Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, before we get too far into explaining the problems we face with this bill, I think we need to acknowledge the hard work on behalf of those who have brought us to this point. We know it is not perfect. The chairman knows it is not perfect, but I think he has done the country a great service. To the Senators who have negotiated this with their House colleagues, to the staff who has been working night and day, from my point of view, you have stepped to the plate and you have done the country a great service. Do more, we will. Make no mistake about it. To those who wonder: Will more follow? Yes. There will be more corrective action following in the Congress. Please understand, after we take this decisive action, there will be more troubles lying ahead for America. But we have two choices as far as I am concerned: A bad choice we all recognize, and a catastrophic choice if we do nothing. Now, there are a lot of people getting phone calls. I am a king of the phone calls. I have been involved in immigration, Gang of 14, you name it. People have called my office, and you are always welcome to call and I will listen to what you have to say. But the people are against this proposal. Who are the people? That is the first thing you have to decide as a Member of the Senate. Whom do you represent? Do you represent every corner of society: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, libertarians, and vegetarians? One thing I have found is that a phone call from mad people helps you only so much. There will always be people calling my office telling me what I can't do. I think it is up to me to have a little broader view of what to do. I challenge you to come to South Carolina and walk up and down Main Street and not find concern on the faces of people in business. I challenge you to go to retirement communities in South Carolina and not see fear in the faces of people who depend on their 401(k) plans for their retirement. I have never seen anything like it. This is not about investment banks; this is about the ability of Sonic Drive-in to expand their franchise--a very big business--but, more importantly, it is about the plumber who can't make payroll because he can't get credit. It is about the lady who owns the diner, second-generation owner in Greenville who wants to expand and can't get money. It is about people trying to buy a car and they can't buy the car, and the dealerships in South Carolina are about to fold. It is about you--the average American--soon, if we don't act, being unable to exercise your hopes and dreams because you will not be able to borrow money. Borrowing money responsibly is the heart and soul of a free market economy. The reason we are here today is people have borrowed money irresponsibly, and all of us are to blame. But if this was about an investment bank and a few CEOs, I don't think 70 Senators would vote for this legislation. This is about something more fundamental. This is about a problem that started and has infiltrated our economy to the point that if we can't muster the political courage to listen to the phone calls and act decisively and tell people who are mad: I am sorry, there has to be a solution even if you don't agree, then average, everyday people are going to lose everything they have worked for throughout their life. People are not going to be able to send their kids to school and small businesses and big businesses in this country are going to fold next week. I said next week. If you told me that Wachovia Bank, one of the largest banks in America, would be sold at 10 cents on the dollar, I would have said I don't think that can happen. But I would have been wrong. It is happening, and it will continue to happen until we find a solution. This proposal, to those who crafted it, you have done a very good job after having been dealt a very difficult hand. It allows intervention in a way that will protect the taxpayer. To those who say that $700 billion of taxpayer money will be spent and it is gone, you don't know what you are talking about. You are scaring people. That is absolutely not true. I am convinced we are going to get most of the money back, if not all of it back, by the way we have crafted this proposal. But I am equally convinced if we do nothing, we are headed to recession, maybe a depression. And you think it costs a lot now. Just do nothing and see what it costs. Nobody wants to be in this spot, but if you don't want to be in these spots, don't run for office. So to the people of South Carolina, on Main Street, to the car dealerships, to the small business enterprises, to the manufacturers, to the retired communities, to those with whom I have met over the last day or so, I have your message too. I have gotten the phone call, but I have also gotten your message. At the end of the day, I have to rely upon what good sense God may have given me, and sometimes I doubt how much sense I have. A lot of people obviously doubt it because they call me a lot. But I am convinced a lot of smart people are telling me things that I can visualize and see with my own eyes; that it is no longer about academia. I have been home. I have seen people not be able to get loans to make payroll. I know what is going to happen if I don't act, if I don't take a risk. If I am not willing to take a political risk, I know what happens to people I represent in large numbers. They are going to lose a lot more than I will lose. We can stand replacing a few Senators. We cannot stand being unable to borrow money at the most basic level. This is not about an investment bank. This is about banks, small and large banks, and lending institutions that are locked down and cannot loan money. This is about the availability of credit that is going to be so high that no average working person is going to be able to borrow a dime. This is about Main Street. This is about the people I grew up with, and I didn't grow up on Wall Street. I am the first person to go to college in my family. My dad owned a liquor store. Everything I know about politics I learned in the liquor store, a pretty good place to learn from. We borrowed money to make inventory. We owned a restaurant right next door. My mom worked 18 hours a day. I know what it is like to see my parents work hard and cannot afford to get sick because there is no money coming in.