Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, thank you. We have a choice to make as a body. We can find some middle ground and pass a bill that 100 people would vote for or we can put the Webb amendment on the supplemental in its current form without any changes, table my bill, and say: Go off in the corner and be quiet. Well, that ``ain't'' going to happen. I am not going to be quiet. I am going to urge the President to veto the Webb bill in its current form because no matter how well-intended it is, it will hurt retention. It will hurt retention at a time, as a nation, when we need to enhance retention. I have a different approach, and I think it makes sense. But I am willing to meet people in the middle. I am not going to be put in a box of having to vote no and be accused of not caring. Well, I have another approach. I think it serves the country well. I am willing to meet in the middle. I hope we can find some middle ground. At the end of the day, helping veterans and rewarding those who serve is a shared value-- not a Democratic value. It is a shared value by all Americans: Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Two things are important to the American people at a time of national crisis, at a time of a two-front war. Let's come together and help those who are willing to put on the uniform. Count me in for increasing the benefits for those who serve 3 years and leave. You have done your country a great service. I want to make sure you have money to go to college, that you are well rewarded for your service. But work with me to do something for those who continue to serve. Reward them. That has never been done before in the GI bill. It is time for the GI bill to change. It is time to have money on the table to reward those families and military members who stay around and keep going back and keep fighting. If you want to help the military, the men and women in uniform who decide to make this a career, allow their benefits to be transferred to their loved ones, allow military members who serve for 12 years and beyond a chance to send their kids to college with GI benefits and not have to use their retirement. So I look forward to this debate. It is going to be a chance to do some good or it is going to be politics as usual. Well, that is a decision we are all going to have to make. I hope we can do the country some good. To me, the best thing we can do for the country and for those men and women who serve--and continue to serve--is to do something new, something long overdue and new; that is, to allow them to transfer their benefits to their family members. That will help retention. It will reward those families who sacrifice alongside the servicemember. I have talked with enough family members to know how much this would change and help improve family life in the military. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Let's talk about the policy and then the politics. Everything seems to be in the case of politics. Most Members of the body would like to pass some legislation this year that would improve GI benefits for those who serve and leave and for those who continue to serve. Putting this bill, the Webb bill, on the supplemental emergency funding for the war, a mandatory entitlement program put on a supplemental emergency spending bill for the war is not the way to go. Having a supplemental involving spending for the war that can't be amended is not the way to go. Putting the bill on the firefighter- police officer legislation is not the way to go, but it is the only way I had to go. I have sat down with Senator Webb and his staff. I hope we can find common ground. I have never doubted the desire of Senators Webb or Warner to increase the benefit. Senator Webb's service to the country has been extraordinary in combat, as Secretary of the Navy, as has Senator Warner's. Obviously, they have a desire and some expertise in this area to upgrade basic GI benefits. I share that desire and hope this body can do something necessary. But as Senator Kyl said, quite frankly, I don't agree with their approach. The need is there, but the first thing all of us in this body should do is not compound a problem our current forces have, and that is retention. In the name of trying to help recruit people to the military, you don't create a benefit that the Congressional Budget Office and the Pentagon say will hurt retention. It makes perfect sense to me that the approach of Senators Webb and Warner will hurt retention. It is $50-something billion of new spending, and it is all geared to the people who leave the military after 3 years. As Senator Kyl indicated, this is a different war. Unless we start drafting people, which nobody appears to want, including me, we need to let those who serve and continue to serve know how much we appreciate what they are doing and give them incentives to stay around because every person who will stay in the military to make it a career is a godsend to this country because we are being defended by volunteers. So how about this idea? Increase the basic benefit, as Senators Warner and Webb have proposed but do it in a way that makes the most sense for the entire force. The current amount of money available to someone who leaves the military after 3 years of service to go to college is $1,100 a month. That used to be the average cost of a State college tuition, including room and board. It is now up to $1,500 a month as an average cost. What we have done in our approach is raise the benefit to $1,500, which is the average cost of a State college, room and board. To me, that is a worthy goal for the Nation to pursue. Senators Webb and Warner have a new formula, a new way of delivering benefits that misses the mark. Instead of paying every GI who leaves the service $1,500 a month, and under our bill $1,000 a year for books and fees, what Senator Webb proposes is that you would look at the school, the highest State school, the highest State institution in terms of tuition in each State, and the GI would receive the amount of money that would pay for that school. So in Michigan, the most expensive State school is $13,000. In South Carolina, it is $5,000 or $6,000. So based on where you live, you could have a disparity in how much benefits come to the veteran. I don't think that is the way to go. What we have tried to do is make the benefit that exists today reflect the reality of today for those who leave. If somebody wants to go to Harvard or Yale, what we do under the bill is we tell the institution, if you will forgive 25 percent of the difference between what the Government pays and the tuition, we will put an extra thousand on the table. If you will forgive 50 percent of the indebtedness, we will put more money on the table. If you will forgive the entire indebtedness, I think we would go up to like $3,000, maybe $3,500 a month. That way the