of time, they are going to accept it happily? Do you think they are not going to complain? What do you think we are going to do when one group of the medical community or the insurance community says, ``You are putting me out of business.'' These $400 billion cuts are never going to happen because, you see, with the doctors fix, where every year we relieve the doctors from the imposition of that agreement in 1997--and in many ways we should because the 1997 agreement was not comprehensive--but to those who believe we are going to cut $400 billion in Medicare, have the courage to tell the doctors we are going to do to them what we said we would do back in 1997. Nobody wants to do that, and I am sympathetic as to why we do not want to do that because we are asking too much of doctors and hospitals and we did not reform the system as a whole. Mr. President, $245 billion added to the debt is no small thing. What I hope will happen is we can find a bipartisan pathway forward on health care reform that deals with inflation, deals with better access to preventive medicine, has some medical liability reform, is truly comprehensive, with give-and-take, and mandates coverage. I am willing to do that as a Republican. But if we go down the road our leadership has set for us here and basically tell the doctors ``Don't worry anymore, you are going to be held harmless for the next 10 years,'' then what group will follow who will want the same deal and to whom will we begin to say no? I do not know. I do not know to whom we will have the ability to say no if we do this. And if you say no to them, what the heck do you tell them--``You are not a doctor, so it does not matter what we do to your business.'' If we do this, we have lost the ability, in my view, to provide the necessary solutions to the hard problems facing the country. We will have given in to the most cynical nature of politics. We will have destroyed our ability to engage with the public at large in a credible way to fix hard problems. And when it comes time to ask people to sacrifice, they are going to look at us and say: What do you mean ``sacrifice?'' Aren't you the people who just basically wiped out what the doctors had to do because you were afraid of them? I am not afraid of doctors. God bless them. I am glad we have them. What we have done in the name of reform has been unfair because we picked on them and not the system as a whole. So to the doctors out there, Lindsey Graham gets it, that your reimbursement rates as they exist today under Medicare make it very difficult for you to do business. But I hope you will understand that my obligation is beyond just to the doctors in South Carolina; it is to what Senator Lieberman said: the next generation as well as to the here and now. Every politician has a problem: How do you affect the here and now, people who can vote for you, and how can you secure the future? Well, you just have to ask the people who are here and now to be willing to make some changes for the benefit of the country long term. I am confident that if we ask and we do it in a smart way, people will join with us. I want to give the doctors better reimbursement rates, and the only way we can achieve that is to reform Medicare from top to bottom and make it more efficient. One of the things I am willing to do is ask a person like myself to pay more. As a Senator, I make about $170,000 a year. I am not saying we are worth it, but that is what we pay ourselves. I would like to think we earn our money because it is not an easy job, but there are a lot of jobs harder than being a Senator, I can assure you. But right now, the system we have to fund Medicare, the trust fund, will run out of money in about 4 years. But basically I am paying the same amount for Part B premiums that cover doctors and hospital payments out of Medicare as my aunt and uncle who worked in the textile mill and made $25,000 a year. I am willing for people like myself to have to pay more to keep Medicare solvent. We are making some changes but not nearly enough. Mr. President, $3 out of $4 of Medicare spending comes from the General Treasury, the taxpayers. One-fourth of the money to cover Medicare expenses comes from the patient population being served. There are plenty of Americans who are paying about $100 a month once they get into retirement who can afford to pay $450 a month for the Medicare services they receive. Nobody is asking them to do it. I am willing to ask, and I am willing to do it myself. It is those types of changes that will lead this country to a brighter future and will correct the imbalance we have. Finally, Medicare is $34 trillion underfunded. If you had $34 trillion sitting in an account today, it would earn interest over 75 years. You would need all the money--the $34 trillion plus the interest--to make the payments we have promised people in the future. When I was born in 1955, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today there are three, and in 20 years there will be two. There will be two workers paying into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds where there used to be 16 when I was born. There are more baby boomers retiring every day than anyone ever anticipated. We are living far beyond 65. The question for the country is, Will people in my business go to you, the public, and say change is required? We cannot run the system assuming things that do not exist. We have to come to grips with the fact that we have an aging population, we live longer, there are more retirees than ever, and there are fewer workers. Once we come to grips with that dynamic and ask those who can afford to give, to give--hold those harmless who cannot afford to give--America's best days are ahead. If we do not reform these systems and we continue to do what is being proposed today--try to buy a constituency off: Doctors, we will fix your problem if you will support our bill; the $254 billion it will cost to get you onboard, do not worry about it. To the doctors who may be listening, you better worry about it. You need to worry about not only the viability of your medical practice but the ability of your government to make payments it has promised to the next generation, the ability of your government to be