Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I believe I am aware of that.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, about 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I am, because it is my understanding, if I could reclaim my time--and I am sorry to run over, I say to my good friend from Ohio--here is what I think is happening. I think everybody was OK with him being a district court judge, except maybe somebody on our side, and if the problem with this man is he has associated himself in a way that disqualifies him because of a racial problem, why should he be a district judge? If his problem is that he is against people because of sexual orientation unfairly, why would he ever be a district judge? So the point is that if he was good enough for a district judge based on his qualifications, why shouldn't we give him an up-or-down vote in a fair way in terms of the court of appeals? So I think what is going on here is that we are trying to replace the discretion of the President and the two Senators from Mississippi to play with a court of appeals nomination of Mississippi in a way that will come back to haunt all of us, and I just wish we wouldn't do it. Give this man an up-or-down vote on the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I understand there is some opposition from African- American elected officials. What I would say to that is, being a son of the South, I am very sensitive to all of this. I have lived all my life in South Carolina, and I understand the sins of the past. They are very real. I can remember growing up. My dad owned a bar where African Americans came into our bar and they had to buy their products to go. I remember that very well as a young man. I see things changing for the better, and we have a long way to go. But what I see here, I say to my good friend from Illinois, is a man who has lived his life very well, who has been part of the solution, not the problem, who has never used the robe to impose arbitrary justice, who is trying to be a constructive member of the Mississippi judicial community, who has worked hard to make something of himself, and he is being accused of something he is not. I do not care where the criticism comes from. What I am going to evaluate is what the facts are about this man. This is a good man, who has been a good judge, who is well qualified, and who is being unfairly labeled based on two cases that are being turned upside down. We are going to ruin the judiciary if we continue to play this game.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will say to my good friend from Missouri that was a well-done presentation. I know how important this topic is to him because of his family's commitment to our military, and he, like many other people in this country, definitely has a vested interest in the outcome in Iraq in terms of family members. The point I would like to make this morning, to build on this theme, is that I passionately believe the outcome in Iraq will not be a neutral event in terms of the overall war on terror, that success in Iraq will not be confined to Iraq in terms of winning the war on terror, and a defeat in Iraq certainly will not be confined to Iraq. It will spill over and empower extremists in the region and throughout the world. The reason I say that is this: Who is the enemy in Iraq? Is this really a civil war? Certainly there are aspects of sectarian violence and people trying to seize political power through militia groups and the use of violence, trying to destroy this democracy and win the day to control Iraq. There are Shia and Sunni groups trying to do that. But the vast majority of Iraqis want to go a different way. They want to live together and try to find some way to reconcile their past differences and not resort to the use of the gun. I do believe there is some hope this will happen--and not just blind hope but realistic progress in Iraq that can be seen if you are willing to look. The challenges are real. The Iraqi central government has failed on many fronts to reconcile the country politically. But, as my colleagues have indicated, the surge, the additional combat power that started in February and has been in place now for about 3 or 4 weeks, has made a dramatic difference in certain parts of Iraq. Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack's article has been often mentioned by Republicans, and they have been critics of the war, but I would just like to say to them, if they happen to be listening: I appreciate your willingness to come back and report progress, and I also understand what you are telling us in your article, that we are a long way from having it right in Iraq and there are many challenges left. The political front has been stagnant, but the military front has moved forward in a very substantial way. The surge, for me, is not so much that we have moved al-Qaida out of Anbar but that the people in Anbar, given a choice, have rejected al- Qaida. The ability to make that choice was provided by the additional combat power coming from the surge. An offensive strategy is now in place, and it has replaced a defensive strategy. The old strategy of training the Iraqi police and military and hiding behind walls simply wasn't working. The new strategy of going out in the communities and living with the Iraqi police and army is paying dividends. Anbar truly has changed in a phenomenal way, as Senator Bond said. You can go to Ramadi now--someplace you couldn't go a few months ago. Again, the Iraqi Sunni residents of Anbar tasted al Qaida's lifestyle, had an experience in terms of what al-Qaida would impose upon their families, and said: No, thank you. And along comes American forces to help them reinforce that choice. The biggest news in Anbar is that 12,000 people joined the local police force in 2007, where there were only 1,000 in 2006. So that means when we do leave--and it is all of our goal to withdraw from Iraq--the goal should be to withdraw with honor and security, and honor means you leave the country without those who helped you fight al-Qaida and other extremists getting slaughtered. I don't think we could leave that country with much honor if we left in a way that allowed those who bravely stepped out and embraced moderation to be killed by the extremists. From a security perspective, it is important that we leave Iraq in a stable situation