institution can get over $40,000, and the veteran can go to that school without any debt. So we have a program in the bill to try to get institutions on the higher end, private schools, to work with veterans to get them through their institutions and put more money on the table. But the big point I am trying to make is, under our approach, we have a component not found in the Webb bill that the country needs. Right now the GI benefits that are earned after 3 years of service under the Webb approach, $55 billion is spent on that population, not one penny of additional incentive to stay around. Do you know what America needs? We need to take care of those who serve and leave because they have done the country a great service. But as a nation, we need to desperately try to retain people who are willing to serve longer. So what do we do? Senator Burr and myself, Senator McCain, we have listened to the troops. What do the troops want? What do those in uniform want from the GI benefit reform? They would like to transfer their benefits to their spouse or their children. Under our approach, if you stay 6 years, that $1,500-a-month benefit, that $1,000-a-year payment for books and fees, 50 percent of it can be transferred to a spouse or child. That would revolutionize the way this benefit package is being used today. Fifty percent of the people eligible for GI benefits in today's world never use them. If you could transfer those benefits, it would be a higher utilization, and the benefit would be to the family members of the military member, the ones they love and care about the most. If you will stay in 12 years, at the 12-year point under our bill, the benefit goes from $1,500 a month to $2,000 a month, and you can transfer all of it. Now, what does that mean? That means if you will continue to serve our country, at the 12-year point you do not have to worry about your kids' ability to go to college anymore. What does that mean? That means your retirement pay has more value. A lot of people are getting out of the military at the 8- and 10-year point because they have a couple kids and they wonder: Can I send them to college on a military salary? Wouldn't it be wonderful to check that block and say: You can stay in the military, get your 20 years, get your retirement, and also have a benefit to pay for your kids' college that will not come out of your retired pay? This will revolutionize retention. The CBO says for every $10,000 of educational benefit increase, you lose a percent in retention. Under the Webb approach, we would lose 8 to 9 percent a year in retention, at a time we need to retain more. Under our approach, not only are we going to give more money to those who serve and leave--a very generous benefit--we are also going to put money on the table for the first time in the history of the GI program to reward those who stay. Most people who serve 20 years are going to come out with a college degree they earned in the military without ever using their benefits. The ability to transfer the benefit to a family member is enormous. Again, it will allow the retired pay--of those who go to 20 years--to have much more bang for the buck. They will have their college paid for. When I talk to people in the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces, they tell me they would love to have the ability to transfer their GI benefits once they get their degree to a spouse or a child. It would help retention. It would help families. It is, in my opinion, the best bang for the taxpayer buck. Now, where are we going to go? Here is what is going to happen. Madam President, how much time is left?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing State Senator John W. Drummond on the occasion of his retirement from the South Carolina State Senate. As a decorated military hero, a successful businessman, and a respected public figure, Senator Drummond has left an indelible mark on the Palmetto State. He is a true public servant, guided not by desire for recognition but by the desire to achieve great good for the state he serves. Born in Greenwood, SC, John Drummond was the fourth of Jim and Fannie Drummond's seven children. His father worked for the Greenwood Cotton Mill for many years before moving his family to a new mill village in Ninety Six, where he excelled in academics and athletics. Eager to expand his horizons, he seized the opportunity to serve in the military by joining the 263rd South Carolina Coast Artillery Regiment based in Charleston. Senator Drummond distinguished himself in his training and landed a post as a bomber-fighter pilot in the 405th Fighter Group. The group reported for duty in the European theater of the war in March 1944. In his initial months of service, Drummond provided air interdiction and close air support, including involvement in a successful attack on a SS mess hall identified by information from the French Resistance. After attaining the rank of captain, Drummond led his squadron while providing air coverage for the Allied armada from German artillery positions on D-day and for ground troops in the months that followed. On July 29, 1944, Drummond's plane was downed by antiaircraft fire. He was badly injured after parachuting out at a low level and was captured by Germans and imprisoned for 10 months in a POW camp in Barth, Germany. Finally freed by the Russian army after V-E Day, Drummond's valor earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross, two Purple Hearts, nine Air Medals, three Battle Stars, and a Presidential Citation. Following a jubilant homecoming, Drummond gradually transitioned to civilian life, marrying a hometown girl, Holly Self, and starting his young family which eventually included three sons. After inheriting the Greenwood Petroleum Company, his aptitude for business led him to the establishment of the Drummond Oil Company. Senator Drummond still serves as president of both of these successful enterprises. Senator Drummond and his wife, fondly known as ``Ms. Holly,'' have long played a leading role in the civic affairs of Greenwood County and the town of Ninety Six. Both were devoted church members, and Ms. Holly is remembered for her dedication to the missions of the Ninety-Six Baptist Church as well as for her role as an enthusiastic advocate of town preservation. Interested in the economic prosperity of Greenwood, Senator Drummond devoted his considerable talents as a respected business leader to the issues of business development and rural electrification affecting its citizens. After serving 2 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, Senator Drummond campaigned and won a seat in the State Senate, a position he has held for over forty years. The longest serving State Senator in South Carolina history, his time in the legislature will be remembered for his ability to forge relationships across racial, gender, and political lines, and his sincere desire to provide excellent representation and service for the people of Greenwood County. He has been widely described as a statesman, a position that is reflected by his current position as the senate's President Pro Tempore Emeritus. As further proof of his remarkable leadership, he has been honored by the establishment of the Drummond Center, an institute at Erskine College dedicated to promoting civil discourse across party lines for the benefit of all South Carolinians. Throughout his career, he has been the recipient of countless legislative achievement and appreciation awards from a wide range of groups and individuals, including the Order of the Palmetto, the highest civilian honor awarded by the Governor. John Drummond has served his State and Nation. His legacy is one of unparalleled commitment to his fellow citizens, and his influence will be felt for many years to come. I thank him sincerely for his service and leadership and wish him the very best in his retirement. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring my friend, Senator John W. Drummond.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, there are a lot of things going on in Washington that people probably don't understand and wonder about. How could my Government not do better than it is doing. This is one of the areas where most people understand what we are trying to do and would appreciate any effort on their behalf to accomplish relieving the gas tax for a period of time when a lot of Americans are traveling. If you believe that a $600 check to Americans that comes from the Treasury, that is not offset, is a good thing to help the economy, like 81 of us do, this builds on that concept. The Senator from California asks what we are trying to do. We are trying to build on some concepts that have already passed the body. We are injecting the economy with money so that people, consumers can buy more to help stimulate the economy. We have all agreed on that being a good idea. What is this doing? This is trying to take a Federal tax that affects every American who drives a car during a window of time when many Americans are going to be on the road doing a lot of things they have looked forward to and planned, to reduce the burden of traveling, to energize the economy, whether it is in terms of recreational travel or business dealings. That will build on the concept we have already agreed on. Now is the time to put money back into the pockets of consumers, and relieving the gas tax during this critical time and during this window of time makes perfect sense. I congratulate Senators McCain and Kyl. This will not be a hard sell to anybody out there who is paying taxes and driving a car. I hope we can find a way to make this happen. The public would appreciate it. They are going to appreciate the checks they get. The money will go to good use. If we could relieve the tax burden on traveling by 18.6 cents per gallon of Federal gas taxes during this window of time, people would appreciate it. They understand why we need to do it. It would be a good thing for the Congress, and I appreciate Senators McCain and Kyl putting this concept on the floor. It is sad we can't get it passed today, but I hope we do it sooner rather than later. With that, being from South Carolina and Florida and Mississippi, where people travel to destinations that are attractive to come to, I hope we can pass this and help the American consumer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes to talk about the judge situation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, No. 1, I wish to acknowledge the progress that was made yesterday between Senator McConnell and Senator Reid regarding an impasse over circuit court nominations. The average, I believe, for the last 2 years of a Presidential term when the opposing party had control of the Senate, was 15 circuit court nominations being confirmed by the Senate. At this point, we are at seven. As I understand, an agreement reached yesterday between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell will allow three circuit court judges to be moved forward by the May 23 recess. I appreciate that progress. I live in the State of South Carolina, which is in the Fourth Judicial Circuit. We have a judicial emergency on hand there. A third of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is vacant. We have two nominees, one from South Carolina and one from North Carolina, who have been awaiting hearings and confirmation for well over 200 days now. I urge my colleagues to allow these fine candidates for the judiciary to move forward and the Senate get on about its business when it comes to judges. What I worry the most about is, over the last 4 or 5 years, we have had an experience with judges pretty much unknown to the Senate. There are a lot of anecdotal stories, a lot of cases in the past where people slow walked. I can only speak to my time here. I was involved in the Gang of 14 to make sure the Senate did not do something that would haunt the body for years to come. The Gang of 14 was a bipartisan effort to make sure filibustering judges would be done only in extraordinary circumstances, simply because if we engage in this practice of trying to hold up Presidential nominations based on philosophy and not qualifications, if all of us become President, so to speak, saying, I am not going to allow a vote on a judge I wouldn't have picked, it becomes chaos. I urge Senators Clinton and Obama, who have been, quite frankly, part of the problem, to look at the model they are setting, because if they do secure the White House, they do not want this to come back to haunt them. I want an independent judiciary. I wish to make sure it is well paid and insulated as much as possible from an unfair process. The confirmation process is getting out of hand, overly political, too many political interest groups on the left or right have an inordinate amount of say in who gets on the bench. The role of the Senate is to pass judgment, an up-or-down vote, on qualified nominees sent over by the President. I found in the Senate if you get someone who is an outlier, there is usually bipartisan support to say no to that nominee. President Bush sent over a couple nominees I opposed. Generally speaking, I expect my time in the Senate to defer as much as possible to a Presidential nominee who I think is qualified and not base my vote or denying a nominee a vote based on the fact I would not have chosen that person. I certainly would not have chosen Justice Ginsburg, if I was President, but she is eminently qualified and received well over 90 votes, I believe. I hope in the future we will allow judges to come to the floor, through the committee, in a timely process. The Fourth Judicial Circuit is in dire need of Judge Conrad and Mr. Steve Matthews from South Carolina having hearings and a vote. If a Senator does not like these nominees, they can vote against them. What happened there is creating a problem in the area of the country in which I live and, quite frankly, it is unfair. I look forward to working with my colleagues to break this logjam. Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy were kind enough to meet with Steve Matthews, the nominee from South Carolina, and I appreciate them doing so. Let's not get into a pattern that will come back to haunt us as a body and do a lot of damage to the confirmation process and over time erode the independence of the judiciary. I appreciate the progress that was achieved yesterday, but there is a lot more to do, particularly when it comes to the Fourth Circuit. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the testimony given yesterday by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker regarding our progress and challenges in Iraq. I think it is important for the American people to understand and for our colleagues to understand that the surge of troops in Iraq that began in the early part of last year was a corrective measure, and that from the fall of Baghdad until January 2007, it was clear to me, Senator McCain, and others that our strategy during that period of time was not working; that we had too few troops; that the country got into a lawless state; that political progress and economic progress was virtually nonexistent. There was a paralysis when it came to the ability to govern in Baghdad: The economy was stalled; violence was spreading throughout the country to the point, in 2006, that the al-Qaida flag flew over parts of Anbar Province. So there was a moment of reckoning. The President had a decision to make after the Republican losses in November of 2006. It was widely held that the reason Republicans lost in the midterm elections was because of Iraq policy. Secretary Rumsfeld resigned and the President had a choice. One of the choices would have been to adopt the strategy of withdrawing at a faster rate, the theory being to put pressure on the Iraqi military and government to perform better because they were not doing well because they were relying too much upon us. The other theory was that the security environment is so out of control and so tenuous that you will never have military, political, or economic progress until you get better control over security. Well, the surge argument, advocated primarily by Senators McCain, Lieberman, and others, won the day with the President. So it was clear that we needed to change strategy at the end of 2006, and we did. There is an ongoing debate about whether that was the correct choice. To evaluate fairly the testimony of Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus, I think one has to look at what happened from January of 2007 up to today and planned out to July 2008. During that period of time, there was a surge of American combat forces into Iraq of 30,000 additional combat troops. The security argument prevailed over the withdrawal argument. The troops were deployed in a significantly different way. Not only were there more of the troops, which was a requirement, General Petraeus came up with a new strategy. He got the troops out into the communities, at security stations, where American soldiers served with Iraqi soldiers and policemen within the community. That built a sense of confidence we had not seen before. At the end of 2006, something very startling happened in Anbar Province. Sheik Sattar, one of the young sheiks in the Anbar Sunni region, after part of his family was murdered by al-Qaida, came to an American colonel and said: We have had it, we want to fight with you. We want these guys out of Anbar. We don't want to be dominated by al-Qaida in Iraq. The commander seized the moment and put a couple of tanks around the guy's house. From that action by the colonel and the addition of combat forces, Anbar Province is a completely different place. If you ask me what is the most successful event of all within the surge period of time, I would argue it is the uprising in Anbar Province by Iraqi Sunni Arabs against the al-Qaida presence in Anbar. They have rejected the al-Qaida agenda and joined forces with the coalition forces, American forces, and we have literally delivered a punishing blow to al-Qaida in Anbar Province--to the point now that Ramadi and Fallujah are some of the safest places in all of Iraq. So for the American public to grasp what is going on here, I think you have to understand this one fact. When Arab Muslim people say no to al-Qaida and we will fight bin Laden, his agents, and sympathizers, that is a good day for America. That is what the war is going to be about conventionally, in terms of how we win. If the people in the Mideast turn on al-Qaida and they say no and shoulder the burden of fighting and create a community in place of al-Qaida's agenda that is more tolerant, more open, that will allow the Shia and the Kurds to live in peace; that will not try to pass on the al-Qaida philosophy and agenda to everybody surrounding the region. So this is incredibly good news from the surge, with the increased combat capability and the overplaying of al-Qaida's hand in Anbar; they were incredibly vicious to the people. I have been to Iraq 11 times, and the stories that come out of Anbar Province while al-Qaida dominated the region are heart-breaking and bone-chilling. Now we have, in April of 2008, a completely changed Anbar Province, where we have over 90,000 Iraqis, called the ``Sons of Iraq,'' patrolling their communities at night and during the day to make sure al-Qaida doesn't come back. Iraq is a changed place in many ways. If you had to list the winners and losers of the surge, I argue that the biggest loser of all is the al-Qaida presence in Iraq. Any time al-Qaida is losing, we are winning. What has happened in that period of time? The economic progress in Iraq is real and is fundamentally different than it was before the surge. The reason I think we have had economic progress in Iraq is because, with better security, you can engage in commerce. It is hard to run an economy when you are afraid to go to work. It is hard to build a society when your children cannot go to school. The GDP growth in Iraq is about 7 percent, and inflation before the surge was at 66 percent. Now it is close to 12 percent, and dropping. The oil production is up by 50 percent. Electricity demand is up by 25 percent. We have economic progress in Iraq that is showing signs of a vibrant country moving toward normalcy. We had a budget path in Baghdad by the Iraqi Parliament, where Sunni, Shia, and Kurds took the $48 billion of revenue that the central government has under their authority and shared it with each province and each and every group within Iraq. What does that mean? I think most political