able to continue to operate, the ability of our country to pass on to the next generation a sound and secure America. We are about to borrow ourselves into oblivion. There is a theory out there, long held, that democracies are doomed to fail because democracies over time will lose the ability to say no to themselves; that we in the government will continue to grow the government based on the needs of the next election cycle and make promises that make sense for our political future but really over time are unsustainable. We have reached that point, and we are about to go over the edge. The only way America can self-correct is to make sure our political leadership is rewarded when we ask for change we can believe in. This is not change we can believe in. This is the old way of doing business. This is buying off a constituency that is important for the here-and- now debate of health care and not giving a damn about the consequences to the country down the road. This is how we got in this mess. If we pass this bill, not only have we destroyed this new hope from a new President of ``change we can believe in,'' we will have reinforced the worst instincts of politics, sold the country short, and made it impossible to say no to the next group we want to sacrifice who needs to help us solve this problem. With that, I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving my right to object, and I don't intend to, I would advise my colleagues that somewhere in this line, I need a minute to call up an amendment I wish to have pending.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2669.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this amendment is simple, direct, and to the point. It would prohibit the use of funds for the Department of Justice to prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11 in article III courts. What does that mean? That means that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and people like him, who organized the attacks against our Nation on September 11, 2001, would be tried by military commissions, not Federal courts. They are not common criminals, they are war criminals. They should be tried in a military setting, like other people throughout the 200-year history of this country have been tried regarding acts of war against the United States. The military commissions have been reformed. Thanks to Senator Levin and others, we have a great process that I would not mind our own soldiers being tried in. At the end of the day, we need not criminalize this war. There is a law of armed conflict awaiting the defendants that is fair and it is robust. It has adequate due process, but it recognizes we are at war. And military commissions have been used throughout the history of this country. They are better able to protect classified information. We need to be consistent. The people who planned the attacks of 9/11 are not common criminals. They are people who have taken up arms against the Untied States, and they should be adjudged accordingly in a military tribunal, which I think we have now designed as the best in the world. There will be more to follow in this important debate. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the esteemed Senator from Hawaii, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye. The bill before us includes a significant cut of $9 million from U.S. SOCOM's SCAR Program--special operations combat assault rifle. The SCAR was selected in a fair and open competition and has undergone some of the most rigorous testing of any small arms program in U.S. history. It is widely regarded as one of the best and most versatile weapons in the world. While this weapon has passed all tests, the only issue now is what mix of versatility--7.62mm models or 5.56mm models--they want to have at the ODA level operational detachment alpha--that is the Special Forces A team level which is as close to the ground level fight as you can get. I understand there are recent concerns regarding contracting delays and the ability to obligate these funds. I have been assured by SOCOM that they will be able to spend all funds requested within the appropriate timeframe. The Special Forces is intensely engaged in combat operations all over the world including Afghanistan and they need the versatility and capability offered by this unique weapon system. The President's Budget included $9.746 million for this program. The House-passed version of this bill fully funds the President's request. I would encourage the chairman to ensure this program is fully funded in the Senate as requested in the President's budget.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. It is also my understanding that IED attacks by the enemy have gone up about 1,000 percent and in reaction to that, Secretary Gates has sent 3,000 people over to deal with the IED problem. From my understanding of the testimony yesterday, Admiral Mullen said the force structure we have in place, between the combination of coalition forces and Afghan forces, is not enough to reverse the trends and to regain lost momentum. I thought it was pretty clear that he was telling us something has to change beyond training the Afghan Army. Would you agree that the longer we leave people in that environment, where the momentum is on the enemy's side, we are doing a great disservice to the 68,000 people who are there? And if you are going to send troops, send them while it matters, send them in enough number to save lives and get the job over sooner rather than later? That is what I think all three of us are saying. Mr. President, we appreciate your commitment in Afghanistan. Sending troops to get the election conducted was a wise move. Understanding that Afghanistan is the central battle in the overall war on terror now is a deep understanding on the President's part. The only thing we are saying, the three of us and I think others, is that our military commanders have told us we have lost momentum and the only way to get it back in the short term is more combat power, and every day that we wait makes it much harder for those who are in theatre, and they are dying at levels and being injured at levels we have not known before. That is what drives our thinking. Would you agree with that?