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I just want to let my colleagues know where I am coming from, along with Senator Lieberman, that amendment No. 5368, I believe it is, is an amendment offered by Senator Lieberman and myself that speaks of the surge, the success of the surge, how vital it was that we turn Iraq around, and the fact that the surge has worked. General Petraeus said today in the Washington Post, I believe, that Iraq is still the central battlefront in the war on terror. Senator Obama has disagreed with that on numerous occasions, saying it is Afghanistan and Pakistan. The truth is, the battle regarding the war on terror is an idea, not a place, and the fight now is in Iraq. Bin Laden said: Go to the land of the two rivers. Make sure we win that battle. Bin Laden has always seen Iraq as an outcome-determinative event. So does General Petraeus. So does Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman. So the good news is that battle has taken place in Iraq between al- Qaida, the Iraqi people, and the coalition forces, and we have greatly diminished al-Qaida. They suffered a mighty blow at the hands of fellow Muslims who turned on al-Qaida after tasting their agenda. I cannot think of a more appropriate topic for the Senate to take up than to comment on what I think is the most historic, successful counterinsurgency operation in military history, to memorialize that it has worked, to acknowledge those who sacrificed to make it work, those who led our men and women in battle. This, to me, is very appropriate and important. It was a year ago today that General Petraeus testified about his plan in Iraq, and a year later we see stunning success militarily, economically, and politically. So I believe with all the passion I can muster about this topic that the Senate needs to take this up, discuss it, debate it, and vote on it. I thank Senator Lieberman for his steadfast leadership over the last year. I say to the Senator, you, my friend, will go down in history as being one of the Senators who stood up at a time when the country needed people to speak out. We turned this war around because of people like yourself and Senator McCain but mainly because of the leadership of General Petraeus and the men and women in uniform, Ambassador Crocker and his team, and the Iraqi people themselves. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Three minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 15 minutes, if I could.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 636 that Senator Lieberman will be trying to introduce tomorrow. It is a resolution of the Senate, and he will be trying to introduce it tomorrow. I am going to speak on it tonight. I am a coauthor of it. It speaks about the phenomenal success of the surge, of troops into Iraq. But it is more than just a surge of 30,000 troops. It has been a surge on many fronts: political, economic, and militarily. The resolution would be a statement by the Senate recognizing that the surge has worked, that those who executed the strategy are recognized for being the great leaders they are, it is a compliment to our troops, and it is also a recognition that the Iraqi people have stepped to the plate and changed the tides that existed in their country of extremism and Iraq now is becoming a stable government, a country where people are working out their differences through the rule of law and representative democracy, and al-Qaida has been delivered a dramatic blow. To put this in perspective, at the end of 2006, it was clear the old strategy was not working, that the troops we had in Iraq were not being used in a way to counter the insurgency and were not enough in number. All this came to a head in late 2006 when Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman, among others, were arguing for a change in strategy. We had, I think, seven visits to Iraq; at the time about four. During our visits--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman--every time we went, it was worse than the time before, up until the surge became the new strategy. The sergeants, the colonels, and captains were very blunt with us, saying this was not working. It was clear to us we did not have the right number of troops or the right strategy. In January of 2007, President Bush, much to his credit, announced a new strategy, an infusion of, I think, 30,000 new combat brigades into Iraq to bring about security. It has always been our belief--Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Lieberman--that without security, it is hard to have a representative democracy. It is one thing to talk about political compromise and the difficulty of talk radio and MoveOn.Org. But it is another thing to talk about political compromise when your family is being murdered. It is very hard to administer the rule of law when the judges and the prospective participants in the trial are under siege and under attack. So without better security, there was no hope. I have always believed that a security environment is required before you can have political compromise, economic progress, or any forgiveness. The economic progress in Iraq is pretty stunning: 5 percent growth. The oil revenues have almost doubled. Oil production has almost doubled. The economy is doing very well in Iraq compared to a year ago. The availability of energy and power is dramatically up. So the everyday life of the Iraqi people is still a struggle and difficult but far better than it was a year ago. There are a lot of people purchasing refrigerators and televisions and other electronic devices. The availability of power is at an all-time high. But demand is also at an all-time high. Economically, inflation is down and the Iraqis have a surplus. People say: Well, should they pay us back? I would like to get some of our money back. They are certainly paying more. They are paying for all major reconstruction projects now, and they are paying for the operation of their army, for the most part. But the best way to pay us back as a nation is for Iraq to be a place that embraces democracy, rejects al-Qaida, would be a buffer to Iranian ambitions, would be a place where a woman would have a say about her child. All that, to me, is priceless. For Iraq to go from a Saddam Hussein dictatorship to a representative government where Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds live in peace with each other, at peace with their neighbors is a major sea change in the overall war on terror and is a priceless event as far as I am concerned. To have an Arab nation in the heart of the Mideast, a Muslim nation that rejected al-Qaida, is exactly what we need more of. The Iraqi people need to be acknowledged as to their sacrifice. What they have done has been tough. Their casualty rate has been about three times ours. The political reconciliation progress is moving forward now in Iraq. Fifteen of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi Government. The debaathification law was passed. That allows members of the Baath Party under Saddam to come back into the Government and get some of their old jobs back. The amnesty law was passed. That means Sunni insurgents who were captured a year or 2 years ago as part of the insurgency to topple the Government in Baghdad will be let go and go back home and become part of the new Iraq. Forgiveness is required before you have reconciliation. You see throughout Iraq a level of forgiveness that I think is encouraging. For the Shias and the Kurds to pass the amnesty law, telling their Sunni brothers and sisters: Let's start over, is a major step forward. For the Sunnis to embrace new elections after they boycotted them in 2005 is a recognition by the Sunni factions in Iraq that democracy is the way to go: Go to Baghdad through representation, not through violence. The Kurds have created stability in the north, and they are working with their partners in the south and in the west with the Sunnis and the Shias. Maliki has stepped to the plate. I was not so excited about his leadership a year ago, but he has turned things around. The Shia- dominated Government in Iraq is taking on Shia militias in the southern part of Iraq, in the Basra area, that have been supported by Iranian special groups. The knock on