leaders in America would tell you that money is political power. In our minority status as Republicans, the Democratic majority gives us an allocation to run our staffs and participate in committee activity. We share the resources of running the Senate. We sit down and say the Republicans get this and the Democrats get that. That is a recognition that we may disagree with, but we all have a vibrant role and we need the resources. The fact that the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds were able to come together and allocate resources owned by the country as a whole to each and every group is a major step forward. It would not have happened a year and a half ago. It is a buy-in by every group that Iraq is a separate country with a common identity. When you can get all three groups giving the resources of the country to each other, that is a buy-in to win Iraq. There is more than that. An amnesty law was passed about 90 days ago. That means there are thousands of people in jail in Iraq--mostly Sunnis--who were captured in part of the surge and some before--that were taking up arms against the central government. These Sunnis in jail didn't want to participate in democracy. They ran the show under Saddam Hussein. Even though they were a minority in Iraq when Saddam was in power, they ran the show. They had an uprising, using violence to get their way, to topple the government. They landed in jail. One thing history will tell you and teach you, if you follow it closely, is that there will never be a reconciliation of a country that is divided ethnically or politically until there is a level of forgiveness. Reconciliation is a word, and it means nothing without action. The amnesty law was passed by the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis, and it gave the people in jail who were captured as part of the Sunni insurgency a chance to be released and to start over again. There have been 24,000 applications to be released from jail under the amnesty law and 17,000, I have been told, have been granted. That is a statement by the Shia and the Kurds who were on the receiving end of the violence to the people in jail, saying: Go back home. Let's start over as a new country. That, to me, is an act of forgiveness that is a precondition to reconciliation, and it would not have happened if there had not been a surge in the reduction of sectarian violence. I see my good friend from Arizona.

Mr. GRAHAM. Please.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think our time expires in the next 5 minutes. I will quickly wrap up my thoughts and ask my colleagues to comment. People want to know when we are going to come home. Trust me, if you have been to Iraq at all, if you spent any time with our men and women in uniform, you want them to be with their families and out of harm's way in the most desperate way. The point I want people to remember is these are all volunteers. Some have been there two, three, four times. They make one simple request to me as a Senator: Take care of us, but support us so we can win. The reason they go back time and time again is they understand the consequences to our Nation if we lose. So if you want to take stress off the military--and don't we all--the best stress we can take off our military is the stress of not knowing if they are going to be allowed to win. I hope colleagues in this body will respect General Petraeus's reasoned opinion and give him some deference because I think he has produced results that will go down in history as one of the most successful military counterinsurgency operations anywhere on the planet and give a little deference and respect to Ambassador Crocker, who has put together political progress under the most difficult circumstances, where the Iraqis are seeing each other now not as enemies but as partners in an endeavor to create a better life for themselves, to live at peace with their neighbors, and to make the whole world safer against extremism. When we come home is not the question for the ages. It may be for your next election and it may be about your political future; that may be the way you are looking at it or it may be about the Republican Party's political future. It is not that way for me, Senator McCain, or I think anybody else, certainly not for Senator Lieberman. The question for me, the question for our Nation, and the world over time is, What did we leave behind? I am more confident than ever that we can leave behind, in the heart of the Mideast, in the center of the Arab world, a group of people called Iraqis, who will be our friends for a long time to come, will contain Iranian expansionism, and will continue to be al-Qaida's worst nightmare. That day is coming. The only way we can lose now is for Congress to undercut it. To Senator Kyl, how important is it for the Congress to pass a supplemental without strings attached?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I see our colleague, Senator Lieberman, is on the floor. If I may, I wish to direct a question his way. One of the themes of the testimony from General Petraeus is that after the surge has progressed to this stage, the biggest threat to Iraqi stability is no longer al-Qaida or sectarian violence but special groups trained by the Iranian Government sent back into Iraq to destabilize this effort of moderation. Mr. President, can Senator Lieberman tell us his take on Iran's involvement and where he thinks we need to go as a nation?

Mr. GRAHAM. I asked General Petraeus that very question. He said that anytime Muslims would take up arms against al-Qaida, it is marching toward the solution America has been seeking. I think General Petraeus, myself, and Senators Kyl and Lieberman understand this war is not just about killing terrorists; this is about supporting moderation where you can find it, isolating the elements within the region. If you had to put a list of extreme elements together, al-Qaida would be at the top. To those men and women who have participated in the surge and stood by the Anbar Iraqis who turned on al-Qaida, I think you have made our country safer. To the Iraqis who took up arms against al- Qaida, I think you have made Iraq safer and the world safer. Mr. President, my question back to the Senator from Arizona, if I may, is, from his understanding of what was said yesterday, what can the Congress do, rather than criticize, what constructively can we do as a body to support those in harm's way and make sure we leave Iraq with a successful outcome?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 3 minutes to celebrate a big event for the State of Tennessee.