Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If our colleagues looked at the items we are using to offset, do you agree with me, I say to the Senator, not only could most of these items wait, it would be probably good we never spent the money at all? So when you talk about priorities between 1.5 million people who could be saved from foreclosure in 14 months with this money versus what we are offsetting--and only 17 percent of the offset money, I say to the Senator, I believe, is spent in the first year--the $22 billion we give to the FDIC to manage foreclosures would save 1.5 million homes in 14 months. So I would argue we are not shortchanging anyone by offsetting this money, that what is in the offset not only could wait, a lot of it could wait till hell froze over because it makes no sense to spend it to begin with. So it is not as if we are robbing somebody with a useful program. We have looked into this $800 billion, $900 billion--whatever it is--bill, I say to the Senator, and we are astonished to find that maybe there is some money in here that does not make a whole lot of sense in terms of stimulating the economy, saving housing or banking, and I think we have done a pretty good job of offsetting it. I would ask my colleagues one simple question, and I will end with a question to the Senator from North Dakota. If you assume we are going to be asking the American people for more money to fix their housing problem and their banking problem, the question I have is, one, why wait when we can do something now? And why would you put what is in this bill in this offset ahead of housing? I just do not understand that. Do you, as the Senator from North Dakota?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I hate to do this because I hate it when people do it to me, but I just want to ask a question, if I could.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has asked a very good question. What are we doing here? Are we trying to spend TARP money? Well, apparently we are going to do that next. I thought we were stimulating the economy. The President said this is a spending bill. Well, all spending doesn't stimulate the economy: $400 million for sexually transmitted disease research and $75 million to get people to quit smoking--those things don't stimulate the economy in the near term. They may be very worthwhile. You have issues with TARP. I didn't think we were going to come over here and divide TARP. I am with you, Senator Dodd, I don't think you have enough money. What I want to do with my colleague from North Dakota is to let the body know we are spending a lot of money--more than any American can appreciate--on things that don't stimulate the economy. If you want to get our economy back on its feet, take some of the money we are going to waste in this bill and put it into a program that will save 1.5 million people from foreclosure. I think it is smart to do that now. I think it is smart to look at TARP and maybe grow the fund if it is necessary. That is the point. This bill has lost focus. For one person it is spending. For the other person it is rearranging TARP. For us it is trying to save housing. I don't think we know what we are doing. I think we need to understand we don't have enough money in TARP to fix America's problems with housing and banking, and every dollar we waste here and what we are taking out of this bill is purely waste, in my opinion. To help housing is smart. If you don't think it is smart, vote no. I will respect you. But this whole process has gotten out of hand.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a couple of observations as we bring this night to a close. I don't know what we are going to do after tonight. I am asked to talk about an amendment that I have never seen. It has been described to me and things have been said about it that I need to take exception to. Not the people. I know the people. I have been in a position where being the odd guy out is tough. Joe Lieberman, by the way, has earned the right to do and say anything he ever wants to do as far as I am concerned. When Joe stood up for what he believed in Iraq, got in a primary, got beat and ran as an Independent, he knew what was coming his way, and I love him to death. When Joe said there are no winners and losers tonight, I disagree. I think the American people have lost a lot more than $820 billion. What we have done is we have lost a young President's promise to change things. That is not readily obvious. But that speech last night--I am sure you are not, but if you are listening, think twice about doing that again. There is a lot to be done in this country. Closing GTMO and moving the prisoners, I would like to help you. What are we going to do about Social Security and Medicare? I would like to help you. I hope you believe it is OK for me to be somewhat concerned about the process here and how we wound up spending $1.1 trillion. Please don't say this is change I can believe in. And please don't underestimate how the public is pulling for you, but they don't like this bill. Please don't overestimate your ability to persuade people because you are a very gifted orator. People are pulling for you. I am pulling for you. But they are watching what you are doing and they are watching what I am doing. Here is what happened here. This bill started in the House with the attitude: We won, we write it. Not one Republican was able to vote for the bill. Maybe it is us. Maybe we have so lost our way that we can't be reasonable with anybody anymore. You can explain the 11 Democrats somehow, but not only did you not get one Republican in the House, you lost 11 Democrats, and the more the American people saw what was in the bill, you lost them. I am not your problem. The American people are not your problem. The problem is the system we have been playing around with is broken, and our dear friends on the