Maliki was: Well, he is a sectarian leader. The fact that he would take on al-Sadr and Shia-backed militias from Iran--Iranian-backed militias in his own country--is a sign that he does not want to be dominated by Iranian theology. So I am hopeful more so now than ever that Iraq has turned a corner economically, politically, and militarily. Their army is 100,000 stronger than it was before the surge, and they performed well after a slow start in the southern part of Iraq against the Shia militias, and they are fighting very well in Mosul. One of the most stunning events and turnarounds, I believe, has been the recent handing over of Anbar Province back to the Iraqis. About 2 years ago, Anbar was declared lost. It was an al-Qaida stronghold--the Sunni part of Iraq--where al-Qaida was going up and down the streets of Ramadi holding a parade. And it was a very tough situation in Fallujah. What happened was a combination of events. The Sunni Iraqis in that part of Iraq, in Anbar, tasted al-Qaida life and did not like it. They joined with the coalition forces and, with the addition of more troops, made a strong stand against al-Qaida. About a week ago, Anbar was turned back over to the Iraqis, and al-Qaida has been delivered a very punishing blow. They are not yet completely defeated, but structurally they are in disarray, and you see the message traffic among al-Qaida operatives that Iraq has been a nightmare for them, and it has turned out to be their Vietnam. At the end of the day, anything that will diminish al-Qaida is good for us. There is no more diminishing event when it comes to al-Qaida than to have fellow Sunni Muslims turn on them. I am proud of the Iraqi people. They need to do more. I think they will. The surge has worked beyond my expectation--not just militarily. Politically and economically the surge has worked, and we are on the road now to what I would say is victory in Iraq. People ask me: What is winning? Winning is being able to leave Iraq and have behind an ally in the overall war on terror. Winning would be having a partner in the heart of the Arab world, the Iraqi Government, that will reject al-Qaida and deny al-Qaida a safe haven or a foothold. Winning would be having a Shia-led government that will stand up to Iran, be a good neighbor but not allow Iran to become stronger. Winning would be a place in the heart of the Middle East where a woman would have a say about her children through democracy. Winning would be the rule of law replacing the rule of gun. All of that makes us safer. The consequences of losing in Iraq would be enormous and would have been enormous to our national security interests. Al-Qaida would have claimed victory over the United States. Iran would be dominating the southern part of Iraq. The sectarian violence that was widespread, in my view, would have spread throughout the region. There would have been Sunni-Shia battles throughout the Middle East and Turkey, and the Kurds would have had a real problem among themselves. So a failed state in Iraq would have been a nightmare for our security interests. Winning in Iraq means a stable government aligned with us that rejects al-Qaida, and means a buffer to Iranian ambitions; a nation that accepts democracy and would be a peaceful partner to its neighbors. That is a major victory in the war on terror because it was a place where al- Qaida was defeated by Muslims. This resolution in great detail lays out what happened over the last year and a half regarding the surge. It is a statement by the Congress acknowledging success on the battlefield and in other areas. I hope this is one area where Republicans and Democrats can come together and recognize the great success of our troops and acknowledge the Iraqi people themselves looked chaos in the eye and turned it away. I know it has been difficult for this country; we spent a lot of money and lost a lot of lives. But this war we are involved in is not a place, it is not about taking your eye off the ball; it is about fighting the enemy wherever the enemy goes. I would argue that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein being in power. The big mistake we made after the fall of Baghdad is not having enough troops and letting the situation get out of hand. I don't believe it was a mistake at all to go after Saddam's regime after 17 U.N. resolutions were ignored. So I think the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein being in power. I would argue we are now on the road to victory in Iraq where we are going to have a stable, functioning, representative government to replace a dictatorship--that will be our ally. This has come about with a lot of sacrifice on behalf of the men and women in uniform, their civilian counterparts, and Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have been great teammates over in Iraq. Here we are--a year ago tomorrow General Petraeus testified before the Congress. I wish to let him and all of those under his command, as well as Ambassador Crocker and all of those civilians who have been helping him, know that they have done an enormous good for the world, that they have protected our country from what I thought would have been a humiliating defeat. They have prevented that defeat. They have turned things around so that if we have the right exit strategy now, we are going to secure a major victory on the war on terror. Senator McCain: Hats off to him. He has always been about winning. We are coming home, but we are going to come home winners, with honor, and a more secure America because of what has happened in Iraq in the last year and a half due to the surge. I hope and pray we can have a vote on this resolution. It would be a good thing for the Senate to do. Whether you agree with us going into Iraq, that is an honest, genuine debate. Once there, we couldn't lose. We were about to lose. Thank God the surge was implemented, and more than anything else, thank God for good leadership, brave young men and women representing our Nation who took the fight to the enemy, and God bless the Iraqi people. I wish them nothing but the best in the future. I do believe the best days lie ahead for the Iraqi people, and that 20 years from now, long after many of us are gone, here in the Senate we will look back on this period and understand what was at stake better than we do today. We will be looking at an Iraq that is part of the solution, not the problem, in the Mideast. History will say that the surge was a monumental event in the course of the war on terror, that the change in strategy was necessary work. I think militarily they will be studying this Petraeus plan for decades to come, and economically and politically, the courage that has been shown by the Iraqi people to step to the plate should be acknowledged by all of us. At the end of the day, if we had continued with the old strategy, I think we would have lost. Iraq would have been a failed state and it would have been a mighty blow to this country and the overall war on terror. Now I think we can say with confidence we have turned a corner. Nothing is irreversible. However, I think the gains made on the political, economic, and military front are going to be hard to roll back if we will stay the course and end this fight. We are very close now to having our troops come home in a way that will make us all safer. I have always believed this one thing about Iraq: Our national security interests in history will judge us not by the date we left Iraq but by what we left behind. I think we are very close to being able to say in the coming months that we are going to leave behind a new nation that is part of the solution, not the problem; a place where Muslims said no to al-Qaida; a place where different groups chose the rule of law over the rule of gun; a place where the woman can finally have a say about her child and her children's future in the heart of the Mideast; and that truly makes us all safer. I do hope Senator Lieberman will be allowed to introduce his resolution and we will have a vote on that. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about the contributions and service of one of the true giants of the U.S. Senate. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina was one of the longest serving and most distinguished Senators in the history of our Nation. During his time in the Senate, he was known as a strong advocate for his causes and was one of the most tenacious fighters this body has ever seen. Senator Helms knew what he believed, why he believed it, and he was always prepared to fight strenuously for his cause. On those occasions when the Senate was prepared to promote ideas with which he disagreed, Senator Helms proved to be one of the most adept at slowing the body to a crawl. It was a trait that endeared him to many of his supporters and was a source of much consternation for his detractors. However, if there is one accomplishment for which Senator Helms will be long remembered and greatly admired, it is his steadfast warnings and commitment to fighting the scourge of communism. Not a day went by that Senator Helms was not concerned about the spread of communism around the globe. Like President Reagan and South Carolina's own longstanding Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Helms understood that communism was an evil ideology and, at its most basic form, a means of enslaving millions of people. As a nation of freedom-loving people, we had a responsibility to stop its spread. The struggle against communism continued for decades with Senator Helms playing a leading role in encouraging our Nation to confront this evil. Eventually, the hard line he took against communism, along with Reagan, Thurmond, and others, was vindicated. The Berlin Wall tumbled and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today, communism has been discredited and millions of people have been freed from its bonds. Senator Helms, and the other strong anti- Communists, deserve our thanks for their steadfast fight and eventual victory over communism. It would not have been possible without their hard work. In closing, I was saddened to hear of the passing of Senator Helms and I want to take this opportunity to send my condolences to his family and friends. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for his long service in the U.S. Senate and to the Nation he loved.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I would like to refine my remarks. But I would like to add, if I may, the French, with all joking aside, the French have figured out how to use nuclear power in a safe manner. And we can learn from everyone, including the French. I say to my good friend from Connecticut, he has the right attitude about his job. I wish we all would adopt it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Americans are probably wondering what the Congress is doing to solve the Nation's energy problems? Apparently, just asking each other questions. What I would like to do is do something. I would like to have a comprehensive plan that would address the fact that most of you out there who are listening to me are hurting. You are having to fill up your car's gas tank with $4-plus gas. Food prices are going up, and we are fiddling while your budget is burning. I cannot explain this; I do not know. But you are figuring this out. The Congress is at an all-time low in terms of approval rating. It seems to me this is something we could all agree on: how to address our energy needs. Seventy percent of our oil comes from overseas, most of it from the Mideast. If you feel good about that, great. I do not. I think most Americans would like to get away from that. There is oil off the eastern coast. I do not know why you would not want to add more supply. If there are leases that the oil companies have now they are not using, they expire in 6, 8, or 10 years, and they have to pay to renew them. I would imagine if there is oil out there, they would go get it. But there is a lot of oil and gas, they tell me, off the east coast. But there is a moratorium on us being able to explore for it. Lift the moratorium, add it to our supply. Every barrel of oil America can extract from American-owned resources is one less barrel we need from the Mideast, and it makes us more independent. And, yes, get away from using oil. I am all for that. But that is not going to happen anytime soon. Just by lifting the moratorium at the executive level, oil prices have come down about $20. Nuclear power--everybody talks about it. The French, 80 percent of the French power comes from the nuclear industry. They recycle the waste too. They do not put it in the ground. They know what to do with the waste. Surely we can be as bold as the French. Anyway, there is a lot we could do, but we are choosing to do nothing. We are choosing to blame each other. There is a bill on the Senate floor that addresses one part of the problem, speculation. We should be dealing with speculators, we should be adding domestic inventory, we should be doing something about nuclear power to make sure we can expand our nuclear footprint. It would be good for the environment. It would make us less dependent on fossil fuels, and, yes, we should come up with new cars that run on batteries. We should be doing it all. We should do it together. All boats rise if we could work together. This is one time when Democrats and Republicans, if we would lay down the partisanship and focus on America's interests, would look better. But we have a bill that allows us to do one thing, and that is ridiculous. We should be doing a bunch of things together. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, America is watching and they are not pleased. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Levin and the committee for moving these names forward so we can get these two fine men into new jobs. The committee worked very decisively and quickly, and we are going to have a vote here soon. I hope we can get as close to 100 as possible. My observation about these two officers is very similar to what Senator Sessions said. But having met them and spent some time with them in theater, and I got to know them pretty well, I need to say something on their behalf, that they could have not done this without the people under their command. I have spent a lot of time in Iraq, like many Members here. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the Coast Guard, every civilian force, have performed magnificently. General Petraeus came up with a new strategy. Quite frankly, before he came along we were losing. You can talk about Iraq in any terms you want to, political or otherwise. But it was my view that the situation on the ground in Iraq, before this new strategy, was going to result in losing, that we were losing ground against the insurgency and that General Petraeus and General Odierno came up with a new way of doing business, getting the troops out into the field, the joint security stations, where our soldiers would live with the Iraqi police and the army. This has transformed the Iraqi Army, and the police are getting better. You see this in Basra, you see this in Mosul where the capacity of the Iraqi Army is a lot better than it was the last year in terms of the capability and numbers. It was a direct result of changing strategy, getting out from behind the walls, taking the fight to the enemy. The Anbar Province strategy, with the Sunnis, the Shiaas turning on al- Qaida, was the defining moment in this war. When General Petraeus came up with a strategy to try to get the Sunni population to break away from al-Qaida by providing better security, that turned the tide in Anbar. The political progress we have seen with 15 of the 18 benchmarks being met by the Maliki government is a direct result of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus sitting down with the Iraqi leadership and doing a lot of hand holding. The military side of this is important, but I hope the members of the body will appreciate how sophisticated General Petraeus, General Odierno, and Ambassador Crocker have been when it comes to the economic and political aspects of this. They have put money into projects that changed the quality of life in Iraq, that got people more emboldened to join with the Government. They pushed the Sunnis, the Shiaas, and the Kurds to reach political compromise. These are two of the most talented politicians I have ever met, even though they are in uniform. They are American commanders who were dealt a tough hand. And the politics of Iraq they understood as well, I believe, as the counterinsurgency problems the military faced. What they have brought to the table will go down in history as the most successful counterinsurgency operation in the history of warfare. I have worked on judicial issues. They provided security to the judges, additional capacity in the rule of law area. General Petraeus told me early on: The population has to believe in the law, because if they do not believe in the Government and the law, they will go to militias. So we celebrate the success of these two men. But on their behalf, I wish to thank all of those who served under them, because they are the ones who made it happen, along with great leadership. We are winning now. We have not won yet, but the difference in Iraq before and after is stunning. It is for all of us to see--progress politically, economically and militarily. I look forward to promoting these two fine officers. Hats off to them and all those who serve in Iraq.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate is taking up a matter that I think is very important to the American people and our national security, and that is to pass the compromise reached by the House and the administration regarding the FISA program. I want to briefly lay out my view of how the law works in this area. The initial approach by the Bush administration that there was no requirement to comply with the FISA statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, because of inherent authority of the Executive in a time of war I didn't agree with, quite frankly. The idea that an American would be travailed by an agency of our Government if that American citizen was suspected of being involved with the enemy--a fifth column movement, for lack of a better term--and there would be no court review was unacceptable to me. If an American citizen is suspected of collaborating with the enemy, I think there is a requirement for the Government to have its homework checked, have a judge authorize further surveillance in a kind of balanced approach. Once there is a reasonable belief that an American citizen may be involved with enemy forces, that becomes a crime of treason, potentially. I do think it is appropriate for Congress to pass a statute that would say when an American citizen is suspected of being involved with an enemy force, taking up arms against the United States--uniformed or not--the FISA statute applies. The inherent authority of the Executive to conduct surveillance in a time of war is limited, or can be limited by the other branches of Government. Having said that, this idea that at a time of war you need a warrant to surveil the enemy, when no American citizen is involved, is crazy. We have never in any other war gone to a judge and said: We are listening to enemy forces--for instance, two suspected members of al-Qaida, non- American citizens--and we need a warrant. You don't need that. That is inherent in the ability to conduct military operations, to monitor the enemy. Those who want to basically criminalize the war, I disagree in equal measure. We are at war, and there is an effort by our intelligence agencies out there to monitor phone calls and other electronic communications of a very vicious enemy that is intent on attacking us again. That program has been shut down because of this dispute. We have finally found a compromise which would allow the program to move forward, protecting American citizens who may be suspected of being involved with enemy forces, and also allowing the Commander in Chief and our military intelligence community to aggressively monitor networks out there that wish us harm. In this global world in which we live, the technology that is available to the enemy is different than it was in 1978. So we have modernized FISA and made it possible for our intelligence community to be able to keep up with the different technologies that enemy forces may be using to communicate. I can assure the American people that this program has been of enormous benefit, the terrorist surveillance program. It has allowed us to stay ahead of enemy activity, and with terrorism you do not deter them by threatening them with death. That is something they welcome. Other enemies in the past have been deterred from attacking America because they know an overwhelming response will come their way. In the Cold War, it was called mutually assured destruction. With terrorist organizations that would gladly forfeit the lives of mentally handicapped young people, and others, you have no idea what they are up to, and you just try to isolate them the best you can. Finding out what they are up to and following their movements is essential because you have to preempt them before they are able to attack. We have a compromise that has come from the House to the Senate that I can live with. The sticking point was the role our telecommunications companies played in the terrorist surveillance program. It is my understanding that the Attorney General--the chief law enforcement officer of the land--and the Department of Justice gave a letter to the telecom companies involved, saying: Your cooperation with our intelligence communities and military surveillance program is legal and appropriate, and we need your help because a phone call made in Afghanistan, because of the global economy in which we live, may be routed through an American system here, and the two people talking