Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe Senator Kyl has 19 minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 8 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, we will put Senator Kennedy down in the ``undecided'' column on this issue, but I was very much persuaded by his argument. The goal is to create a balance that will allow this country to move forward and not replicate the problems of the past, allow us to move forward and learn from our mistakes of the past, allow us to move forward in the best traditions of this country, and allow us to move forward in order to be competitive in a global economy. The temporary worker program is one of the key elements of this bill. Why do we have 12 million people, plus, probably, here illegally? I think most of them came, hopefully they all came, not to destroy America but to earn more money here than they could in their home area. The problem is they are doing it illegally. They are subject to being exploited. There are no controls over how these people are being treated. There is no control over how they are paying taxes. It is a lose-lose. It is a losing situation for the economy and it is a losing situation for the worker. If we do away with the temporary worker program, the only thing I can promise you for sure is the next Congress and the next generation of political leaders will look back on our time in shame. They will be cursing us because we failed to rise to the occasion and to logically deal with a problem that is crying out for a solution. Providing a temporary worker program allows people from other parts of the world to make their life better on our terms. They will pay taxes. They won't be exploited. And before they get one of these jobs, we will have to advertise it in the area in question to American citizens. Only when an American citizen refuses to do a job in question can the temporary worker be hired, and at a competitive wage in order to take care of our people and also to take care of our economy. This is a win-win. People from other places in the world can come through in an orderly process, get a tamperproof card, so we will know who they are. They will have a visa where they will never have to worry about being afraid of the law while they are here, as long as they obey the law. They can do jobs American workers are not doing at a competitive wage. That is a blessing to this country. Everybody in the world doesn't want to come here to get a green card. There are a lot of people who want to come for a temporary period of time and improve themselves and go back and improve the country from whence they came. If we want to be competitive, we need to have the workforce vis-a-vis the rest of the world to make us competitive. If you take the temporary worker program out of the mix, then you are going to ensure in the future more illegal immigration. If you don't have a temporary worker program that is regulated, you are going to ensure exploitation. From the economic side and the humanitarian side, we need to do this. If this amendment would somehow pass, then we will have repeated the fundamental mistake of the past. We will not have fixed a thing, and we will have ensured that more people will come here illegally, because the magnet will still attract them. We will ensure they get exploited, and we will hurt our economy because we can't regulate this workforce. The Y card will be tamper proof. People will have to give a fingerprint; they will have to sign up; they will be regulated in terms of how they are treated; they will be paid a competitive wage, and we will know where they are and what they are up to; and we will allow them to work here and go back to where they came three different times, 6 out of 8 years, to better themselves. If they want to be a citizen, they can apply for a green card. The more points they earn during their temporary worker period, the more competitive they will be. If they go to school at night, as my good friend Ken Salazar has suggested, if they get a certificate in an employment area and learn a skill, they will get points. If they get a GED, if they work hard during the day and improve themselves at night, then they get rewarded. Let me tell you about the individuals we are talking about. They work hard. Neither one of my parents graduated high school. They started a small business, a restaurant, where they opened before the sun was up and closed at 10 o'clock at night. They worked like dogs. When they were sick, they went to work, because there was nobody there to take their place. The people we are talking about here are coming from other parts of the world and who are good workers. I am confident they will have a chance to prove their worth to our country, add to our economy, and make us a better nation. Some of them will want to become citizens, and they can. We need the Ph.Ds from India and other places, but we also need people like my parents, who will come and work hard, play by the rules, better themselves, and find a niche in our economy. Without a temporary worker program, we are going to ensure people come here in fear, live in fear, get exploited, and don't contribute to our economy. This bill is as balanced as I know how to make it. I am always openminded to better ideas, but I am close-minded when it comes to destroying it. A temporary worker program is the key to not repeating the mistakes of the past, which is exploitation, not controlling who comes here, not having economic control over your workforce, and leaving people to be exploited. If it stays a part of this bill, we all can hold our heads up high and say we created a win-win situation that says to the hard-working person, who looks to America as a place to start a new life, to learn a skill, to improve themselves, there will be a place for you. Those who want to stay after their temporary worker period is over, you can get points to stay, and the more you do, the more you better yourself, the better chance you will have. To me, it is exactly what we have needed for years. My good friends, Senator Kennedy and Senator Salazar, and so many others, have sat down and tried to make this temporary worker program meet our economic needs and be humanitarian in its application. I think we have done a darned good job. For the sake of this country and all we stand for, let us keep this bill moving forward. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, that would be fine. My 10 minutes will come from Senator Kennedy's time. Is that OK?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Martinez. I am in the fifth year of my first term, and we are finally dealing with an issue I think the country would love to have dealt with years ago. We are on the verge of doing something big and important. There are many reasons why you never do the big things and the hard things. That is why they stay unresolved. The country is running out of time on this particular issue to think of reasons why we won't solve this problem. Before 9/11, I would argue illegal immigration was a social and economic problem. After 9/11, I would argue it is a national security problem. We have millions of people in our country roaming around and we do not know who they are or what they are up to. The good news is most of them are here, unfortunately illegally, to work and to try to make something of themselves and add value to our country. It is clear from Fort Dix, NJ--and maybe other things to come--some people are here illegally who are up to no good. They want to hurt us. The hijackers on 9/11--all of them came here. Most of them overstayed their visas. They did not come across the border. They had four or five fake drivers licences. It should be a wake-up call to this country we have people in our midst and we do not know who they are and there is no way to find out who they are. One thing every Member of the Senate, I hope, will agree upon is that if you wanted to, you could get a Social Security card made by midnight tonight somewhere that would pass for the real thing. When you drive by a construction site, and you see people working who are Hispanic or other folks you think are here from outside the country, I bet you every employer has documentation on file that appears to be legal. It is almost a nightmare for employers to comply with the current system. People tell me, enforce the law. If you can enforce this law, you are doing better than anybody since 1986. There is a reason this has happened. Why do 12 million people come here? Because we do not have a way to bring people here legally so they can work in a legal status. There are not enough Americans doing these jobs. Unemployment is below 5 percent. It is illogical to say this illegal workforce has driven Americans out of work. We are at historically low unemployment. We need workers. But what we need more than anything else is we need to be able to secure our border, control who comes, on our terms, and have verifiable information about what status you are in. Because if we do not do that, then what happened on 9/11 is more likely to happen again. So there are many reasons to say no to this bill. There are many reasons to say no to someone else's proposal. But there is no good reason to not solve this problem. I do hope those who come down on the floor to amend this bill, to make it better, will lead us to a better solution. Those who come down on the floor with a goal of taking this bill down, I hope you feel some obligation to substitute it with something else that could pass. Democracy is a wonderful thing. When I was at my State convention, a lady told me: I don't like compromise. I said: Well, don't run for office. Because this is all about compromising. Isn't it, Senator Kennedy? It is. What I like about my country is that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents historically have been able to do the hard things to make us a better nation. I say to my friend from Florida, Senator Martinez, you have been a delight to work with. Breaking the law is something that has occurred in large proportion when it comes to immigration. The reason people have been breaking the law to this extent is the rest of us have not been that excited about enforcing it. I think the rest of us have sort of looked the other way and allowed the illegal immigration problem to grow because we have not asked the hard questions about: Where are all these people coming from? And what are they doing? There are lots of people, to their credit, who have been very upset about this issue for a very long time. I think many people in this country have gotten the benefit of this illegal workforce in terms of the labor and have sort of turned their eye, and now everybody is looking at it anew. To those who have been shouting from the rooftops that the immigration system is broken, you have done us a great service. To those who believe illegal immigration is a national security threat, an economic threat, and a social threat, you have done us a great service. But you are not going to do us a great service if you only shout about the problem. I want you to do more than tell me it is broken and it needs to be fixed. I want you to do more than just say: Lindsey Graham and Ken Salazar have it wrong. I want you to do what we have done. That is the only thing I ask of any of my colleagues: Sit down with a Democrat and Republican and try to fix it--and good luck because it is hard. You are right to come here and amend this bill and change it, and to take the floor and tell us why we have it wrong. I will listen. If we can fix it, we will. But do more than just tell me where I am wrong. Do more than just tell the American public we have to do something about this illegal immigration problem. Do more than just shout ``amnesty.'' If you think saying ``amnesty'' absolves you from having to participate in this debate, you are wrong. This debate is about the future of the