other side, you have reinforced everything bad about it. You haven't fixed it. Who are we to criticize? I am not so sure we did a whole lot better, but we got a chance to start over. We are in the first month of the administration, and I have never been more concerned about lost opportunity than I am tonight. To my two friends who decided they had to find a compromise: I respect you. I like you. But when you say this was the best we could do, I disagree with you. This is not remotely close to what we could have done if we would have sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and found a better way. We could have come out with a bill that spent less, that created jobs more efficiently, and would have built the confidence of the American people, but instead we have come out in our corners more rigid than ever. To say this is bipartisan is not quite fair. When Joe voted with us it wasn't bipartisan; it was us and Joe. You have two of my dear friends believing they had to act. But the one thing I will tell them, that is not a very good statement about the confidence you have in me. I believe we have to act too. So you must have felt that people like me are hopeless; you had to take all this on yourself and none of us would have met you in the middle. There are at least a dozen to fifteen Republicans who would have voted for a bill that did more than cut taxes who would have spent money on infrastructure, who would have helped the States, but most of us--all but two--could not tolerate this process, and at the end of the day we cannot tolerate the way this ship is shaped and how much it spends. The second big loss is the future when it comes to acting together regarding the banking crisis and the housing crisis. We have in the name of a stimulus package spent over $1 trillion and the average cost, if there are 1.3 million jobs created, is $636,000 a job, and if we somehow can create 4 million jobs, it is $212,051. People complain about us being overpaid. I will take it: $212,000 a job. We can do better than that. But here is what we have lost. Because this bill is not better, it is worse; because it is not bipartisan, it is the same old way of doing business. Because it has been so politicized by a lot of people--and I don't say I am not to blame--we now have lost more confidence. TARP I was tough. TARP II was really tough. TARP III is going to be impossible, and you are going to need TARP III. The administration is probably going to come out Monday with a $500 billion or $600 billion request to help get this country through a crisis we haven't seen since the Great Depression and they are going to tell us we need more money for housing and we need to get credit flowing and $310 billion left in TARP is not enough. The problem they are going to have and the problem I am going to have is that people are bailout weary, and they are so tired of us. They are so tired of us sitting up here in a matter of a couple of weeks trying to jam something through they don't understand and they don't like and then, when it is over, trying to celebrate. There is nothing to celebrate here. There are no bad guys, there are no good guys--men or women--but what we have lost is a great opportunity to start over. We have sunk back into the swamp. We have spent more money than we should. History will not judge us well, and the hard part is yet to be done. We will wake up tomorrow and we will try to figure out how to straighten out this mess. America somehow survives everything. I hope we can survive this. I believe we can. I want to end on this note. I am not mad at anybody because I have been in this spot myself. I am deeply disappointed that we could not do better, because there is a big loser tonight, and that is the American people. I yield back.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. No.

Mr. GRAHAM. Now, Mr. President, if I may ask the Chair to let me know when I have used 15 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. No, it is my time. I am here today to point out the fact that this is not bipartisanship. This process we are engaging in is not smart. We are not working together. We are about to spend $800 billion or $900 billion and nobody has a clue where we are going to land, and we have to do it by tonight. So I am telling you right now that if this is the solution to George Bush's problems, the country is going to get worse. If this is the new way of doing business, if this is the change we can all believe in, America's best days are behind her. I want to meet you in the middle. I want to find a way to spend money beyond cutting taxes that will help people who have lost their jobs. But I don't want to throw a bunch of money into a system that is not going to create a job in the near term, knowing that I have to work with you and the Senator from Illinois to put money into the housing market because people are losing their houses; knowing that I have to come back and ask for more money from the American people to fix the banking system when we have done nothing with banking. There is plenty of blame to go around here. There is plenty of blame. If you want to look back and say this is all George W. Bush's fault, you can do that. I am choosing not to do that. I am urging this body to sit down in some methodical way, with a sense of urgency, to come up with a product better than this. I am urging a rejection of the mentality ``we won, we write the bill.'' Now, if you want to do it this way, we are going to lose the ability to go back to the American people. The American people understand this bill is not working for them. The process we are creating is not working for them. I want to work with you to work for them. I feel shut out. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am the problem. But I don't think so. I think people are figuring out pretty quickly that this Congress, the old one and the new one, is making this up as we go, and we are running out of good will. We are running out of capital. We don't need any more news conferences. What we need is getting more than 16 people in a room. We need to slow down, take a timeout, and get it right. I support the McCain amendment, but I am willing to do more. I am willing to spend more if it makes sense. I am willing to cut taxes more if it makes sense. But I know this: What we are doing in this bill does not make sense and we are not doing it together. We are going to miss a chance to start over again, I say to my good friend from California, to wipe out the past, and to start with a new way of doing business. What we are engaging in, in my opinion, is all of the wrong things of the past. There is nothing new about this bill or this process. Finally, America wants something more. America deserves something new. This is not it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will put my ability to speak my mind to my party up against anybody, including you, Senator. I have been on this floor many times arguing with the past administration about policies I disagreed with. I don't recall you doing that a lot, but I don't question your motives as to why you are doing what you are doing. I am here today----

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is one of the most important decisions the Congress is going to make and that the new administration is going to make in the first 4 years of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress. My good friend Senator Durbin, from Illinois, whom I look forward to working with in solving hard problems, came to the floor and said some things to which I would like to respond. Knowing that we are going to get this behind us one day and go on to other hard subjects, such as Social Security and Guantanamo Bay, and try to find some bipartisanship there, I would say that to talk about inheriting Bush's problems is relevant to a certain extent. But this is America's problem. And you can blame George Bush all you want, but he didn't write this bill. You all did. This is your bill, and it needs to be America's bill. Now, you may get three or four Republicans to vote with you, but let me tell you what the country is going to inherit if we pass this bill in terms of substance and process. We are going to lose the ability as Members of Congress to go to the public and ask for more money--let us borrow more of your money to fix housing--because this bill stinks. The process that has led to this bill stinks. The House did not get one Republican vote. Maybe every Republican is just crazy, but I don't think so. I think there are some Republicans in the House who understand we need a stimulus package and believe we have to do more than cut taxes. I believe we have to do more than cut taxes. But the reason you didn't get a Republican vote in the House is because Nancy Pelosi's attitude is: We won, we write the bill. Well, let me tell you, this ain't about one party winning, this is about America. And America needs the Congress and the new President to be smart and work together. We are not being smart. We are spending money on things that have nothing to do with creating a job in the near term, and the spending will go on long after this economic crisis is solved. It is not smart to say no to an amendment that would stop the spending when the economy gets back on its feet. I want the American people to know there was an amendment offered yesterday that said when the economy starts to grow again--2 percent over inflation for two quarters in a row--we are going to stop any spending that is left to be done in this bill and reevaluate where we go. If we don't have a trigger or some brakes, we will keep spending the money no matter what the economy is doing because there are some people in this body who cannot spend enough. Now, if you feel Republicans spent too much of your money, guilty as charged. But this is not the solution. This makes us look like misers. America believes--75 percent of the American people--that we need a stimulus. Almost 60 percent of the people believe this bill needs to be changed. Count me in that group. We need to be smart and we need to work together. We are doing neither. We are not working together. There are 16 of my colleagues in a room somewhere in the Capitol--5 Republicans and the rest Democrats--trying to find a compromise. God bless them, but that is not the way you spend $800 billion. You don't get 16 people in a room trying to find a compromise to get to 60 votes and say that is good government. Ronald Reagan had a saying: If I get 80 percent of what I want, then I should be satisfied. Lindsey Graham is an 80 percent guy. I hope you believe that because I have tried to show you that I am an 80 percent guy, when you negotiate. There is no negotiation going on here. Nobody is negotiating. We are making it up as we go. The polling numbers are scaring the hell out of everybody and they are in a panic. They are running from one corner of the Capitol to the other trying to cobble votes together to lower the cost of the bill in order to say we solved the problem. This is not the way to spend $1 trillion. This will come back to bite everybody in this body because when we go to the public and say: We need money to get rid of toxic assets that are clogging up the banking system, they are going to say: Why should I give you a penny more; look what happened with TARP and look what happened in this monstrosity of a bill. And I think, quite frankly, we are going to need to go back. But this $800 billion, $900 billion process has done little for housing and nothing for banking. So we are destroying the one thing I hoped we could regain: credibility, confidence, and trust. As to President Obama--nice man, great potential--he really has a big plate of problems. And I wanted to help him. I want him to succeed, where