are not citizens, but there may be a telecommunications involvement in terms of routing of the phone call, and we need assistance from the telecom companies to be able to track the technology that exists today that is being used by the enemies of the country. The idea that somebody would want to sue them because they broke the law, after they have been told by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General their help was needed and it was lawful for them to help, misses the point. What are we trying to do as a country? Are we trying to avoid the fact that we are at war by talking about lawsuits that undermine the ability of our country to protect itself? I am very much for civil liberties. I don't want any American, as I said before, to be followed by an agency of our Government, suspecting they are cooperating with al-Qaida or another terrorist group, and not have the Government's work looked at by a judge. I would not want that to happen to anybody. If you think anybody who is an American citizen is helping the enemy, you ought to be able to go to a judge and get a warrant. But this idea of having the American telecommunications companies, which were cooperating with the Government in a fashion to help our forces and our intelligence community stay ahead of an enemy, be subject to a civil lawsuit is riduculous. That is not the appropriate remedy. If we allow these companies who have been asked by their Government, through the chief law enforcement officer of the land, to participate in the program--if we ask them to participate and then sue them, who is going to help us in the future? This is pretty basic stuff for me. If we do not protect these companies from lawsuits that are existing out there, when they were willing to help the Government--if we don't give them protection, nobody in the future is going to come and help us. We need all the help we can get. We need help from banks, telecommunications companies, and we need help from all kinds of different corners of the private sector to beat this enemy. We are all in it together. The terrorists use banks to funnel money. Well, the banks can help us if we suspect that an account exists that is being used by a terrorist organization. We should be able to track that down. We are all in this together. The private sector plays a role in the war on terrorism. Every citizen can play a role in the war on terrorism by being vigilant. We finally reached a deal that would allow the program to be reauthorized, protecting civil liberty and telling the telecommunications companies that helped us: You are not going to get sued. To my dear friend, Senator Specter--his solution is to let the lawsuits come forward but shield the companies by having the Government take legal responsibility and be subject to being sued. That is not the right answer either. Our Government wasn't doing a bad thing. Our Government was doing a good thing. Our Government was trying to find out what enemies of this Nation were up to before it was too late. We have had a lot of warnings in the past that were ignored. How many times do we have to deal with this terrorist problem through the law enforcement model to only wake up and find out that we were wrong? The law enforcement model will not work. The law enforcement model punishes people after they commit the crime. We are at war. Our goal is to keep them from attacking us. The military model is the one we should pursue. In every other war, the private sector itself has helped the Government defeat the enemies of this country. When Senator Obama says he would like this provision taken out of the bill--protection for telecommunications companies from lawsuits--that he would like that taken out of the bill, what he is telling the Senate, the House, and the country is that this deal will fall apart. If we took this provision out, there would be no deal. People like me would not allow this process to go forward--and we had to give some. There was a give on the part of the administration and people like myself. There are some programs that I think are inherent to fighting the war that now have to be reviewed by the court. But that was a compromise. So for Senator Obama to come and say that he would take this provision out is saying that he does not believe in a bipartisan deal on the subject matter in question. The left has gone nuts over there-- the hard left. They think this is totally unacceptable. So, apparently, he is going to tell them: I don't support this. I am sure that is what they want to hear. But I say to my colleague, deals require giving and taking. It requires sometimes telling your friends what they don't want to hear. This is an example, in my opinion, of trying to tell your friends what they want to hear and positioning yourself in a way to look good with the public in general. That is not leadership. Leadership requires the common good to trump special interests. It requires political leaders to turn to their allies at times and say: No, your suggestion cannot win the day because if I give you what you are insisting on having, there will be no movement forward. Senator Obama is willing to give the left what they want. The consequence of that would be that the deal would fall apart because many people like me believe if you allow these companies to be sued for helping their country, then nobody will come forward in the future to help their country from the private sector. In this war, we are going to need support from the private sector, not only in telecommunications but in banking and other areas. So I hope the amendment to strike the retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies will be defeated because, if it is passed, the deal fails, the movement forward stops, and America is harmed. I am here to support the deal. Understand that I didn't get all I wanted, but America will be safer if we can get this program reauthorized. Our civil liberties will be better protected, and the ability to understand what our enemies are up to will be greatly enhanced. Every day that we move forward as a nation with this program being compromised is a day that the enemy has an advantage over us. We know what happens if this enemy is not dealt with firmly and quickly. They are lethal, they are committed, and they will do anything to harm our way of life. We have an opportunity to come together as Republicans and Democrats and move forward on a surveillance program that is vital to our national security, and those who want to undo this deal because of special interest pressure are not exercising the leadership the American people need in a time of war. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could, I would like to be recognized for 15 minutes to speak on the FISA legislation.