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the TANF Supplemental Grant program. Today Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation that would reauthorize these grants and more accurately ensure that the dollars spent on this program are directed to poor children in the States that need it most. I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently and provided to our citizens in a way that encourages self-sufficiency. In South Carolina, I am pleased that our Department of Social Services continues to work toward that end. Currently, less than half of States' TANF block grants are spent on welfare checks, and the majority of funding is spent on moving welfare recipients into the workforce. More and more States are using TANF dollars to help beneficiaries purchase services such as childcare, transportation and job training. However, the neediest States continue to struggle to provide welfare- to-work services to poor families with children. 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. It is important that this discrepancy be addressed. 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. However, many States, like South Carolina, spend well below the national average and do not qualify for this assistance. To date, South Carolina has the lowest spending per poor person of any State in the country that does not receive a supplemental grant. Many States that do receive supplemental grants spend more than twice the TANF funds per poor person than South Carolina. The Supplemental Grant program will expire on September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing this program is an opportunity to provide assistance, based on updated statistics, to States, like South Carolina, that cannot afford to spend the national average per poor child on TANF services. Especially during economically challenging times, providing this assistance to States can help our neediest families with children to get back on their feet and back to work. In working to pass this legislation, I look forward to collaborating with the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rockefeller on identifying an appropriate mechanism to offset the costs of this proposal. I am hopeful that the Senate will consider this legislation in a timely manner.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the reauthorization of the TANF Supplemental Grant program. Today Senator Rockefeller and I introduced legislation that would reauthorize these grants and more accurately ensure that the dollars spent on this program are directed to poor children in the States that need it most. I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare services and benefits are spent efficiently and provided to our citizens in a way that encourages self-sufficiency. In South Carolina, I am pleased that our Department of Social Services continues to work toward that end. Currently, less than half of States' TANF block grants are spent on welfare checks, and the majority of funding is spent on moving welfare recipients into the workforce. More and more States are using TANF dollars to help beneficiaries purchase services such as childcare, transportation and job training. However, the neediest States continue to struggle to provide welfare- to-work services to poor families with children. 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. It is important that this discrepancy be addressed. 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. However, many States, like South Carolina, spend well below the national average and do not qualify for this assistance. To date, South Carolina has the lowest spending per poor person of any State in the country that does not receive a supplemental grant. Many States that do receive supplemental grants spend more than twice the TANF funds per poor person than South Carolina. The Supplemental Grant program will expire on September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing this program is an opportunity to provide assistance, based on updated statistics, to States, like South Carolina, that cannot afford to spend the national average per poor child on TANF services. Especially during economically challenging times, providing this assistance to States can help our neediest families with children to get back on their feet and back to work. In working to pass this legislation, I look forward to collaborating with the Senate Finance Committee and Senator Rockefeller on identifying an appropriate mechanism to offset the costs of this proposal. I am hopeful that the Senate will consider this legislation in a timely manner.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have a modification to the amendment, which I think has been cleared, that I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I know we are all busy and trying to catch up on a lot of business, but in 1 minute this is what I am trying to do. This amendment is not about me, it is about a lot of people paying taxes, and their taxes are going to go up if we don't pass this amendment. The Baucus amendment passed 99 to 1. That was good for America. We are filling in a gap that exists when it comes to the budget and protecting tax cuts. My amendment would extend through 2013 the marginal rate cuts that are now in law. The current law is 25 percent. If we don't pass my amendment, in 2011 the tax will go up to 28 percent, a 10-percent increase, 35 percent becomes 39.6 percent, and that means 23 million Americans are going to pay higher taxes. The estate tax relief in this amendment would protect families and small businesses from losing, through estate taxes, their deductions and exemptions. It will keep the rate at 45 percent versus 50 percent. The capital gains rate. Nine million people depend on capital gains to help support their family. The rates go up to 20 percent, if my amendment does not pass, versus 15. Dividend tax rates are great for our economy. We lock in the dividend tax rate cuts we have achieved the last couple years. Twenty-four million people are affected. Small business expensing. Under the current law, you get $250,000 under small business expensing. If my amendment doesn't pass, it goes to $25,000. There is a lot at stake if you vote against my amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I have 5 more minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, consistent with the unanimous consent request, I will talk for 10 minutes about the outline of this amendment. I, too, would like to recognize the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking member for dealing with what I think is a very fruitful and important exercise in American democracy, and that is setting the budget. We are going to try to create a budget to guide the Federal Government not just this year but in coming years. If I had to showcase a difference between honorable men and women in the Senate about our philosophies, how you think about the economy, showcase differences between people who are very sincere and all love their country, it would probably be this amendment. Senator Baucus's amendment--I will vote for