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to pick up where my colleague, Senator Lieberman, left off. The question to ask is, how did the Taliban regain momentum? How do a bunch of fighters, who do not have one airplane, no navy, no heavy weapons to speak of, how could they have regained momentum and begun to reoccupy parts of Afghanistan? The only answer I can come up with is a vacuum has been created. That vacuum has two components to it: the lack of governance and not enough troops to prevent the Taliban from coming back in some areas of Afghanistan. I would submit this: If we wait to train the Afghan Army as the only way to stabilize Afghanistan, we are going to waste 2 or 3 years. It is going to get so bad we cannot stand the casualties, and the American people will not tolerate a 2- or 3-year period of where we are just training the Afghan forces, sending them from the training cycle into combat. They are going to fold, just like they did in Iraq. We cannot train an army and have them fight at the same time. We need a little bit of breathing space. So this idea that we are going to train the Afghan Army, that is the way we will regain momentum against the Taliban, quite frankly will not work. I think Admiral Mullen understood that. What will work is to send more combat power to clear the Taliban from the areas that the Taliban have reoccupied. The Marines are telling us in no uncertain terms, with the right mix of troops they are delivering punishing blows to the Taliban. But we can send 1 million troops to Afghan and still not deal with the fundamental problems they face and the world faces, the legitimacy of the Afghan Government in the eyes of the Afghan people. That is why the Taliban have come back because the Afghan Government has failed. They have failed in almost every respect to give the Afghan people the governance and the hope they need to stand up to the Taliban. So this is one Senator who believes the way to regain lost momentum is to add more combat power and, yes, train the Afghan Army and police force with a new strategy which we now have in place. It is labor intensive. It is going to take a lot of time. We have to understand, if we get the Afghan Army up to 400,000, the whole budget of Afghanistan is $800 million a year. It will take $5 billion a year to maintain that army. We are going to end up paying. I hope the American taxpayer understands that. But it is cheaper for us to do that than it is for us to be the 400,000-person army. So when it comes to cost, it is better to train them and help them with their training and funding than it is for us to stay over there in large numbers forever. But we are going to have to plus up to regain lost momentum. Then we are going to have to focus on the real cause of the deterioration--governance. The Karzai government has failed in many ways. Corruption is rampant. If, in the next 6 months, some major figures in Afghanistan are not prosecuted for ripping off the Afghan people, then nothing will ever change over there. I have been a military lawyer serving as a reservist in Afghanistan. I can tell you that everyone who has looked at the Rule of Law Programs will tell you that corruption, narcotics corruption, is rampant in that country. They need a legal system in Afghanistan that can stand up to the corruption. That means we have to protect the judges from being assassinated; we have to build capacity. There are less than 500 lawyers in all of Afghanistan. There are 16,000 people in jail. Most of them went to jail without ever seeing a lawyer. We have our work cut out for us. We need benchmarks and measurements so I can go back to South Carolina and every Senator can go back to their constituents and say: We are not throwing good money after bad. We are going to push the Afghan Government to prosecute corruption, to provide security for judges, to find a way to empower the economy beyond the drug trade, and start making hard decisions about how tribal justice systems can be incorporated into the formal justice system. There are so many decisions that politicians in Afghanistan have failed to make that have allowed the Taliban to come back. We need to put them on notice that with new resources and new troops, a new dynamic will be in place, and they will be making the decisions necessary to provide governance to their people. If they fail to do that, then they will not have our support because, at the end of the day, they have to want it more than we do. Senator Lieberman is right about this. The good news amidst all of this bad news is the Taliban is very much reviled and hated in the country. But put yourselves in one of these villages out in the middle of Afghanistan. What would you do, knowing that by night the Taliban comes in and rains terror? We have to replace that dynamic and give the people assurance that we are not only going to provide them security but the Afghan Government is going to provide them schooling and education, health care, and some hope. Finally, I cannot tell you that we will succeed with more troops. I can tell you, we will fail if we do not send more troops. It is so much harder in Afghanistan than in many ways it is in Iraq. We are not the Russians. We are not the British. This is not Vietnam. This is not Iraq. This is Afghanistan where 9/11 was planned and executed. We can get this right.