United States when it comes to our national security, our employment needs, our ability to compete with the world for the labor force that exists. At the heart of this debate, it is about who we are as a people. Now, tomorrow, I am going to read a report issued by the Government about immigrants. Some of it is very tough. Let me give you a preview: As a class, the new immigrants are largely unskilled laborers coming from countries where the highest wage is small compared to the lowest wage in the United States. They bring little money into the country and they send or take a considerable part of their earnings out. More than 35 percent are illiterate as compared with less than 3 percent of the old immigrant class. The new immigration movement is very large. There are few if any indications of its natural abatement. The new immigration coming in in such large numbers has provoked a widespread feeling of apprehension to its effect on the economic and social welfare of the country. They usually live in cooperative groups and crowd together. Consequently, they have been able to save a greater part of their earnings, much of which is sent or carried abroad. Moreover, there is a strong tendency on the part of the unaccompanied men to return to their native countries after a few years of labor here. These groups have little or no contact with American life, learn little of American institutions, and aside from the wages earned, profit little by their stay in the country. Unquestionably, the hordes of immigrants that are coming here have a good deal to do with crimes against women and children. You will notice these particular crimes are done by fellows who can't talk the English language. Now, this is a Government report about the effect of immigrants, the new immigrants, on our country. These quotes were taken in 1910 from the Dillingham Report, and one of the Senators on that commission was from South Carolina. It went on, and I will talk more about it, to talk about how these immigrants are ruining America. They live among themselves. They have disease. They won't learn our language. They commit crimes. They are a burden on society, and we need to do something about it. The report was begun in 1910, it was finally issued in 1913. The people they were talking about became the ``greatest generation.'' Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. What is the status of the time allocation?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes, and afterwards I add to that Senator Martinez be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the Presiding Officer let me know when 10 minutes have passed?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have 30 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The President will veto this measure. He should. It is one of the worst ideas to ever come out of the Congress in the history of warfare that the United States has been engaged in. It sets a date for withdrawal. I think it is October. It intrudes on the President's Commander in Chief role. It is letting the enemy know exactly what they have to do in terms of date and time to win in Iraq. Everyone who dies waiting on the time to pass, what have they died for? What have they been injured for? What I would like to point out is that we should talk about those who have lost their lives in Iraq wearing the uniform, and civilians included, who have been serving our country. But we shouldn't use their deaths as a reason to withdraw from a war we can't afford to lose--and we have not lost. We should be honoring their service and their sacrifice, their ultimate sacrifice, because they are standing for our national security interests. Why do they serve? Why do they go to Iraq? Why do they keep reenlisting in the Iraqi theater and the Afghan theater at a higher rate than the military as a whole? What do they see about Iraq that people here in the Senate are blinded to? Why would they keep going back to a war they believe is lost? Why would they go three and four times? Why would they enlist at levels beyond any other group in the military? Because they know after having gone that if we win in Iraq, their children, their grandchildren, the Nation as a whole is more secure. And if we lose in Iraq, the war is not over, it just gets bigger, and the likelihood of their children being involved in a war in the Middle East goes up, not down. So that is why they go. That is why they are not withdrawing. That is why enlistments are up, not down, because they get it. The Senate doesn't get it. The Democratic leadership doesn't get it at all. Blinded by a dislike of this President, they can't see clearly what is going on in Iraq. Whether we should have gone or not is over; we are there. There are other people who are there who would like to win this war. Al-Qaida is there in large numbers, trying to kill this infant democracy, because they know if a democracy can flourish in Iraq, their agenda has taken a mighty blow. How are they trying to drive us out? By killing civilians and coalition forces in as large a number as they can muster. So is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States when it comes to fighting terrorism that if they can kill enough of us-- whatever that magic number is--we leave? You win? Do you think for one moment declaring Iraq lost makes us safer? There is sectarian violence in Iraq, but there are plenty of people of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish persuasions that want the same thing for Iraq that we want. There are Shia extremists who want to align with Iran. There are Sunni extremists who want to come back in power and have the good old days of Saddam. They are in the minority. There is not open civil war in this country. There are extremists groups representing the Sunni and the Shia sects that are trying to change Iraq for their purposes, bend Iraq to their will, against the majority of Iraqis, and in the middle of these sects is al-Qaida. In the middle of these sects is Iran. Why is Iran playing so hard in Iraq? The biggest nightmare to this Iranian theocracy would be a democracy on their border, where different groups would live together, where a woman could have a say about her children, where people could vote for their leaders, not be dictated to from on high. That is why they are playing in Iraq. That is why al- Qaida is there. The question is, Why do we want to leave? It is tough to watch young Americans killed and maimed in war, but we didn't start this war. War is inevitably about young people getting hurt and getting killed. That is why the world--after so many thousands of years, it seems as if mankind would have learned that war is not the way, but we haven't learned that lesson as mankind. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, there will never be a surrender document negotiated with them. Iraq was about replacing a dictator who was trying to make a joke of U.N. inspections, trying to make the world and his neighbors believe that he was acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It was a dictatorship that was sending money to suicide bomber families in Palestine. It was a dictatorship that was making everything in the Middle East harder. It was a dictatorship that was shooting at American airplanes every day in violations of U.N. agreements. It was a dictatorship that is now in the ash dump of history. From this dictatorship we are trying to do something new and different for the Mideast, and it will inure to our benefit greatly as a nation: create the ability of different people from different backgrounds to vote for their leaders, to live under the rule of law, and not the rule of the gun. That makes us safer. It changes the Mideast, and it is a great blow to the terrorists. That is why they enlist. That is why they keep reenlisting. That is why they are dying. Now, our majority leader, Senator Reid, who is a fine fellow, and I have enjoyed working with him, has made a colossal mistake for the ages by declaring this war lost. Not only does it run against the grain of the way Americans feel about combat when our Nation is at war, it runs against the reality of the consequences of having declared the war lost. To me, it shows a lack of understanding of what that statement means because when you say the war is lost, the next question to ask is, if we lost, who won? In war, there are winners and there are losers, and if the majority leader has declared us the loser, then the question needs to be asked by the world and this country: Who won that war in Iraq? Well, I will tell you who will claim credit for winning the war in Iraq--al-Qaida. They will put on their Web site and in their propaganda to anybody who will listen: We won in Iraq. I guarantee you, if we lost, they won. Do you feel comfortable with that as a Senator representing the United States of America? I don't. Who else won, if we lost? The Shia extremists who are trying to turn Iraq into a theocracy aligned with Iran. Does that satisfy you as a United States Senator? Is that OK with you? It is certainly not OK with me. The Sunni extremists, they won, the ones who are trying to take Iraq back to the good old days of Saddam. Who are the biggest losers beyond us? We know who the winners are, the extremists in Iraq and al-Qaida, the ultimate extreme group. If you believe giving these groups Iraq makes us safer, you know nothing about human behavior or history as a whole. This is not Vietnam, I say to my colleagues. This is the 1930s all over again where we have world leaders trying to appease a tyrant--give him Czechoslovakia, give him one more country, him being Hitler. Did that satisfy his appetite? The moral of the story is that when we let tyranny go unchecked, when we give into the dark forces of humanity, when we allow people who slaughter the innocent to win wars, we don't end their desire, we whet their appetite. We have not lost this war. We will never lose this war as long as we have the will to win. If we have half the political courage as those who reenlist and go back three and four times, or the physical courage, there is nothing we can't accomplish in Iraq. Some people worry about their next election, and they are trying to get right with the polls. My focus is on those who reenlist time and again and who are literally sacrificing everything they have to offer to their family and to their country. So when we mention the death of someone wearing the uniform in the service of our Nation as a reason to withdraw from a war we cannot afford to lose, shame on this body. This bill will be vetoed. This new general, General Petraeus, is committed to winning, has a plan to win, and the question is, Are we going to undercut him? If you passed the legislation and this legislation went to the President's desk and he did not veto it, then you would be cutting the legs out from under General Petraeus. You would be making everything that he is doing impossible to accomplish because you would change the dynamics on the ground so he would have no chance. And, yes, it is working. Violence is part of the 21st century. Israel lives with this every day. They don't let suicide bombers define the fate of Israel. Are we going to let suicide bombers define the foreign policy of the United States? If we give them Iraq, you better double the size of the military because we are going to go back with a bigger war, not a smaller war. So I hope once the President vetoes it, we will understand that this new general with a new strategy is our best chance for success--with no guarantee because we have made so many mistakes in the past. The biggest mistake was not having enough people to secure the country. If we want political reconciliation, which we know we have to achieve to win in Iraq, how can we have it without security? Why don't we have security? We let the country get out of control. We didn't have enough troops on the ground