that; it extends tax cuts to families, child tax credits. The details of the amendment will be discussed on the floor. Certainly, it is needed. My amendment is about those tax cuts that will be left behind if we pass Senator Baucus's amendment and we let current law expire. This probably illustrates the difference between the parties as much as any other event that I could offer to the American people. We live in a global economy, and the question for America is this: What kind of tax structure do we need in place to make sure capital will be formed here and not leave? Does your Tax Code matter when it comes to creating jobs? Does the amount you take from a business--a small business or a major corporation--matter in terms of a global economy? Does it affect people's decision about where to do business? What is fair? This idea of class warfare--that it is not fair to do this for one group if you are going to do something for the other group--would be a great debate to have. What I am trying to do is offer an amendment to complement Senator Baucus's, to make sure our tax structure in America is fair to those who work hard, who hire people, who create capital and jobs, to those in retired status who are depending on their investments earlier in life to get them through. Here is the question for the country: Under the current law that we passed several years ago, which expires in 2010, the top tax rate is 35 percent. The question for America is: Is a 35-percent top tax rate at the Federal level fair? It seems to be a gracious plenty to me--35 percent out of whatever you earn going to the Federal Government as the top rate. Should it be more? Should it be less? Well, 35 percent, to me, is more than a gracious plenty to be sending to the Federal Government because most people have to pay taxes at other levels of government. Now, in 2011, if we do nothing, the 35-percent rate goes to 39.6; the 33-percent rate goes to 36; the 28-percent rate goes to 31; and the 25- percent rate goes to 28. If you ask a variety of Americans--and this has been true for 10, 15, 20 years--what is a fair amount for an American to pay to the Federal Government in terms of the income they earn, the No.1 answer is consistently 25 percent--regardless of income, region, rich, poor, black or white. Most Americans view 25 percent as a fair amount that somebody should have to pay to the Federal Government in terms of their income. We are now at 35 percent, and we are trying to hang on to that. Our Democratic friends, by opposing this amendment, would allow the top rate to go to 39.6. But most importantly, it would allow the 25- percent rate for that class of taxpayers to go to 28. Who is at the 25- percent rate? It starts with income levels of $31,850 for single and $63,700 for married couples. In 2011, they would, at that rate--if my amendment is not passed--have to pay 28 percent. That is a lot of money from the economy going to Washington, at a time when we need money at home for families and businesses. Small business owners are in the 35-percent rate in large numbers. Do we want to take every small business that is paying 35 percent of their income to the Federal Government and, 3 years from now, make it 39.6 percent? Numbers matter. To us, we are picking numbers. At home, it is the bottom line. I grew up in a small town in South Carolina, where my dad owned a liquor store, a restaurant, and a pool room. I can remember that we got by. Neither of my parents graduated high school. The one thing I can remember about small business life is you have no option not to get up and go to work. If you are dog sick, you still have to go to work because nobody will pay the bills if you don't open the door. We had health insurance basically for the four people in our family. My mother got Hodgkin's disease, and I paid those bills up through when I was in the Air Force. To the people out there making a living, the burdens of regulations matter. I think we should come together and say something simple: 35 percent is enough to take from anybody. If you don't like rich people, if you think there is an amount of money that is too much to make, then that is one way to run the Government, I guess. That is one way to create a society--put a ceiling on what people can do. As long as you earn your money honestly and fairly, the better you do, the happier I am for you. If I take 35 percent of what you make, I think I have probably taken enough. Should I take 39.6 percent because somebody makes too much? If you let the Government do that, I think you are letting the Government get out of line and out of control. And it is just not the people who make a lot of money whom I am worried about; it is people who are working for every dollar they can get to grow their business and pay the families' bills that I worry about. As I said, the amendment I am trying to offer to the Senate will keep rates at 35, 33, 28 and 25 and not go to 39.6, 36, 31, and 28. If we don't pass this amendment, there is going to be a major tax increase coming to hard-working Americans out there, at a time when we live in a global economy; and if we take any more from Americans, a lot of our businesses are going to leave us. How many people are affected by my amendment? Twenty-eight million people will experience a tax increase by 2011 if this amendment doesn't pass. Now, we have heard that two things are certain--death and taxes. The only thing I can tell you about taxes is that if you touch it, use it, put it in your car or eat it, in America it is taxed in some form. And then you die. Well, we have an estate tax law in America, and it goes kind of like this. The current law is you get a $2 million exemption for a couple at a 45-percent rate. If you have an estate over $2 million as a couple, the Government takes 45 percent of what is left. You have paid taxes on everything you have earned right before you died. Here comes the Government, after the $2 million exemption has been reached, and it takes 45 percent of what is left. That is current law. That is supposedly too good a deal. I don't think it is that great a deal. In 2010, here is what happens if we do nothing: Instead of a $2 million exemption for a couple, it goes back to $1 million, and you get a 55-percent tax rate on everything else that is left. How many small businesses out there, on paper, have assets over $1 million or $2 million? How many farmers are land rich and cash poor? Is that good policy? One thing I can tell you for sure, being a former prosecutor, if we don't do something about this, there are going to be a lot of mysterious deaths on New Year's Eve 2010. Look at the consequences of dying one day versus the other. It is political malpractice for the Congress to put people in this bind, where estate tax rates go from 45 to 55 and the exemption is cut in half, based on dying one day versus the other. That is bad public policy. We need to fix it. My amendment would say there would be a $5 million exemption for couples in this country and, after that, a top rate of 35 percent for the death tax. In other words, 35 percent of everything you worked for all your life, after a $5 million exemption, would be taken by the Government.