Mr. GRAHAM. The last thought about that: I think our memory, the event that we need to remember is even later than 9/11. It is actually in Iraq. I remember very well this whole debate, and I would urge this administration not to do what the last administration did. That is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan right now. It is as if we have learned nothing. It is clear, just as it was in Iraq, that we did not have enough combat power to secure the country, not enough mentoring programs to actually train the Iraqi Army, and only when we changed the strategy of adding more troops and gave the Iraqi people and the army some breathing space, the politicians, from the violence did things change. It is exactly the same thing here. But right now we have a dynamic on the ground that is not much different from Iraq the first 3 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Admiral Mullen recognizes that. The new strategy in March is a counterinsurgency strategy, and Senator McCain, the one thing I remember is numbers matter. We need enough troops per population center to effect change, and we do not have the ratios to enact an effective counterinsurgency strategy unless we add more troops, and that means more than just trainers. So my frustration is, as you said yesterday: We have seen this movie before. We are putting 68,000 troops in harm's way, and unless we properly resource them, give them more assistance, more people to help them fight, they are not going to change the battle momentum, and they are going to get killed in the process. There is not enough people to effect the counterinsurgency strategy, just like there was not enough in Iraq. Have we learned nothing? So let's act. Mr. President, we will support you to the nth degree to get the combat power and the trainers and the civilians into Afghanistan to turn this place around. But the sooner you act, the quicker we can do it, and the sooner we will come home and the less lives we will lose in the long run. That is our message. We respect you. You are the Commander in Chief. You won the election. But you have an opportunity, and it is clear to me that we are losing momentum. This is not a time to deliberate. This is a time to act.

Mr. GRAHAM. Well, the one thing I can tell you is Admiral Mullen is going to be reappointed with probably every person in this body voting for him because he has gained our trust, and it speaks well of the President that he would renominate him. So he has obviously gained the President's trust. I am not a military commander. But I do not have to be much of a military expert to understand his testimony. His testimony was pretty clear: We have lost momentum. The Taliban is reemerging, stronger than ever, and the capability of the coalition forces and the Afghan Army and security forces combined cannot reverse the momentum. Something new has to happen. When we put on the table training the Afghan Army without additional combat power, how long would it take before they could have enough numbers to change things? Two or three years. What would happen during that training period? It would deteriorate further. What did he tell us? The pathway forward is that we have a new strategy, it needs to be properly resourced. I think what he was telling us more than anything else is that time is not on our side. Casualties in July and August were at an all-time high. We have 68,000 people wearing our uniform in Afghanistan who are getting killed in larger numbers than ever, and the dynamic on the ground will not change the momentum. To do nothing puts them in an environment where they are going to get killed in higher numbers, and what Admiral Mullen is telling us, and I hope the President will listen, is that time is not on our side, but, more importantly, it is not on their side. This decision about troops, to me, is pretty easy. We need more, but troops alone will not fix Afghanistan. But without more troops in a hurry and with a sense of urgency, we are going to let the Taliban get stronger, the Afghan people are going to get weaker in their resolve, and more Americans are going to die than if we had more troops. That is what I got out of the hearing. I hope the President is listening.