and that the problems there do not spill over to the other parts of the region and the world at large. Now, whom are we fighting? There are sectarian conflicts. There are power struggles to regain control of Iraq. That is part of the enemy. Al-Qaida is part of the enemy. And al-Qaida is really not limited in controlling Iraq. It is not their goal to take over central Baghdad and run Iraq; their goal, in my opinion, is to come into Iraq and make sure this attempt at moderation and democracy fails. Is there a connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and bin Laden and his organization? About a week ago, President Bush came to Charleston, SC, and spoke at Charleston's Air Force Base. He made a very logical, reasoned case that there is a deep connection between al-Qaida in Iraq and the bin Laden infrastructure. To those who say that al-Qaida in Iraq is really a separate organization with a separate agenda, I think you are not understanding who the major players are and what their agenda includes. No. 1, their agenda is to defeat us in Iraq and drive America out and be able to claim to the rest of the world that they beat us. If you don't believe me, ask Bin Laden or look at what bin Laden says. Bin Laden claimed, ``The Third World war is raging in Iraq.'' Osama Bin Laden says, ``The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and your disgrace forever.'' Well, I think he understands the consequences of a victory by al- Qaida. He also understands the consequences of a defeat by America. The question I have is, Do we understand that? Do we understand what would happen to this country and all forces of moderation in the Mideast and throughout the world if it were perceived that al-Qaida in Iraq was able to drive the United States out of that country and leave it to the warlords of terrorism? Who is al-Qaida in Iraq? The founder of al-Qaida in Iraq was not an Iraqi, it was a Jordanian--al-Zarqawi. He was a Jordanian terrorist. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. After joining Osama bin Laden, he left Afghanistan, after the fall of the Taliban, and went to Iraq. Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined bin Laden, pledging allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to follow his orders in jihad. Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the prince of al-Qaida in Iraq and instructed terrorists in Iraq to listen to him and obey him. Now, to me, that is a pretty serious connection. Beyond Zarqawi, who was from Jordan, bin Laden sent an Egyptian, who was a member of al-Qaida's international infrastructure, to provide support to Zarqawi and leadership. And the President gave a laundry list of international terrorists tied to bin Laden who migrated to Iraq to build up al-Qaida in Iraq. They have the same agenda. The agenda is to defeat moderation where you find it, to try to control as much of the Mideast as possible. And their agenda doesn't just include Iraq. The Gulf States are next and after that Israel, and always us. Now, that is not what I am saying; that is what they say. So I think the President made a very persuasive case that the infrastructure of al-Qaida in Iraq is very much tied to the bin Laden organization. If you don't believe that, come down and let's have a debate about it. Who else is our enemy in Iraq? Iran. This body passed unanimously a resolution authored by Senator Lieberman during the Defense authorization debate, and part of that resolution was a laundry list of activity by Iran, particularly the Quds Force, part of the Revolutionary Guard, in terms of trying to kill Americans in Iraq and destabilize the efforts of building a democracy in Iraq. On February 11, 2007, the U.S. military held a briefing in Baghdad at which its representatives stated that at least 170 members of the U.S. Armed Forces have been killed and at least 620 wounded by weapons tied to Iran. This resolution which we passed was a damning indictment of Iran's involvement in Iraq about training, providing funds, providing weaponry, and bringing Hezbollah agents from Lebanon into Iraq to try to assist extremist groups whose goal it is to kill Americans and to destabilize this effort of democracy. Now, why does al-Qaida come to Iraq? I said before that their biggest nightmare is a moderate form of government where Sunnis and Shias and Kurds and all different groups could live together, accepting their differences, where a woman could have a say about her children by being able to run for office and vote and have a strong voice in society. That is their worst nightmare. Whether we should have gone to Iraq or not is a historical debate. We have made plenty of mistakes after the fall of Baghdad. But the biggest mistake would be not to recognize that Iraq is part of a global struggle. There are sectarian conflicts in Iraq; I acknowledge that. There has been a major failure of political reconciliation; I acknowledge that. The old strategy was not working; I acknowledged that 2 or 3 years ago. The new strategy is providing dividends in terms of defeating al-Qaida in Iraq. The Iraqi people in the Sunni areas have turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. That is good news. Political reconciliation is occurring at the local provincial level. I hope it works its way up. Another aspect of Iraq, to me, which is undeniable--and I understand the challenges, and I think I see the successes for what they are--is that the Iranian Government's involvement in Iraq is major. It is substantial. It is designed to break our will. Their efforts include killing our troops, and they are there to make sure this experiment in democracy fails because Iran's worst nightmare is to have a functioning democracy on their border. So this is part of a global struggle, and the outcome will create momentum one way or the other. I hope the outcome will be a success for moderation and a defeat of extremism. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to thank my good friend from Arkansas. It has been a pleasure working with him and all of my colleagues. Senator Gregg has been working on this issue for many years. Senator Cornyn's addition to the amendment last night has made it far better. If no one else would like to speak----

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma also.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be evenly divided.

