Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Let us make it 30 minutes so that we can get everybody in, equally divided. I believe Senator Leahy wants to speak on it.

Mr. GRAHAM. Supporter.

Mr. GRAHAM. That would be great.

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to acknowledge what Senator Clinton has done on behalf of this amendment. Without her, I don't think we would be as far as we are. She has been terrific. To Senator Warner, you and your staff have been terrific to do what we did last year. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Virginia, who was one of the original founders of this whole idea, fighting before this became popular, and he has been a terrific advocate for the Guard and Reserve. I yield 4 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. This is a survey. It states: A majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq say morale is low, according to an Army report that finds psychological stress is weighing particularly heavily on National Guard and Reserve troops. The last paragraph states: National Guard and Reserve soldiers who serve in transportation support units suffered more than others from depression, anxiety, and other indications of acute psychological stress, the report stated. These soldiers have often been targets of the insurgents' lethal ambushes and roadside bombs. Last month and the month before last were the most deadly for the Guard and Reserve since the war started. The role of the Guard is up, not down. It is more lethal than it used to be, and families are being stressed. What we did last year, thanks to Chairman Warner, was a good start. We provided relief for Guard and Reserve members who had been called to active duty since September 11, and their families. If you were called to active duty for 90 days since September 11 to now, you were eligible for TRICARE for 1 year. If you served in Iraq for a year, you would get 4 years of TRICARE. The problem is, some people are going to the fight voluntarily and don't meet that criteria. Two-thirds of the air crews in the Guard and Reserve have already served 2 years in some capacity involuntarily. They keep going to the fight voluntarily and their service doesn't count toward TRICARE eligibility. The bottom line is we have improved the amendment. We need to reform it even more. We have reduced the amount of reservists eligible to join this program to the selected Reserves. Since I am in the indefinite Reserve status as a reservist, I am not eligible for this, nor should I be. But if you are a selected Reserve under our amendment, you are eligible for TRICARE. We have reduced the number of reservists eligible. We have reduced the amount of premiums the Reserve and Guard member would have to pay. We have reduced it from $7.1 billion to $3.8 billion over 5 years. We have made it more fiscally sound. But the bottom line is for me, you cannot help these families enough, and $3.8 billion over 5 years is the least we can do. What does it cost to have the Guard and Reserve not ready and not fit to go to the fight? What does it cost to have about 20 percent of your force unable to go to the fight because of health care problems? This is the best use of the money we could possibly spend. There is all kinds of waste in the Pentagon that would more than pay for this, and our recruiting numbers for the Guard and Reserve are not going to be met this year because the Guard and Reserve is not a part-time job any longer. It is a real quick ticket to Iraq and Afghanistan. The people who are in the Guard and Reserves are helping us win this war just as much as their Active-Duty counterparts, who are doing a tremendous job. Their families don't have to worry about health care problems; guardsmen and reservists do. I have statements from the National Governors Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Military Officers Association of America, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Reserve Enlisted Association, and the Air Force Sergeants Association that I would like to submit for the Record, saying directly to the Congress: This is a good benefit. If you will enact it, it would improve the quality of life for our Guard and Reserve members and their families. It will help recruiting and retention, and it is needed. I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Thanks to all Senators, and thanks to the Guard and Reserve because we need them the most. One of the problems that Guard and Reserve families have to face is the lack of continuity of health care. If you are called back to duty, you have health care. Once you are released from active duty, with its health care program, you go back into the civilian health care network. That means you have to change hospitals and doctors. If you are experiencing a pregnancy, that means your hospitals may change, the doctors may change because you bounce from one health care network to the other. This bill would provide a health care home for guardsmen and reservists, taking stress off their families if they choose to join. They never have to worry about bouncing from one doctor to one hospital to the next. They would have a continuing network. The Guard and Reserve have to pay a premium, unlike their Active-Duty counterpart. It is not a free benefit. I think this is a fair compromise. At the end of the day, this will help the Guard and Reserve. I am proud of what we have done. I thank the chairman for his willingness to work with us. Time will tell how we will do this, but I am optimistic Congress is going to rise to the occasion to help these men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to keep this very short. This amendment is not new to the body. This is something that I have been working on with Senator Clinton and other Members for a very long time. It deals with providing the Guard and Reserves eligibility for military health care. As a setting or a background, of all the people who work for the Federal Government, surely our Guard and Reserves are in that category. Not only do they work for the Federal Government, sometimes on a very full-time basis, they are getting shot at on behalf of the Federal Government and all of us who enjoy our freedom. Temporary and part-time employees who work in our Senate offices are eligible for Federal health care. They have to pay a premium, but they are eligible. Of all the people who deal with the Federal Government and come to the Federal Government when they are needed, the Guard and Reserve, they are ineligible for any form of Federal Government health care. Twenty-five percent of the Guard and Reserve are uninsured in the private sector. About one in five who have been called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve have health care problems that prevent them from going to the fight immediately. So this amendment will allow them to enroll in TRICARE, the military health care network for Active-Duty people and retirees. Under our legislation, the Guard and Reserve can sign up to be a member of TRICARE and have health care available for them and their families. They have to pay a premium. This is not free. This is modeled after what Federal employees have to do working in a traditional role with the Federal Government. So they have to pay for it, but it is a deal for family members of the Guard and Reserves that I think helps us in three areas: retention, recruiting, and readiness. Under the bill that we are about to pass, every Guard and Reserve member will be eligible for an annual physical to make sure they are healthy and they are maintaining their physical status so they can go to the fight. What happens if someone has a physical and they have no health care? To me, it is absurd that we would allow this important part of our military