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. As I understood the situation, in the last couple of months casualties among American forces are at an all-time high since the invasion. Do you agree with that, I ask the Senator?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are going back and forth. If Senator Lautenberg will let me go, I will not talk long, if that is appropriate. Today is a day to remember a colleague, a friend, someone whom it was a challenge to oppose and a joy to work with, and I wish we were not here today talking about the passing of Senator Kennedy. We disagreed on most things but found common ground on big things. And everyone has a story about Senator Kennedy. There has been a lot of discussion about his life, the legacy, his human failings, which we all have, his self-inflicted wounds, and his contribution to the country. But I want to talk about what will be missing in the Senate. We had a giant of a man who was very principled but understood the Senate as well as anyone I have ever met; he understood the need to give and take to move the country forward. My experience with Senator Kennedy was, I used his image in my campaign to get elected, like every other Republican did. We do not want another person up to help Ted Kennedy. And he loved it. He got more air time than the candidates themselves. He loved it. I remember him telling me a story about Senator Hollings. The tradition in the Senate is when you get reelected, you have your fellow Senator from that State follow you down to the well. He went over to Senator Hollings and said: I want you to come down and escort me. He said: Why? I am from South Carolina. He said: In my campaign you were. You were the other Senator from South Carolina. Ted got a lot of fun out of that. I think he appreciated the role he played, and Republicans, almost to a person, would use Senator Kennedy in their campaigns. But when they got here, they understood Senator Kennedy was someone you wanted to do business with. If you had a bill that you thought would need some bipartisan support, Senator Kennedy is the first person you would think of. And you had to understand the limitations on what he could help you with. He was not going to help you with certain things, because it ran counter to what he believe in. But where you could find common grounds on the big issues, you had no better ally than Senator Kennedy. We met in the President's Room every morning during the immigration debate, and at night he would call me up and say: Lindsey, tomorrow in our meeting you need to yell at me because you need to get something. I understand that. I will fight back. But you will get it. The next day he would say: I need to yell at you. It was sort of like all-star wrestling, to be honest with you, and that was fun. Because he understood how far I could go, and he challenged me to go as far as I could. But he never asked me to go farther than I was capable of going. And, in return, he would walk the plank for you. We had votes on the floor of the Senate on emotion-driven amendments designed to break the bill apart from the right and the left. I walked the plank on the right because I knew he would walk the plank on the left. He voted against amendments he probably agreed with, but he understood that the deal would come unraveled. The only thing I can tell you about Senator Kennedy, without any hesitation is if he told you he would do something, that is all you needed to hear. A handshake from him was better than a video deposition from most people. I do not how to say it any more directly than that. Opposing him was a lot of fun because he understood that a give-and- take to move a ball forward was part of democracy, but standing your ground and planting your feet and telling the other side, in a respectful way, to go to hell, was also part of democracy. And he could do it with the best of them. But he could also take a punch as well as give one. So what we are missing today in the Senate is the spirit of Ted Kennedy when it comes to standing up for what you believe and being able to work with somebody who you disagree with on an issue very important to the country. If he were alive today, the health care debate would be different. That is not a slam on anybody involved, because this is hard. I do not know if he could deliver, but I think it would be different and I think it would be more hopeful. The immigration bill failed. But he told me: I have been through this a lot. Hard things are hard for a reason, and it will take a long time. He indicated to me that the immigration debate had all the emotion of the civil rights debate. And that was not something he said lightly. We sat in that room with Senator Kyl and Senator Salazar and a group of Senators who came and went, and the administration officials, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, and Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, and we wrote it line by line with our staffs sitting on the wall. It was what I thought the government was supposed to be like in ninth grade civics. It was one of the highlights of my political life to be able to sit in that room with Senator Kennedy and other Senators and literally try to write a bill that was difficult. We failed for the moment. But we are going to reform our immigration system. And the guts of that bill, the balance we have achieved, will be the starting point for a new debate. Most of it will become law one day, because it is the ultimate give and take and it made a lot of sense. I say his wife Vicki, I got to know Ted later in his life. Through him I got to know you. I know you are hurting now. But I hope that all of the things being said by his colleagues and the people at large are reassuring to you, and that as we move forward as a Senate, when you look at the history of this body, which is long and distinguished, around here there are all kinds of busts of people who have done great things during challenging times. I will bet everything I own that Senator Kennedy, when the history of this body is written, will be at the top echelon of Senators who have ever served. The point is that you can be liberal as you want to be, you can be as conservative as you want to be, and you can be as effective as you want to be. If you want to be liberal and effective, you can be. If you want to be liberal and ineffective, you can choose that route too. The same for being conservative. You do not have to choose. That is what Senator Kennedy taught this body, and I think what he demonstrated to anybody who wants to come and be a Senator. So if you are a left-of-center politician looking for a role model, pick Ted Kennedy. You could be liberal, proudly so, but you also could be effective. What I am going to try to do with my time up here is be a conservative who can be effective. That is the best tribute I can give to Senator Kennedy--being somebody on the right who will meet in the middle for the good of the country. Ted will be missed but he will not be forgotten. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. This is the time in a person's career you are supposed to lay it on thick. But there is no need to do that in Mel's case. I think everybody here speaking on both sides of the aisle is trying to say thank you for your friendship, and there are a million ways to say it. To Kitty, again, thank you for being part of our lives here. We are going to continue this relationship. I think all of us have got stories about Mel. I first heard about Mel by reputation. He was a Republican trial lawyer. That intrigued me. There are not many of us. We can meet in a phone booth. I got to know Mel during his campaign and did some events for him. I think that experience of representing people in court made him a good Senator because he understands that there are two sides of every story, and sometimes a person needs the best advocate they can get, even though their cause may not be so popular at the moment. But I got to know Mel during the immigration debate. That is a hell of a way to meet someone. You will learn quickly when you are talking about politics at that level, that emotional, and Mel was going to be part of that debate whether he wanted to or not because of who he was. You could not talk about immigration and not think about Mel Martinez. He was the first one to show up and he was the last one to leave, and we will get that bill passed one day. It will be a tribute to Mel and Senator Kennedy that the guts of the bill will be the solution that will be embraced down the road. That was tough politics. We would reminisce at night. And Saxby was involved. We would meet every morning in the room over there, the President's Room, with Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain, trying to figure out where we were based on what happened the night before. Usually we had lost ground, but we kept plugging. But a lot of stories were told about what was going on in Mel's life. There is a lot of hatred out there, quite frankly. There are a lot of people who should be upset about the immigration system not working and broken borders and legitimately concerned about the solution we were offering. But there were some people who were, quite frankly, hateful. I think Mel took the brunt of that more than anyone else. It did not get a lot of publicity, and probably it should not. But I know what he and Kitty went through to try to fix a broken immigration system. I will be forever grateful for their effort, because it was personally very difficult. When Mel left a repressive place, he came to a hopeful country, and during that debate he never lost sight of what America is all about. America will never be defined by the people who hate. America will always be defined by people who love and care. I have never met two people who love and care more than Kitty and Mel. You will be missed.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing James Edward Rice on the occasion of his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame on July 26, 2009. Mr. Rice is a superior athlete who has made his home State of South Carolina very proud. Mr. Rice was elected in this, his 15th and final year on the Baseball Writers Association of America, BBWAA, election ballot, with 76.4 percent of the vote. He becomes the third player in Hall of Fame history to be elected by the BBWAA in his final year of eligibility, and he is certainly deserving of this honor. Jim Rice spent his entire 16-year big league career playing with the Boston Red Sox. Fenway Park was his second home, and he certainly gave the Red Sox organization and fans plenty to cheer about. Mr. Rice played his first game for the club in late 1974, and his career took off shortly thereafter. In 1975 he ended the season as runner-up for Rookie of the Year, second to his own teammate Fred Lynn. After overcoming injuries, Mr. Rice finally settled in and was selected as the American League Most Valuable Player, MVP, in 1978, and throughout the rest of his career he finished in the top five of the MVP selection five other times. An Anderson, SC, native, Mr. Rice, or ``Ed'' as he was known growing up, found himself in a challenging time of social change. After the public schools were integrated shortly before his senior year of high school, he was sent into a new environment where, according to Alexander Edelman with the Baseball Biography Project, his ``engaging personality and gentle charm won over most . . . and helped ease the racial tension that accompanied integration.'' He quickly made quite an impact in the athletic arena as a member of the football, basketball, and baseball teams. He was an all-State kick returner, defensive back, and wide receiver. But it was his prowess on the baseball diamond that caught the most attention, and he was drafted in the first round of the amateur entry draft at only 18 years old. Mr. Rice was an incredible asset to the Boston Red Sox, but perhaps his most memorable moment with the team had nothing to do with his abilities on the field. On August 7, 1982 Jonathan Keane, a 4-year-old boy attending his first game in Fenway Park, was sitting along the first base line when he was struck in the head with a line drive foul ball. Alarmed that no one was reacting quickly enough, Jim Rice leapt from the dugout and into the stands. Instinctively he picked up the unconscious boy and, cradling him, ran straight to the clubhouse