Mr. GRAHAM. To be followed by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senators Alexander, Dole, Domenici, and Vitter.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hutchison as a cosponsor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Alabama would like to speak. We have until 11:35. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, would you like 5 minutes?

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to Senator Cornyn to speak on this topic for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. My friend from Montana is correct. The intent of the amendment was to improve our security and increase assets at both the northern and southern borders. amendment no. 2481

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

Mr. GRAHAM. We are where we are as a nation. We have a porous border. Every time a supplemental bill comes through on Iraq, it gets the votes from this body that it needs to become law, because all of us understand, whether we disagree with the policies in Iraq, that once the soldiers and warfighters are there, our troops are there, there are certain things that have to flow from their presence, and we designate a lot of money for the Iraqi operation as emergency spending; I believe rightfully so. Well, I would argue to anybody, Republican or Democrat, that one of the big chinks in our national security armor is a porous border between the United States and Mexico, and this $3 billion will really help in a serious way. It is serious money to deal with a serious problem that is truly an emergency. It will add more boots on the ground. It will add agents for there to be a total of 23,000 border security agents on the border, which is a tremendous increase over what we have now. I think it is like 13,000 or 14,000. But the technology in this bill will be a force multiplier. The technology we spend money to secure will allow the force in place to be multiplied by a factor of many because the technology literally leverages the boots on the ground in a tremendous way. The 45,000 additional bedspaces will stop a program that is really the wrong message to send--catch and release: We catch you. We release you back. You come again. Now we have bedspace to detain people to make sure they do not flee, and they are deported for coming across the borders illegally. It is an effort to basically deal with a problem that has been a long time in the making. There is money that will have a beneficial consequence to securing our borders. The term ``operational control'' is a military term. I look at this effort to secure our borders in many ways as a military operation. I hope this amendment gets a strong bipartisan vote. I understand Senator Voinovich's concern about the emergency designation in spending money offline, but this is one of those times I think it is justified. To the administration, I understand your concerns about spending, but you have sent hundreds of millions of dollars in requests over-- billions of dollars--to the Congress to make sure we have the money necessary to secure Iraq for our troops' point of view. Now it is time to spend $3 billion to secure our borders here at home. I hope the body will understand this is a step forward. It does not solve the problem. We still have a magnet of employment that has to be dealt with. We need a temporary worker program. We need a lot of things this amendment does not cover. But this is a great start in providing operational security to a porous border that in the age of terrorism is really not only an emergency but a national disgrace. I hope the taxpayers at large will see this as a serious effort to do something about a problem which has huge consequences over time if left unaddressed. So I appreciate Senator Reid working with us and Senator Cornyn making it better and my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for helping us move the ball down the road. If this bill ever gets to conference, which I hope it will, I hope this provision is left standing as is because if there is a retreat from this, from the money, and from the designations in this amendment, I think it would be considered a retreat in terms of regaining operational control of our borders. So with that, I believe Senator Pryor wishes to be recognized.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement, we will be talking about an amendment that was discussed last night. Senator Cornyn had some language changes to the amendment that have now been adopted. I believe it makes it a much stronger, better amendment. What we are trying to do here is add $3 billion to go toward securing the border, and I believe that is a homeland security event. So it is certainly an amount of money that is large in nature but goes to something that is large in nature in terms of our national security needs. In terms of Senator Voinovich and his concerns about spending--I admire him greatly. He has been a constant, serious, thoughtful voice about controlling spending. This is an emergency designation, which means it is an off-budget item. I think Senator Voinovich has every right in the world to be concerned about how the Congress is spending money in a way for the next generation to pick up the bill, but I would argue there is a time for emergencies in business life and personal life and legislative life, and this is one of those times. This is an emergency kind of manufactured by Washington. It is something that should have been done 20 years ago. Now we have taken up immigration in a serious way. We had an extensive debate not long ago, and we were not able to get comprehensive immigration reform, but I think most Americans believe losing operational control of the U.S.