Mr. GRAHAM. What I am trying to do is offer an amendment that will preserve current law so in 3 years, in the case of the death tax, and 2 years, we don't hit people with a tax increase, at a time when we don't need to be raising taxes, at a time that we live in a global economy. When it comes to the death tax, one in three small business owners is never able to pass their business on to the next generation because, when they die, the assets are evaluated in such a way that people have to break up the business to pay the taxes or they have to sell the family farm. That is not what we need to be doing in America. That is not fair. The capital gains taxes are at 15 percent under current law. In 2011, they go to 20 percent. There are over 9 million families and individuals who will claim capital gains, and if this amendment doesn't pass and we don't do something about this, there are going to be 9 million families hit by a tax increase out there, at a time when our economy needs more money in the private sector, not in Washington. As to dividends, there are a lot of people in this country--24 million families and individuals--who receive dividend income. Under current law, it is taxed at 15 percent. In 2011, the dividends go back to regular income tax rates--a dramatic increase. What does that mean? That means owning stock becomes less attractive. There will be less people buying stock and receiving dividends from purchasing stock. That means people who are trying to create a company or expand their business will have to borrow the money from a bank, rather than getting investors from the market, and that will create more debt on top of what is already a debt-laden country. As to small business expensing, under current law, firms may expense up to $250,000 of qualified assets of property they place in service in 2008. In 2011, the expensing allowance is scheduled to revert to $25,000. By being able to expense, from a tax point of view, the purchase of assets, you are able to grow your business, and it makes it attractive to expand your business. If we don't pass my amendment, in 2011, that $250,000 allowance goes down to $25,000. My amendment reflects a Tax Code that is very generous to the Federal Government but is still burdensome on families and businesses. But to let it get worse, at a time when we are competing in a global economy, and try to pit one group of Americans against another, at a time when we are trying to put our best foot forward as a nation under a stressful business climate, is ill advised. If you think America is undertaxed, then vote no. If you think we have taken a gracious plenty from business and families, then vote yes. If we don't make these tax cuts permanent in 2013, we are going to drive people offshore and create less jobs, not more; we are going to tax people who are struggling to make it as it is; and it will all be under the idea of fairness. It is unfair to not pass my amendment. I think it would be incredibly shortsighted not to pass my amendment and make these tax cuts permanent that would allow Americans to keep jobs and grow jobs and pay the bills they are struggling to pay right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for coming down and highlighting the fact that the Presidential nomination on the Republican side has finally come to a conclusion--Senator McCain won. To all those who were in the race, I think I have a little taste of how difficult it was for you and your families. The Republican Party was blessed this year to have a group of candidates who represented the best in the Republican Party: To Governor Huckabee last night, he ran a great campaign; Governor Romney; Ron Paul--whatever you want to say about Ron Paul, he bleeds, he won his primary last night--and Mayor Giuliani. What a talented field we had on our side. It is equally true on the other side. We are going to have a Senator, as Senator Burr said, for both parties. I do not know when that last happened. But it is an exciting time. I have had the pleasure of knowing Senator McCain for many years. They will write books about how this happened because our campaign ran into a wall in the summer. I think one of the things you can say about Senator McCain, as Senator Burr indicated, is that when he sets his mind to something, he is pretty hard to stop. He believes he has a little more service left in him. If you want to know John McCain, you need to look at his family and the way he has lived his life--his time in the Navy. He looks at being President as one more chance to serve the country. I was talking to him last night. The idea of being President is overwhelming. It is such a prestigious office, it is such an important office for the world and for our Nation. I just indicated to him: Just look at it as another tour of duty. This time you are Commander in Chief. To the men and women in uniform out there who are serving in faraway places, standing watch as I speak, you are going to have a great Commander in Chief if John McCain wins. The other candidates are fine people, but I think the differences are going to be real. Senator Clinton said something last night. She is a very strong competitor and you never count the Clintons out and I do admire Senator Clinton. This is going to be a spirited contest. But she said she wanted to end the war in Iraq and win in Afghanistan. Well, what the heck does that mean? I want to win in Iraq and I want to win in Afghanistan. Senator Obama, who is a real phenomenon, who has come a long way in a short period of time, says the world is watching. He talked about some gentleman, the grandfather of one of his campaign operatives, I think maybe in Uganda, staying up all night to watch what we do in America. Senator Obama is absolutely right. I can tell you who else is watching. Some of the most vicious killers known to humanity are watching what we do in terms of Iraq and the war on terror. They are measuring us. They are measuring our candidates for President. They are seeing who blinks and who does not. They are going to watch what we do in the Senate, and they are looking for openings. This is going to be a great contest. What an important time for America and the world. I hope we can have a civil debate. I am sure it will be. But the fact that there are great differences in a democracy is a good thing. I say to the American people, you are going to be blessed with some good choices. Please choose wisely because a lot of people depend on what you say or do. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Senator yield?