where the trainer and ambulance were waiting. Tom Keane, Jonathan's father who was with him that day, recalled the event and noted, ``In times like that, you really see the quality of the character of the people involved. Jim Rice is a really humble guy. He doesn't want to take credit for doing anything out of the ordinary . . . I think that's an understatement of what he did that day. He may very well have saved my son's life.'' Jim Rice played his final game with the Boston Red Sox on August 3, 1989, but returned to the organization from 1995 through 2000 as a hitting coach. On November 1, 1995 he was inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in its inaugural class. His plaque can be viewed at Fenway Park along with two of his Silver Slugger awards. In 1999, Sports Illustrated honored him as the ninth best athlete of the 20th Century to come out of South Carolina. And in 2001 he was inducted into the Ted Williams Hitters Hall of Fame. Mr. Rice and his wife Corine now reside in Andover, MA, where they have raised their two daughters Carissa and Chancey. And though he is not permanently in South Carolina, his presence is still felt in Anderson through a community center named in his honor, the Jim Ed Rice Center. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring him for his impressive athletic career and newest honor as an inductee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Command Sergeant Major Michael W. Glaze, the Regimental Command Sergeant Major of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, for his many years of exceptionally meritorious service to our country. Command Sergeant Major Glaze will retire from the United States Army on September 1, 2009, having completed a distinguished 32- year military career. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his many contributions to our Nation and the legal profession, particularly during operations in support of the Global War on Terror. He was born in Frankfurt, Germany in 1960, where his father was stationed at the time, his father retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of Sergeant Major. He enlisted in November 1977, completed Basic Training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, Advanced Individual Training at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana and Airborne School at Fort Benning, Georgia. His initial assignments as a Legal Specialist were at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He then returned to Fort Bragg as a Legal Noncommissioned Officer. Recognized for his superior performance, he then served in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, where he deployed to Kuwait. Following redeployment, he served at the Chief Paralegal at the Fort Belvoir legal office and at the United States Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. In July 1998, Command Sergeant Major Glaze was selected as the Chief Paralegal for XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he deployed on several occasions to Iraq and Afghanistan to check on the welfare of his Soldiers. Command Sergeant Major Glaze was selected to be the 10th Regimental Sergeant Major for the Judge Advocate General's Corps in 2004. On the 2nd day of October 2006, he was appointed to Command Sergeant Major, the first Command Sergeant Major in the 234-year history of the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps. As the Command Sergeant Major of the Judge Advocate General's Corps from March 2004 to September 2009, he was the principal advisor to the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Deputy Judge Advocate General regarding all enlisted matters for a multi-component force. Additionally, he expertly managed the final stages of the Noncommissioned Officers Academy at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, and directed the final process for professional accreditation. Command Sergeant Major Glaze's military awards and decorations include: Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal and he is also authorized to wear the Parachutist Badge. A Soldier who embodies the very best of Army Values and the Noncommissioned Officer's Creed, Command Sergeant Major Glaze trained and mentored a Noncommissioned Officer Corps that truly is the backbone of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. His integrity is impeccable, his counsel is widely sought, and he remains deeply committed to his Soldiers and their families. He is a leader whose honor and candor were the hallmark of a career spent in selfless service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and the United States Army. I know all my colleagues join me in saluting Command Sergeant Major Michael W. Glaze and his wife, Debbie, for their many years of truly outstanding service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the United States Army, and our great Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of Chairman Levin and all those involved. This is to me a very important statement by the Senate at a crucial time in our Nation's history. Simply put, our amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate statement that there is a preference for military commission trials regarding detained terrorists. The reason we are making this statement and trying to urge our colleagues to agree with us is that the interim detainee report that has been issued in the last day or two by the White House has a statement within that report that there should be a presumption that detained terrorists would be tried in article III Federal civilian courts. I could not disagree more. We will keep working with the administration on this issue. There may be an odd case where a Federal court may be an appropriate venue. But I think I speak for Senator Lieberman and I hope most Americans that the people we are talking about are not common criminals. They are not detained because of some violation of domestic criminal law. They are detained because they have been found to be part of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that the Congress has previously determined to be enemy combatant belligerents, people who have taken up arms against the United States of America, who