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment in the straight extension of the current temporary assistance for needy families, TANF, supplemental grant program, which is included in the Medicare bill. I oppose the extension of this program without updating the 10-year-old statistics that qualify States for participation in the program, and without the appropriate reauthorization and consideration of changes necessary to ensure that this assistance is being afforded to the States that need it most. The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person on TANF services. Seventeen States qualified for additional TANF benefits under this program based on certain statistics collected at or around that time. More than 10 years later, these States are still receiving supplemental grant benefits based on the same 10-year-old statistics. A straight extension of this program does not award this assistance based on current conditions in States. There is no doubt that our nation is facing challenging economic times. Rising gas prices, rising unemployment States, the housing crisis and rising food prices all place a particularly significant burden on less fortunate families. Some state TANF programs are seeing increased caseload pressure. South Carolina can only afford to spend 29 percent of the national average per poor child on TANF services compared to some States that spend well over the national average. To make matters worse, South Carolina did not and has not qualified for the supplemental grant program due to an old statistic that has since changed. Senator Rockefeller and I introduced a proposal to allow States that spend below the national average on TANF services to participate in the supplemental grant program. Using updated statistics, our legislation would ensure that the dollars spent on this program are appropriately directed to States that need it most so that they can help struggling families get on their feet and back to work. Unfortunately, the Senate Finance Committee chose to quickly pass this extension as a part of a larger bill in order to avoid the discussion of reauthorization and changes necessary to update the supplemental grant program. I am disappointed some States, like South Carolina, and families that might otherwise receive this additional assistance will not have the opportunity to benefit from a mere update of the current program, or from the consideration of Senator Rockefeller's and my proposal. I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently. I am disappointed that the reauthorization of the supplemental grant program did not receive the attention it deserves, and I am hopeful that this can be addressed in the future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, over the past 5 years there has been a sea-change in the way we talk about climate change. I was hoping that this debate would serve as an opportunity to constructively discuss the issue. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer amendments or probe into the contents of this legislation. That is a real missed opportunity and I will be forced to oppose cloture. Make no mistake about it; the Senate needs to discuss climate change. We need an in-depth debate about climate change legislation which will have profound environmental and economic impacts. Senators must be able to offer amendments in order to improve the legislation. That last time the Senate considered legislation with as broad an environmental scope, the Clean Air Act, we spent a total of 5 weeks debating the bill and took close to 180 votes. With this legislation, we are taking less than a week and voting on zero amendments. I applaud the work that Senators Warner and Lieberman have done on this issue. The bill certainly advances the climate issue and they deserve our appreciation. This legislation marks a truly comprehensive effort to address this issue. Despite their best intentions, the Boxer substitute amendment that is on the floor right now has some provisions that are troubling and omits important solutions to climate change that need debate. Of particular concern to me was the inclusion of a provision in the legislation that limited the number of credits rural electric co-ops were eligible to receive. These credits were further narrowed by a pilot program that diverted 15 percent of the remaining credits to co- ops in Virginia and Montana. Co-ops and municipal power generators must be treated equitably with investor owned utilities, IOUs. In 2005, we passed an energy bill that left out co-ops and municipals from seeing the benefit of a nuclear production tax credit and federal loan guarantees. We need to be sure climate legislation does not do the same. Additionally, the legislation that we are debating has no references to nuclear power. I had planned to address this through the amendment process but unfortunately, we were unable to advance the debate on this bill. However, make no mistake, if we are to seriously address climate change, nuclear must be part of the solution. The founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, said it best: Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. When it comes to climate change legislation, I am not a scientist and I don't pretend to be. So instead of focusing on the science of the issue, I would like to focus on what I know. And that is: we have an obligation to limit what we emit into the atmosphere. Additionally, there is growing alarm over the national security implications of climate change. From scarcity of food to increasing energy dependence, the imperative to address this issue is growing. We need to use climate change legislation as a driver for the new technologies that will enable us to break free from dependency on foreign energy sources. There is a lot of concern over the economic impact of climate change legislation. This is an important debate. We have to be honest; addressing this issue will have a significant cost and significant benefits associated with it. However, I do believe that we can craft legislation that can achieve our goals in a manner that benefits both our environment and our economy. Manufacturers of components for nuclear power plants, windmills, and solar power are looking to Washington to ascertain what the market will be for their products. Climate change legislation can send the signals to the market that will foster innovation and drive technology development; especially in the area of nuclear power. Ultimately the Senate will come together in the next few years to thoughtfully address this issue. I look forward to being a part of that debate, and a part of the solution.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Dr. Thomas E. Barton on the occasion of his retirement as president of Greenville Technical College. Dr. Barton graduated from Clemson University in 1953 with a bachelor of science degree and received his doctorate in higher education administration from Duke University in 1972. While at Clemson, Dr. Barton played football under legendary coach Frank Howard. In 1987, he was honored for his athletic achievements by being elected to both the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame and the Clemson University Athletic Hall of Fame. After 9 years of service in the public schools of South Carolina and Georgia as teacher, coach, and school superintendent, he became president of Greenville Technical College in 1962. When Dr. Barton began his term as president, Greenville Tech consisted of one building serving 800 students. Forty-six years later, the college boasts a 42- building, four-campus system, offering university transfer and technical programs to more than 60,000 students annually. Dr. Barton was named Business Person of the Year by Greenville Magazine in 1995, and has consistently been chosen as one of the 50 most influential residents of Greenville by