- Mexican border is a national security issue of a serious nature, and they applaud our efforts to put money into securing the border between the United States and Mexico. That is exactly what this amendment does. If there were ever a legitimate emergency in this country, I think this would be one of those times because we have lost control of our border. In the age of terrorism, what does it mean for a nation like the United States, which is being pursued by a vicious enemy that knows no boundaries, to lose control of its border? It means that you are opening yourself up to attack. Now, most of the people who come across the border come here to work. This amendment does not deal with that. Hopefully, it will slow down how you get into the country. Hopefully, it will control who comes into the country-- people coming to work illegally or people coming across the border to do us harm, it would make it more difficult. But the idea of employment and the magnet of employment is not addressed by this amendment. We need a temporary worker program. We need employer verification systems so people cannot come here and fraudulently get jobs. That is not dealt with in this amendment. But this amendment is a great first step to controlling people coming across our border and overstaying their visas. I think it is a step that will get a large bipartisan vote. What does it do? The $3 billion in emergency spending will allow us to hire 23,000 Border Patrol agents to go report for duty; more boots on the ground, more people patrolling our border making it harder for somebody to come across illegally. We should have done this a long time ago. This amendment allows the hiring of a substantially larger number of Border Patrol agents, four unmanned aerial vehicles that will allow us to patrol isolated areas of the border by having new technology in place--the unmanned aerial vehicle has been a very effective tool in controlling illegal border crossings--one hundred and five ground-based radar and camera towers. We need walls along the border in urban areas where you can walk across the street, but technology in the desert and other areas of the border has proven to be a good investment. This amendment seriously increases the amount of technology to detect illegal border crossings; 300 miles of vehicle barriers, where people can drive up and down the border with vehicle lanes, where the Border Patrol can patrol that area in question and make it a more effective policing regime; 700 miles of border fence. We have approved the fencing. This would actually completely fund 700 miles of fencing. The border is, I believe, over 2,000 miles. Why 700 miles? Seven hundred miles would allow us to control crossings where you can literally walk across the street. The technology we are putting into place through this amendment will control other areas. The additional boots on the ground will help in all phases. On the catch-and-release program, where you catch someone, turn them loose, and they come right back, well, we are trying to deal with that problem by increasing detention beds to 45,000, so when we catch someone, we can detain them and deport them--without them never showing up to their hearing. The Cornyn addition will allow this $3 billion to be used in interior enforcement in a way to go after people who have absconded, who have been deported, who have been issued orders but have left and they are on the run. We can track them down and bring them to justice. Overall, this amendment is money well spent. I am sorry it has to be spent in an emergency fashion, but it is an emergency. The reason this is an emergency, we have let it get out of hand. The goal of this amendment is operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2480 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I understand Senator Sessions wishes to speak. He is on the way. As soon as he gets here, we will gladly yield back any time that is remaining. I wish to make a couple comments about the amendment. No. 1, in terms of spending, it is one of those situations where the country finds itself in an emergency that maybe shouldn't have been an emergency to begin with because we have neglected our border security obligations. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Specter, Coleman, and Lincoln as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement the remaining time will be controlled by myself and the Senator from Arkansas; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment builds a little bit on what Senator Byrd is talking about. How the threats to the Nation are real, how to handle those threats, how much money we need, and where to put the money are all honest and genuine debates. But I think we found some common ground here as a nation from the last immigration debate. Senator Judd Gregg has been one of the leading advocates for stronger border security since I have been in the Senate. During the last immigration debate in terms of a comprehensive approach to solving immigration policy, one of the things we seemed to find common ground on was the idea of providing additional border security. So the amendment I have just offered, which will be cosponsored by Senators Gregg, Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn, McConnell, Domenici, McCain, Sununu, Martinez, Coleman, Specter, and many others, seeks to build on what we did in the last debate--to make it a reality in the area in which we have common ground. The amendment has $3 billion in terms of spending, emergency funding. I would argue that the border security situation in this country and visa overstays are emergencies and that we have lost operational control of our border. We have lost the ability to track people who come here on visas in terms of when their visas expire and whether they left, and we will pay a heavy price, not only economically and socially but from a national security perspective. Of the ``Fort Dix Six'' people who were caught conspiring to attack Fort Dix, NJ, I think three overstayed their visas and three came across the border illegally earlier on in their life. So this amendment puts the Senate and the American people's money where our mouth has been, and $3 billion will go a long way. The goal of this amendment is to provide complete operational control of the U.S.