or enough capacity to train and fight. We are doubling the size of the combat capability in Baghdad, and it is working. Mr. President, 16 of the 21 sheiks in Anbar Province have rejected al-Qaida and aligned with us. Six months ago, Al Anbar Province, where the Sunnis live, I would have written off. But now it is the greatest success story of the new strategy. We are still losing people in Anbar, but we are fighting along with the sheiks to combat al-Qaida because they have seen what al-Qaida holds for them and they have said, no, they don't want to live under the al-Qaida banner. They have tasted it and it doesn't taste well. They are coming our way. Four thousand marines in Anbar province are making a huge difference. The sheiks, the tribal leaders, called for the young people of Anbar Province to join the police--before, we could not get anybody to join the Iraqi police--and they came in such large numbers that hundreds were turned away because we could not process them. Diyala is a result of success in Baghdad. Al-Sadr left Sadr City because we are in there now and are going to places we have never gone before. The mayor of Sadr City aligned with us, and they tried to kill him. He is in the hospital clinging to life. He tasted what the Shia extremists had for his people, the Shia, and he said no. The only people I know of right now who seem to believe walking away from the fight in Iraq doesn't have severe consequences for the world are the ones in this body. I cannot envision a failed state in Iraq leading to a more secure United States. I cannot envision walking away from Iraq, declaring the war lost, not empowering al-Qaida beyond any other single event that we have engaged in since 9/11. The consequences of destroying General Petraeus's chance to be successful are enormous for the national security interests of this country. Declaring a war lost by the Senate majority leader is unprecedented, ill-advised, and it is something we need to quickly correct because if we have lost, the people who will claim victory are our worst nightmare. We will be sending young men and women back to the Middle East to fight extremism in other countries as far as the eye can see or we can give this new general a chance to be successful, give him the time, the money, and the resources he needs to be successful, honor each death as a noble sacrifice for the cause of our freedom--for our own freedom, for the alignment of moderation against extremism--or we can let the car bomber and the suicide bomber drive us out of Iraq. We can let them dictate our foreign policy. If we do that, we can come back home thinking we are safe, but we will have unleashed Pandora's box. The Gulf States are next if we lose in Iraq, and then eventually Israel. The consequences to our national security interests could not be greater. Americans understood what it was like to live without freedom 200 years ago. That is why they died for it. There are people in the Mideast getting a taste of it. Let's side with those who believe in freedom against those who want to take us to the dark ages. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Dr. Gerald E. Harmon, MD, on the occasion of his retirement from the South Carolina Air National Guard, SCANG. A native South Carolinian, ``Gamecock Doc'' joined the military in 1973 as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force, USAF after graduating from the University of South Carolina USC. He began studying medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina through the Air Force Health Professions Scholarship Program achieving his M.D. in 1976. Dr. Harmon completed his family practice residency at Eglin AFB in Florida. After fulfilling several USAF flight surgeon assignments in Texas and South Carolina, he transferred to the SCANG to serve as the commander of the 169th Tactical Clinic at McEntire Joint National Guard Base. Under his leadership, his unit was twice awarded the SCANG Outstanding Unit award and received ``Excellent'' evaluations by the USAF Inspection Agency. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush recognized Dr. Harmon for his medical humanitarian work in Africa, and both in 1998 and 2003 the South Carolina General Assembly recognized him as the Doctor of the Day for his unselfish duty and devotion to the medical profession. Dr. Harmon was also a recipient of the American Heart Association Research Grant at the USC School of Medicine and was recognized as the Air National Guard's 1993 National Physician of the Year. Over the last 7 years, Dr. Harmon served as the Air National Guard Assistant Surgeon General for the USAF providing critical advice and information on Air National Guard medical activities to the United States' Surgeon General. Part of his responsibilities included coordinating medical policies, plans, and programs for the Air National Guard. Dr. Harmon is the first South Carolinian to serve as the Air National Guard Assistant Surgeon General. Dr. Harmon is currently a family practitioner the Waccamaw Medical Center on Pawleys Island, where he and his wife of 35 years reside. He is also President-elect of the South Carolina Medical Association having served on its board directors for many years. A true patriot and a fine American, Dr. Harmon formally retired as a major general with over 700 flying hours on February 16, 2007. His military career will forever be marked by his extraordinary vision, sacrifice, and community spirit. I wish Dr. Harmon the very best in his retirement and ask that the Senate join me in thanking him for his service.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 118, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I have no objection. I wish to make a request. Is it possible for me to speak for 5 to 10 minutes before 2:30, after the Senator from California speaks?

Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this bill is moving along very fast, and I compliment the majority and minority leaders for allowing the process to move forward in a quick fashion, because we understand the outcome. The bill most likely will pass in its current form, maybe with some changes, but at the end of the day, it will be vetoed. I was listening earlier in the day to Senators Hagel and Webb discuss an amendment they had proposed. I am not sure whether it is germane, but the two Senators, who do deserve the respect of everyone in this body because they have been in combat, they have been in harm's way, had an amendment talking about force structure, how you would change the rotations, and the concerns this war has placed on the military. Well, those concerns are real, and I understand what they are trying to achieve there. The reason I wanted to speak before we went to final passage is I know why the veto is coming. There are two components to this bill that the President should veto the bill over: No. 1, the restrictions we are placing on our military, and the deadlines and the timelines and the benchmarks all add up to making it impossible for the new strategy of General Petraeus to be successful, if it became law. This is a constitutional encroachment upon the power of the Commander in Chief which I believe is unprecedented. There is an honorable path for Congress to take; that is, just stop funding a war that you think is lost. But the combination of deadlines, benchmarks, timelines, and micromanaging troop rotations all adds up to Congress really taking over wartime activity in a way that was never envisioned before. I don't think any other commander is going to have to go through what General Petraeus would have to go through if we did pass this bill and it were not vetoed. I have been a military lawyer for 20-some years. The combat folks in here have been in harm's way. As a military lawyer, I have had some clients who wanted to kill me, but that is about it. So my hat is off to the warfighters. I have been in a support role, and there are thousands of doctors and nurses and lawyers and other support personnel serving in Iraq, and they are very much needed. There is no front line in Iraq or Afghanistan, so my hat is off to all of them. But the warfighter's point of view is what we need to be thinking about. From the commander's point of view, General Petraeus has been assigned to a mission. He has come up with a new doctrine. Even the worst critic cannot say it is not something new. It is clearly something new. Whether it works I can't promise, but I think it has a good chance and there are early signs of success. It is making up for past mistakes. The President is going to veto this bill because Congress has come up with a constitutional construct that, if allowed to exist, I believe would create dangers for future Commanders in Chief and future wars that are just unnecessary. I know the political moment for Iraq is not popular. I know people are frustrated and upset and we have made tons of mistakes, but the biggest mistake would be to throw the constitutional balance we have enjoyed for 200 years out of kilter and try to take over this war in a way we are not built to take over as a Congress. There is a way to cut off this funding. We just haven't chosen to go down that road, and I don't know why. If you think it is lost, then that is the road to go down. The second part of the bill that has met with objection is the number of projects unrelated to the war--for lack of a better word, porkbarrel spending. And it may not be porkbarrel spending. Some of these projects are probably very worthy. I just don't believe this is the way to fund them. The emergency supplemental appropriations process for the war is needed, but we shouldn't have an emergency appropriation. This war has been going on for 4 years, so hopefully next year we will not find ourselves in this spot. If we do not get the funds over to our commanders and into the DOD pipeline, then readiness is hurt, the ability to prosecute the war is compromised beginning April 15, and every month thereafter, it gets more difficult. So the President is going to veto the bill for two sound reasons. The construct Congress has created is taking the Congress in an area we have never gone before that I believe would be devastating to future wars. It would undermine General Petraeus' ability to be successful in his mission. The spending practices this bill embraces is what has put Congress in such low standing with the American public. Republicans lost for a reason. We didn't treat the process in a respectful way. Our Democratic friends, with some Republican help, are making the problem worse when it comes to fiscal matters. So I do hope that once the veto is rendered we can find a way to get the money to the troops who are desperately in need of it over time, and we can find a way to come together and give General Petraeus a decent opportunity to turn Iraq around. I end on this note. What drives my thinking and what makes me disagree with Senator Webb and Senator Hagel--people who have experienced combat--is that I believe the outcome in Iraq is part of the overall war on terror. If we lose in Iraq--and I think this bill would ensure a loss if it ever became law--the ripple effect is catastrophic; the war gets bigger, not smaller. A failed state in Iraq is a huge loss in the war on terror. It compromises our national security for decades. That is the way I see it, and I will take every vote in this body viewing Iraq as a central battlefront in the war on terror, one we cannot afford to lose. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I understand I have 7 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would like to associate myself with the comments of Senator McCain about what is going on on the ground in Iraq. I thought he did an excellent job of explaining that this new strategy is just what it is described as being--new. We are not sending more people to do the same old thing. It is a fundamentally different approach to how we handle the situation in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is the result of not having enough forces on the ground in the early parts of the war. The security environment in Iraq got out of control. The terrorists seized an opportunity to divide the Iraqis by bombing the Samarra mosque, the third most holy site in the Shia region in Samarra. Ever since then, we have been in a conflict between Shias and Sunnis in Baghdad. Anbar has always been about Sunni insurgents trying to topple this infant democracy, and it has been the place where al-Qaida has been hiding. The progress is that the Sunni insurgency--the tribal chiefs are beginning to understand that their lives are better with the unified Iraq; that if they can share in the oil revenues of the country, future Sunni generations will be benefited. I think Shias are beginning to understand that to reject Al-Sadr--his view of Iraq becoming a Shia theocracy is not going to be accepted by people in the neighborhood and other folks living in Iraq. So I think every group is beginning to understand that through political reconciliation, they have a better, brighter future. The way to get political reconciliation is to control the violence. That is why we need more troops, more troops to hold areas previously cleared, to buy time for political reconciliation and economic progress, and the early indications are that it is working. Now, what is not working. The Congress is not working. I think the Congress is about to make history in all of the wrong ways. Do we really want to be the first Congress--maybe ever in the history of the country, that I am aware of--that would, by congressional enactment, set a hard date to withdraw from a war in Iraq with which our vital national security interests as Americans are intertwined? What are the consequences of leaving in March or any other date in 2008? What happens when we leave? No one who is offering these amendments has really thought that through. I do believe that a failed State in Iraq jeopardizes our national security interests for decades, is a loss in the war on terror, is an empowering event for extremists, a death blow to moderation, and that we need to see this through by changing course, and this is exactly what we are doing. Setting a timeline for withdrawal is saying you have no confidence in General Petraeus to execute the plan we sent him to execute. It is saying we have no confidence in our military to deliver, because the day you set that date, you are going to freeze political reconciliation. People are not going to do deals the same way when they know America is going to leave at a certain date because what happens when America leaves will be thought of in terms of the consequences of a particular deal. If we leave and Iraq is in chaos, the police and the army are unable to deal with the wolves of terrorism, then they are overwhelmed, the country breaks apart, and the regional consequences and the consequences to the world are monumental, in my opinion. The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. It should be the first rule of politics. And we have done harm with our Iraqi strategy. We have assumed the best and never planned for the worst. Whatever mistakes the Bush team has made, and there are many, the Congress is about to make the greatest mistake of all; that is, to tell the enemy what they have to do to get us out of Iraq on their terms, not ours. It is a death blow to moderation. Who in the Mideast will try to come together knowing that the United States cannot be counted on? What effect would it have on the worldwide terrorist networks if they believe, through their acts of violence and barbaric behavior, that America will leave? We cannot let suicide bombers determine the fate of the 21st century. We cannot let people who will blow up children in a car determine the fate of Iraq. We cannot let that happen. We are bigger than that. We are better than that. I believe passionately, after five visits, with one more to come, that the people in Iraq want more. They are dying for their own freedom. I would leave tomorrow if I thought the Iraqi people were incapable of solving their problems. I do believe the majority of Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds want the same thing that every Member of this body wants for their family--a better life. They have looked into the abyss, and they are making the changes they need to make. If we restrict funding, if we restrict our military commanders' ability to go after the enemy in all of its forms, we are doing them a disservice. If you set a hard deadline for withdrawal, you have doomed us as a nation to lose in Iraq. What good would it be for one person to be maimed or to die waiting on that day to come? If you pick March 2008, what do you tell a family member of the U.S. military why their loved one died or was harmed, knowing that the date killed our efforts to be successful? This is irresponsible. This does everything wrong that the Congress could do at a time when things could get better. I cannot promise you success. But I know our last best chance lies with General Petraeus. Our last best chance lies with a reinforcement of a country and a military that needs it. The military needs this money. They deserve this money without strings attached. They deserve a chance to turn Iraq around to make us free. The House may be satisfied with this vote on the supplemental, and they may think this is a victory for the Democratic leadership in the House. I think this is a shameful chapter in the history of the House. These votes to pass this bill were literally bought. There is money in this bill, the supplemental bill, that has nothing to do with the military, nothing to do with Iraq, and there was money being spent to buy votes to make sure we drive ourselves out of Iraq without consequence and the thought of what happens. If we do not pass a supplemental soon, Secretary Gates