the publication. He was also named one of the top 25 community leaders by the Greenville News in 2000, 2001, and 2002. He has been awarded honorary doctorate degrees from Winthrop University, the University of South Carolina, and Clemson University. In January 2003, he was presented with the Order of the Palmetto, the State's highest award for a civilian. A leader in community affairs, Barton has served on the governing boards of the Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce, the Historic Greenville Foundation, and the YMCA. He is a commissioner for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and has chaired the board of directors of the Donaldson Air Force Base Museum and the South Carolina Technical College Presidents' Council. He has served on the Executive Committee for Friends of the Greenville Hospital System, on the Governor's Task Force on Education in South Carolina, and as honorary chairman of the March of Dimes Team Walk for Greenville. He is also an active member of the Greenville Rotary Club. Dr. Barton has served his State and his community well as an educator and civic leader. I wish him the very best in his retirement and ask that the U.S. Senate join me in thanking Dr. Barton for his lifelong career of service.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, three quick points. The procedure being employed is bad for the country, it is bad for the Senate, and my Republican colleague, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, expressed himself very well. If we give in to this, pack and go home. We don't deserve to be here. Now, I have a proposal, I say to my good friend, Senator Tester. I have a proposal that does two things. It helps those who leave the military get a better GI benefit. He is right; we need to increase the money we give to people who leave the service to go to college. But the Webb bill, unfortunately, according to CBO, hurts retention. The benefits of $52, $53 billion are all driven to the people who would leave, and the consequence of that is we are going to hurt retention, according to CBO, by 16 percent. Our approach, Senators McCain, Burr, and many of us here, is to do two things: Increase the benefit for those who leave but entice people to stay and reward those who will make a career out of the military. The backbone of the military, I say to Senator Tester, is the career NCOs, and we have a proposal that if they will stay in for 6 years, they can transfer half their benefits to their family members, to their spouse or to their child. If they will stay to the 12-year point, they can transfer 100 percent of their GI benefits to their spouse or their child. That would reward people for staying in and making a career. They can get their retirement pay and have money to send their kids to college. It rewards people to stay in the military and make a career of the military at a time we need a career force because we don't draft people anymore. This is not World War II, this is not Vietnam, this is a global struggle being fought by a few, and we need to do two things: Reward those who serve and decide to go back into civilian life, and tell those families and military members who will stay on for a career, God bless you, we are going to treat you differently than we have ever treated you before. We are going to give you a benefit you have never had before. You are not only going to be able to retire, but you are going to be able to send your kids to college without using a dime of your retirement pay. But under this procedure, we can't even talk about this. To my Republican colleagues who denied me a chance to put up my idea, shame on you. I have never done that to you all. Now, if there is some project in this bill that means that much to you that you are going to throw the rest of us over, we don't need to be here. As to the war and the funding, Senator Reid said on April 20, 2007: This war is lost. The surge has not accomplished anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday. April 20, 2007. April 13, 2007: Reid said he plans to continue an aggressive path for early withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care if the Republicans are trying to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces. Why? Because we are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Schumer, April 25, 2007: The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankles, Schumer warned, predicting that congressional Democrats will pick up additional Republican votes for Democratic initiatives as the 2008 elections approach. We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye, Schumer declared, making no attempt to hide his glee. Come down to the floor today and stand by those statements. It is not about the Republicans winning or losing seats, it is about this Nation being able to be safer. It is about winning in Iraq, not being a stakeholder in our defeat. It has never been about the next election to me, it has been about standing behind moderate forces in Iraq that will fight al-Qaida. Well over a year later, we have evidence now from the surge, with better security, that Muslims in Iraq have taken up arms, stood by us, and are giving al-Qaida a punishing blow. Reconciliation, political economic reconciliation in Iraq is beginning to bear fruit because of better security and Iranian desires to dominate that country, to kill Americans, and split Iraq. They are losing. We are killing special groups from Iran by the droves. So I hope this President, President Bush, will veto this bill, if that is what it will take.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Senator Webb said he is going to test President Bush's concerns for the troops to see if he will sign the Webb bill. To President Bush: Do not sign this bill. It will hurt retention. We can all come together to help those who serve and leave the military and give them a benefit better than they have today because they deserve it, but we should be working together for the common good to retain a career force that is going to fight this war and the war of the future. The people who put the Webb bill together had no idea what they were doing when it came to retention. They didn't even think about retention. Senator Obama said: Yes, if people leave, you will get some more. The heart and soul of any military is that career NCO officer, and we need to retain them, tell them their service is valuable, and help them stay around. We need to help those who leave, but, for God's sake, reward those who stay. So this is a defining moment for the Senate, for the Republicans, and for this war. I can tell you that if we will leave the generals alone and support our troops, they will win this war. To my Republican colleagues, if we will stand firm for a fair procedure and a sensible solution to the veterans' problems, we will get rewarded in the next election, not punished. If we give in to this, we don't deserve to be here.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wish to be recognized for 6 minutes because we are going to split the time with my colleagues. Would the Chair let me know when 5 minutes has expired?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. No.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Can the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.