we can find common ground to make America succeed. I am begging him to get involved. Doing news shows and coming to lunch is not what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did to solve the Social Security problem. I know we have to act urgently, but I also know the public is not going to let us do this over and over and over. We need a timeout--not months; days, hopefully; not weeks--where we can get in a room, and not with 16 people but with the leadership of the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and the White House, to find a way to spend less and do more because this will not be the end of the spending required to get this economy back on its feet. There is so much in this bill--not 1 percent. There is $75 billion in this bill earmarked to the States that has no strings attached, and what has that to do with stimulating the economy? I know my State has a budget shortfall, but if we are going to take a bankrupt Congress and borrow money to give to States and take care of their economic problems, that is one politician helping another with their political problems, but it is not creating a job for you and your family. We are not being smart, we are not working together, we are making this up as we go, and we are losing the good will and the trust of the American people.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for his comments. If you believe this is a good process, to spend $800 billion, we are on different planets. We are literally making this up as we go. If this is such a good process, why are 16 Senators meeting in a corner trying to figure out how to keep this from stinking up with the public? The idea that the markup lasted 1 hour 40 minutes and one amendment is accepted--is this the way we are going to solve Social Security? Look at this bill. This bill has to be done by tonight, and we are figuring out as we go what is in it. There is a COBRA provision in this bill. What is COBRA? Well, if you lose your job, there is an ability to maintain health care insurance through a program called COBRA. People are losing their jobs, and they may need COBRA benefits. The bill says we will pay 65 percent of the COBRA premium for anybody who loses their job. That makes sense to some extent, but what if you are the CEO who has been fired from one of these banks and you are worth $20 million? Should we pay 65 percent of your premium? That is not smart.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. A long list.

Mr. GRAHAM. I could not agree with the Senator from Arizona more.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General. I am convinced that he understands the threat to our Nation posed by terrorism. In the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the nomination, Mr. Holder agreed with me that the United States is undoubtedly at war with a vicious and shadowy enemy, and that the war began before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Further, Mr. Holder and I agreed that the battlefield in the war on terror is the entire globe--not only the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq but also the financial system through which terrorist networks are funded and the Internet through which terrorists communicate and spread their message of violence and hatred. Indeed, the tragic events of 9/11 proved that the battlefield even extends within our Nation's own borders. The question of how best to win the war on terror is the most profound issue facing the next Attorney General. Mr. Holder understands the nature of this enemy and this conflict. There are some in this body who will argue that Mr. Holder's previous mistakes should bar him from serving as Attorney General. In expressing my support for Mr. Holder, I do not mean to minimize those misjudgments. Indeed, Mr. Holder faces his past mistakes fully-- admitting them, learning from them, and promising to exercise better judgment in the future. While I understand concern with Mr. Holder's past errors, it would be a mistake in its own right to reject on that basis this qualified nominee who so comprehends the challenge our Nation faces in defeating terrorism. I look forward to working with President Obama and Mr. Holder to fashion a system of detention for the war on terror involving all three branches of government and of which all Americans can be proud. Mr. Holder and I agree that in order to maintain the moral high ground in this war, which is critical, we must treat detainees fairly, with more process than they would necessarily provide us. We also agree that we must not release dangerous warriors back to the fight against our Nation. Criminalizing this war would be a terrible mistake, and Mr. Holder understands that. Four years ago, President Obama, then Senator Obama, stated on the floor of this chamber that the test of a nominee for Attorney General is, ``whether that person is ready to put the Constitution of the people before the political agenda of the President.'' I am confident that Eric Holder meets that test, and I ask my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Orangeburg, SC, has lost one of its finest citizens with the passing of 94-year-old Austin Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham led a most distinguished life and his contributions to the people and community will be greatly missed. During his life, Mr. Cunningham was a soldier, businessman, community leader, writer, lawyer and citizen of the year. His hometown newspaper, the Orangeburg Times and Democrat, summed up his life--Mr. Cunningham was, ``the definition of a Renaissance man.'' If there was a business or civic endeavor that would improve the life of his town and community, Mr. Cunningham was involved. From putting in new street lights to tackling the war on drugs on the streets of Orangeburg, Mr. Cunningham was proof that one person could make a difference. Mr. Cunningham played an instrumental role in helping young, underprivileged, at-risk teenagers find employment and learn the value of hard work. In 1984, he was invited to the White House to meet with President Reagan who thanked him for participating in this program. He was also a patron of the arts who supported and encouraged the choir at South Carolina State University, one of our Nation's foremost historically Black universities. The university awarded him its Distinguished Service Award in 1995. Orangeburg, SC, has lost a fine citizen, friend, and community leader with the passing of Austin Cunningham. His life work deserves recognition on the contributions he made to his fellow citizens. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and citizens of Orangeburg, SC, on the passing of Austin Cunningham.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if you would let me know when 4 minutes has expired. I thank the chairwoman for allowing me to speak. I wanted to make the Record clear. I am not in a fog about the Hutchison amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense. The reason I am on the floor is I have a pretty good reputation of making sure that people have a fair day in court. There is nothing more important in a free democratic society than to be able to take your cause to court and have your day in court. But what we are doing here, in my opinion, is creating a statutory statute of limitations that we have not seen before, that, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense to me, if we pass the bill that came out of committee. Let me tell you why. The ability to create a job in America and keep a job here is very much at risk. The way we regulate, the way we litigate, and the way we tax will determine if the business will create a job in America or go somewhere else. We are on the verge, in my opinion, of having a taxation system, a regulatory system, and a litigation system that is going to drive people out of business and leave this country. Quite frankly, if we go down the road this bill is charting, we are going to make it harder to do business in this country and we will not enhance fairness. The whole concept of the Hutchison amendment is that you have 180 days from the time you knew or should have known you are being discriminated against. The Supreme Court case has a ruling that says you had 180 days from the event. That does not seem quite fair to me. But this idea that you could realize discrimination or know of it for 20 years and file a lawsuit 20 years later, based on the last paycheck, is not fair to the legal system, and not fair to business, because a lot of the people have left. So this is not foggy at all to me. I think a fair process would be that within 180 days of the time you knew or should have known you are being discriminated against in the workplace, you should file a lawsuit to preserve the evidence, to allow people to come in and testify with a fresh memory of what is going on. That is not what we are doing here. We are allowing people to file lawsuits decades, potentially, after they knew or should have known they were being discriminated against, and that would create legal chaos. So we are not advancing fairness, we are creating a system that is going to make it harder to do business. And for those employees in the workplace who count on their employer opening the door, they are going to lose, and the people who have been discriminated against in a legitimate way are not going to be enhanced. So to the Senator from Texas, I am not in a fog at all about what you are trying to do. I think you are trying to do a reasonable thing; that is, to protect the rights of people who have been discriminated against in a fair way, or have a claim that they think they may have been discriminated against in a fair way: 180 days from the time you knew or should have known of the act of discrimination, not decades after you knew or should have known. I think this is the right balance. And if we do not watch it as a Nation--we live in a global economy. I want regulations that protect the air and the water and the worker. I want a taxation system that collects a fair amount from the American people to run this Government on which we all depend. I want a legal system that gives everybody their day in court with no bias, a fairminded jury or judge deciding the claim. If we don't watch it and we go down the road of this bill, we are going to make it hard to do business in America, harder than it ought to be, harder than fairness requires, and we are going to shut out some businesses because the ability to do business in this country is at risk in a global economy if we overtax and overregulate and we have unfair litigation rules. The idea is to be fair and balanced. The Hutchison amendment achieves that, and the base bill does not. I will be supporting the Senator from Texas, opposing the bill coming out of committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to speak on her time.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the men and women of the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. On January 25, 1949, under the authority of the Air Force Military Justice Act, the Air Force issued General Order 7 creating the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department, later changed to Judge Advocate General's Corps. Since that time, the men and women of the Judge Advocate General's Corps have become the living embodiment of their guiding principles of wisdom, valor, and justice. They have provided countless commanders, policymakers, and clients with the benefit of invaluable professional, candid, and independent counsel. Further, they have done so while living the core values of the Air Force: integrity, service before self and excellence in all they do. The hallmark of their service to this great country is a profound respect for, and adherence to, the