-Mexican border. It will increase the number of Border Patrol agents to 23,000. It will allow us to appropriate four new unmanned aerial vehicles, 105 ground-based radar camera towers, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 700 miles of border fencing, and a permanent end to the catch-and-release policy with 45,000 new detention beds. This is a comprehensive border security amendment. It also authorizes things we need to have authorized from the last debate where we were not able to pass a comprehensive bill. It takes some of the stronger border security measures and makes them part of this amendment. As I said, it will increase the number of border security agents to 23,000. It adds 14,500 new Customs Border Patrol agents through fiscal year 2012, increasing the overall number to 30,000. The Sanctuary City problem Senator Coburn identified--he has modified his original proposal, and that is in this amendment. This amendment authorizes a continued National Guard presence. It strengthens our laws to deny immigration benefits to aggravated felons, gang members, sex offenders, and child abusers. It really goes into our law and cleans up what is pretty much a mess by making sure we have the ability to detain and deport people who are dangerous, who have been convicted of serious offenses. It gives State and local law enforcement authorities the ability to detain illegal aliens and transfer them to the Department of Homeland Security. It basically allows them to take money from Homeland Security grants and apply it to the cost of detaining and turning over illegal immigrants they may run into and apprehend. As to visa overstayers, the 19 hijackers who came into America who perpetrated the acts of 9/11, I believe all of them--if not all of them, most of them--were visa overstayers. Forty percent of the illegal aliens in this country never come across the border; they overstay their visa. This will allow the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a tracking system to better identify visa overstayers, who have proven to be in the past some of the most dangerous people in terms of threat to the homeland. It will allow the agency to coordinate with local law enforcement mandatory detention and deportation. It also gets tough on those who keep coming back across the border. There is this catch-and-release concept which needs to end. That is why we have 45,000 new bedspaces to detain people, give them the hearings required by law, and under this amendment, if you are caught coming back into the country after you have been deported, it has mandatory jail time. One reason we have 12 million people here is that no one seems to take our laws too seriously, including ourselves. So now it is time to tell the world at large and those who would violate our laws that there will be a price to be paid, unlike the current system; that if you are caught coming back into the country after you have been deported, there will be mandatory jail time. This has been tried in some areas of the border, and it has been enormously successful. There are many parts in this bill regarding employment eligibility and verification. The pilot program to have biometric cards to determine employment will be expanded, and those who tell us about possible threats to our Nation's transportation system or homeland, we are going to protect them from civil lawsuits. If you are trying to identify a problem and you call your government and say: I think there is a problem here, we are going to make sure you don't get sued for doing your civic duty. So it is a comprehensive approach. It is a $3 billion dollar appropriation, and within that appropriation, we have some change in policy that will secure the homeland in a better fashion than the current system does. If this is not an emergency, I don't know what would be in terms of our national security interests. The one thing the Congress--the Senate and the House--should agree on immediately, in my opinion, is gaining operational control, regaining operational control of our border and controlling the visa program that allows millions of people over time to come to the United States. I would just make one point here. Rahm Emanuel, one of the Democratic House leaders, was quoted recently as saying that his party will not attempt comprehensive immigration reform until at least the second term of a prospective Democratic President. That is a chilling statement. I think that is a very dangerous thing to be saying at a time when our Nation is under siege, and to suggest to the American people that the Democratic leadership in the House is going to put this topic off until the second term of a prospective Democratic President misses the point and really, literally, misses the boat. This is an emergency if there ever was one, and the idea of putting this off for 6 or 7 more years I think would be a national security nightmare. It would be an economic and social mistake for the ages in terms of the role the Congress would play. So I urge my colleagues in the Senate not to go down the road that Congressman Emanuel has laid out for the Democratic-controlled House; that is, putting this whole discussion off until the second term of a prospective Democratic President. I couldn't find a better issue to show difference between myself and my colleagues in the House at the Democratic leadership level than this issue. Not only should we do this now on this bill at this moment, we should have done this years ago. This is one of the issues facing the American people where there is broad consensus by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People want operational control of their borders. They want more money spent to secure their borders and to control who comes to the country, and for those who violate our laws and commit crimes, a better process to detain them and deport them. That is exactly what this amendment does. I believe our thinking on this amendment is very much in line with the American people. They see this very much as something we should have done a long time ago. Let's not forgo this opportunity. We tried just a few weeks ago, and that failed; a chance of having comprehensive reform failed. I feel an obligation to join forces with people who were disagreeing with me on a comprehensive approach to find common ground. I think the country is urging us to find that common ground. I believe this is a great place to start. The Border Security First Act of 2007 has been a product that has been bipartisan in nature. It is a collaborative effort between people who have a common view of our border security needs, and it is good legislation. It is needed money at the right time. It is policy changes that will make us safer as a nation. I would like to recognize Senator Judd Gregg's efforts over many years to push the administration--and the Senate particularly--to deal better with the lack of control on our borders. I look forward to talking about this amendment further. I appreciate all the cosponsors and the effort to do something constructive now. Let's, for heaven's sake, not wait 6 more years before we do something. Let's seize the moment, and the moment is now. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, a bit later I will be calling up an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill pending before the Senate. I would like a moment, if I could----