are intent on our destruction. They are not accused of robbing a liquor store. They fall within a narrow statutory definition that was created after 9/11. This is an opportunity for the Senate to express itself and say there is a preference for military courts. I conclude with this thought. I believe we are at war. It is an unusual war but nonetheless a deadly war. The people we are talking about, again, need to be viewed as military threats, and under military law it is appropriate to try someone who has operated outside the law of armed conflict in a military commission. Our Nation has been doing this for 200 years. The Nazi saboteurs who were caught landing on the coast of Florida were tried by military commission. I can give a long history of how military commissions were used by our Nation at times of war. That is the preferred vehicle when a nation is at war. I conclude with this thought. Those who can be tried should be tried by military commissions. There will be some enemy combatants determined to be part of al-Qaida who will not be subject to criminal process either in Federal courts or military commission trials. It is my belief that this country cannot afford to release them if they are still a military threat. Under military law, there is no requirement to release an enemy prisoner as long as they present a threat to your country. There is no such concept in domestic criminal law. We cannot criminalize this war. It will come back to haunt us. Due process is available under military law. The men and women running these trials are officers, judge advocates. I have been one for 25 years. They are wonderful people. They will adhere to the law. They understand the law. They will provide transparent justice. But this is the setting that we need to be in regarding these detainees. This statement by the Senate is appropriate. Mr. President, to my good friend, Senator Lieberman, he has, above all others, tried to remind himself that the Nation's defense is more important than politics. I cannot tell Senator Lieberman how much I admire him. We have worked together to get a sense of the Senate, not binding, but a strong statement that it is a preference that these terrorists detained as part of an al-Qaida network be tried in military commissions, as we have done in our history. I yield to Senator Lieberman and hope my colleagues will accept this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate now to call up the Lieberman amendment, as modified.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a further modification of the Session's amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for that question. It is my understanding that the efforts made in Virginia and South Carolina to produce this product domestically, and the concerns the Senator has addressed, the private sector is dealing with; and that the ability to produce this material domestically is a viable option. I don't want to take a precedent, in terms of the Berry amendment, that I think would change the spirit of the amendment at a time when we have a potential to make this domestically. I think, as much as we can do domestically to protect our military and to provide resources to our military, the better. A year or two from now, we will know better. To lift the waiver, to make it a permanent waiver, I think would be an unwise erosion of the Berry amendment at this time. That would be my answer.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of Senator Webb. We have been working together on this. I very much appreciate Senator Isakson. I understand this is a bit complicated-- there are parochial interests involved--until we understand the dilemma we are in here. In the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill, we included language that grants a 5-year waiver to the Berry amendment for the procurement of flame-resistant rayon, the material used to make military uniforms. There are 3 years left on the waiver. The Isakson amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to produce a domestic material to make military uniforms. I respectfully oppose the amendment. We are currently procuring the material from Europe. There is no source of domestic rayon. Neither Congress nor DOD has ever issued a determination or finding that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform the functions desired by DOD. This amendment unfairly excludes, in my opinion, U.S. manufacturers from competing for DOD procurements and improperly limits competition since the domestic market contains products such as flame-resistant cotton, Nomex, and nylon which can fulfill DOD's needs. DOD's decision to procure flame-resistant fabric from foreign suppliers without even examining whether domestic manufacturers could meet the agency's need with other products violates DOD's statutory mandate to use performance rather than material specifications and to seek free and fair open competition whenever practical. Instead of affirmatively extending a waiver that has 3 years remaining, we should continue to let the technologies and fabrics develop and reassess where we are in 1 or 2 years. I think that is the wise thing to do, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have been working with Senator Sessions--myself, Senator Levin and his staff, and Senator Sessions' staff. This amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being detained as a result of wartime activity, to be interrogated for intelligence gathering, there is no requirement that person have article 31, or Miranda, rights read to them. We don't want to criminalize the war. Military intelligence gathering is not a law enforcement function. There has been some confusion at Bagram Air Force Base about the Department of Justice FBI agents reading Miranda rights. Clearly, there could be a time when that would be appropriate, but this amendment states unequivocally that Miranda warnings, or article 31 rights, are not to be read or required to be read by DOD personnel or intelligence agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence gathering. I think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially confusing situation. I appreciate Senator Levin's staff helping us with it.