rule of law. Their steadfast dedication to the rule of law allows the U.S. Air Force to conduct itself in the best traditions of America and retain the highest moral ground. The men and women who currently serve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and those that came before them, can be exceptionally proud of their service and the contributions they have made to our national security. As a former active duty Judge Advocate and current reserve Judge Advocate, I am intensely proud of my association with the Judge Advocate General's Corps. I am pleased to acknowledge this great achievement and congratulate the Corps for their service to this Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the committee chairman. I want to recognize the work the committee did. I thought the hearings were very important for the country. They were well done. They were timely held. Any concerns about conflicts of interest, there will be a process in the future, if that happens to be a concern, to go through the committee. I have a lot of confidence in the committee to provide oversight. But having said that, I have a lot of confidence in Senator Clinton to be a good Secretary of State. We have a new President. We had a tough campaign. The campaign is over, but the wars are not. The challenges facing the country are enormous, domestically and internationally. I think this new President deserves to have his team in place. I could not think of a better choice for Secretary of State, and he has many to choose from. So he has made his choice; the committee has acted. I do hope the Senate can act expeditiously after lunch. Everyone deserves to have their say. I respect the chairman preserving the ability of Senators to have their say. I intend to vote for Senator Clinton. I have had the pleasure of serving with her, traveling throughout the world. I know she understands the world; people understand her. There is no place in the world that she cannot go that people do not have, I think, a very favorable impression of her. She will help execute a foreign policy that is going to be difficult. I want it to be bipartisan where it can. If we can get this done today, it will be good for the country. She will do an outstanding job. I have a lot of confidence in the committee to make sure that any potential conflict of interests are fairly dealt with. With that, I hope this afternoon we can do it by voice vote. But let's get it done. This country needs a Secretary of State right now, this minute, engaging the world because we have young men and women throughout the world in harm's way, and they need an advocate on the world stage. There is no better advocate I can think of than Senator Hillary Clinton. She can do an outstanding job. I appreciate the chairman allowing me to speak on her behalf, and I enthusiastically will support her.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated educator and innovator, Clemson University president emeritus Robert Cook Edwards. After a lifetime of unprecedented service to his students as Clemson's longest serving chief executive, Dr. Edwards passed away in Seneca, SC, on December 4, 2008, at the age of 94. Dr. Edwards will be remembered for his legendary leadership, strength in business negotiation, and passion for Clemson football. Known as a giant in the history of Clemson University and affectionately referred to as ``R.C.'' by his students, he led the institution through a period of peaceful integration and phenomenal growth to become a thriving, coeducational, and diversified university. Born and raised in Fountain Inn, SC, Dr. Edwards attended Clemson College at the young age of 15. He went on to graduate with a bachelor of science degree in textile engineering in 1933, and after a successful career in the textile industry, he returned to Clemson as the university's first vice president for development in 1956. Dr. Edwards became acting president in 1958, after the death of President Robert F. Poole, and was eventually elected president on April 9, 1959, by the board of trustees. He became the eighth chief executive of Clemson and the second alumnus to hold the position. Dr. Edwards peacefully led the university through racial integration when its first African-American student was enrolled in 1962. Despite the recurring turmoil of racial tensions during the 1960s, President Edwards handled those challenging times without incident. His brave actions resulted in progress and advancement of equal civil rights throughout the State of South Carolina. By the time of his retirement in 1979, Dr. Edwards had awarded over 28,000 diplomas, which represented more than 70 percent of all the undergraduate degrees and doctorates awarded in Clemson's history to date, the student body had grown to 11,000 students, 4 schools had become 9 colleges, and the students could choose from over 60 majors. Because of Dr. Edwards's oversight, leadership, and enthusiasm for growth, his influence has stretched beyond the gates of the university to impact the lives of men and women all over the country. Dr. Edwards was predeceased by his wife Louise Odom Edwards, who died on July 29, 2008. She was affectionately referred to as ``Moon Pie'' by Clemson students and alumni and was said to be a perfect compliment to her husband, ``R.C.'' Robert Cook Edwards's legacy will live on not only in the hearts of his students and fellow educators, but through the developments and achievements he has accomplished at one of our Nation's finest institutions. I ask that the Senate join me in commemorating Dr. Edwards's lifelong dedication to higher learning and to the State of South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I end with this thought: I know this is not a perfect bill, and I know this is a bad choice. But I also know from my common sense and my life experiences that I need to act and I need to act now, and I will.