has laid out what happens in April, May, and June to our military. Because of time limitations, I will not go into detail on what happens to the military, but I can tell you with certainty that the military needs this money for ongoing operations, and every month and week that goes by without this money going into the Department of Defense, major decisions have to be made that compromise troop safety, that hurt the quality of life of families, and keep this surge from being successful. If your goal is to end this war because you think we have lost, choose an honorable path. The honorable path would be to come to this floor, offer an amendment to stop funding now and get out of Iraq as soon as possible. A date certain a year from now, a year and a half from now, whatever date you pick, it ensures we lose, and it ensures that the people who are left there to fight until that day comes get injured and die in vain. This is the wrong way to run a war. This is the wrong way to fight terrorism. Three weeks ago, I was at Guantanamo Bay listening to Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, explaining why he was at war with us. He will be at war with us until his last breath. There are people like him in Iraq measuring us as a nation. Please do not send them the wrong signal. Fund our troops without condition. Stand behind General Petraeus because he deserves our support. We sent him off to do a mission. Give him the resources to do it, and in time we will figure this out. This is not an open-ended commitment. I know as well as everybody else that we are not going to be in Iraq forever. But we need to be in Iraq on terms that will empower moderates and deflate extremists. I believe the Iraqi political leadership, given the breathing space, will have the ability, with our support, to reconcile their country because it is in their best interests. Literally thousands of Iraqis have died for their own freedom. What more can we ask of someone. Political reconciliation is hard. It took us 13 years to write our Constitution. We were at civil war among ourselves. Democracy is hard, but it is worth fighting for. Amendment No. 643

Mr. GRAHAM. I was going to yield to Senator Coburn.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment extends the marginal tax rate relief first passed in 2001. We lowered taxes in 2001. Simply put, if you vote against this amendment, the tax rates will revert back to the 2001 levels. You would be voting to increase taxes on 28 million families and small businesses. You would be voting to increase taxes on small businesses, on an average, by more than $3,600 per year. Mr. President, 78 percent of the benefit of this amendment goes to small business owners. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Tax policy in this country is about being globally competitive. We need to keep our tax rates down to keep our jobs in America. I urge everybody to vote for this amendment to make us competitive globally.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 478 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, we had the same discussion yesterday when Senator Kyl made a very articulate argument as to why we as a Congress need to act, and this budget is a good opportunity to act, to get the death tax resolved in a way that will allow people to plan for their families and their businesses. America is in a terrible spot. If you die New Year's Eve 2010, right now, there is no estate tax liability for those who die on that day. If you live until January 1, 2011, unless we act, the estate tax comes back in full force. That is an unconscionable place to put the American public. Total repeal is apparently not possible. I would love to do that. Senator Kyl's proposal would allow us to buy some more time. He has taken a Democratic proposal--about a $5 million exemption and a 35- percent top rate--to see if we can get the body to allow it within our budget resolution to accommodate the extension of the death tax on those terms. My good friend from North Dakota, who is a joy to work with, is very concerned about the debt, and he should be concerned about it. But when you talk about the tax cuts and tax relief that we provided in the capital gains area and dividends area, I would argue that the revenue being generated to this Government is on par with historical averages, that the Government is not being deprived of revenue, that the tax cuts since 2003 have helped keep this economy humming, and that we are getting a lot of revenue because we cut taxes. And if we raise taxes or we take the extenders off the table, which this budget will do unless we change it, then we are going to cripple an economy that has created a lot of jobs and make ourselves less competitive. The death tax side is what kind of society we want. There has been a budget submitted by the President that is balanced, that has an extension of the death tax--under OMB, I think it is $50 billion out of balance 5 years from now--but you can accommodate these tax provisions and balance the budget. I urge my colleagues, if we don't do this now before the end of this year, sooner rather than later, let's see if we can come together as a body to come up with a compromise on the death tax that will give Americans the certainty they need when it comes to planning their affairs and come up with a compromise that will reward those who have done well, who have worked hard, and they can leave their money behind to their families and their communities rather than it all be sent to Washington or a lot of it be sent to Washington and people they don't know. I think Senator Kyl's amendment is a great opportunity for this body to address a real problem, a growing problem, and that is the fact that no one in America can with certainty plan for their demise and take care of their family because the Congress is refusing to act in a responsible manner. This amendment will help solve that problem. I yield the floor.