force's health care needs to go unaddressed, and it showed up in the war. We have had problems getting people into the fight because of health care problems. If we want to recruit and retain, the best thing we can do as a nation is to tell Guard and Reserve members and their families, if they will stay in, we are going to provide a benefit to them and their families that they do not have today that will make life better. I ask unanimous consent that a USA Today article entitled ``Army Finds Troop Morale Problems in Iraq,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe my time should come from Senator Dorgan because I oppose the bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus made some very telling points that I think we should all listen to in trying to get a game plan. I rise today as a ``no'' vote to CAFTA. I do not think that surprises many people. The point I am trying to make with my vote is many of the things being said about the benefits of CAFTA are very true. I think it will help the Central American countries, the CAFTA nations that are trying to emerge as democracies in some regard. There will be some benefit to the economy. There is no doubt there is some benefit in any trade agreement. But my concern is of a geopolitical concern dealing with China. The trade agreement we negotiated with Central America, the CAFTA agreement, has many loopholes that China will exploit, just as they have exploited every other trade agreement we have done. The cumulative effect of China on our trading situation throughout the world and our relationship is becoming devastating. In April, the U.S. trade deficit was $62.2 billion. With China it grows $7.83 billion per month. Since we gave PNTR status to China in 2001, the trade deficit with China has gone from $100 billion to $162 billion. It is 47 percent greater this year than it was last year. It has been devastating to the textile and other industries. During the first quarter of 2005, imports from China have grown 1,250 percent for cotton knit shirts and blouses, 1,500 percent for cotton trousers, and 300 percent for cotton and manmade underwear. The bottom line is products coming in from China are not conforming with international trade regimes. They are not conforming with the standards we would like to see throughout the world. The bottom line is they are cheap. They take advantage of trade agreements negotiated--NAFTA and eventually CAFTA--through transshipments. What is going to happen very clearly, to me, is Chinese companies will move into the CAFTA. They will take material made in China with slave-wage conditions, horrible conditions, throw a label on it as if it were made in CAFTA, and get it into our country in a way they could not do directly from China. It is called transshipment. Particularly, this agreement is poorly drafted. It does not realize exactly with whom we are dealing. The combined effect of the CAFTA nations, in terms of a market for us, is the size of San Diego. So those who sell this agreement as a major way to create export opportunities for America I think are not realistic. If you took all the combined countries' economic buying power, it is the size of San Diego, and that is not going to fuel the American economy. We are going to see goods from the CAFTA nations cheaper than we can produce here. It is going to have an effect on manufacturing in my State and other States that will be part of an overall trend that is getting to be more than we can bear. China will take advantage of this. It has many loopholes for China. The rule of origin provisions requiring a yarn for arrangement is only for the essential fabric of the garment. What that means in English is we are trying to lock down the fabric and the yarn to be tied to our country, to give a benefit to our textile manufacturers, and that is a good thing. That helps us get into that market. It does not deal with pockets, collars, and nonvisible jacket liners. They are exempt from that yarn for arrangement. There is a side deal having to do with pockets to address what will happen in my State. I have about 500 to 600 workers who make pockets for garments. The Chinese companies are going to put them out of business because the pockets to be made in a CAFTA nation are not going to come from South Carolina or other places in the United States. They are eventually going to come from China because the pocket agreement, trying to protect the pocket part of a garment, requires all six CAFTA countries to ratify it. That is just not realistic. It is not going to happen. So there are going to be people in my State, unfortunately, if this gets passed, who are going to be put out of a job because China is going to come into the CAFTA region and they are going to put American manufacturing, when it comes to textile goods with regard to pockets, out of business. There are other loopholes. The single transformation provision allows for pajamas, boxer shorts, and bras to be imported into the U.S. duty free regardless of origin so long as they are assembled in a CAFTA country. In other words, you can have all the material made in China for these products and do the sewing in CAFTA, and they come into our country, and that is going to be devastating to Fruit of the Loom and other people who have come by to talk about it. This agreement, like all other agreements I have voted for, except Australia, which I thought was a pretty good deal for America, has major loopholes within it to allow China to take advantage of it even though they are not party to it. The problem we have with China and the way they manipulate their currency, the way they have no regard for intellectual property, the way they transship by cheating, sending goods from China into other regions of the world where we have existing trade agreements, is having a cumulative effect. We have lost 21.6 percent of the manufacturing jobs in South Carolina in the last 5 years. Some of it is due to modernization. Some of it is due to factors beyond international trade. But a lot of it has to do with international trade that is not being fairly policed. We have a 6.5-percent unemployment rate in South Carolina. We are fifth in the Nation. Our State has a manufacturing-based economy. The side deals that are being touted for people in this agreement are going to be like most other side deals when it comes to agreements in the last 15 years. Eighty-three percent of these agreements, according to a report by Public Citizen, a watchdog group, were not kept, reversed, or became meaningless. So my concern about CAFTA is my concern about trade in general. Until we regulate and get buy-in by the Chinese to live within the family of nations when it comes to trading and doing business, every time we expand an area of trade, it becomes another portal for China to enter into our marketplace and to do things they could not do in a direct relationship with the United States. They will be able to do things in the area of textiles in the CAFTA countries they could not do directly with the United States. It is just not going to be textiles. Eventually it is going to be other products. The buying power of these nations, again, combined is the size of San Diego, but what will happen is the ability of China to exploit this agreement is going to be much larger than the buying power of San Diego. I do believe that trade can help emerging democracies and that there is a logic to the idea the President is proposing for these emerging democracies for which we could create economic opportunity. However, unfortunately, I believe the way this deal has been negotiated, the way it will be implemented, and the way it will be exploited is not going to improve the democracies in Central America because they are going to lose jobs to China eventually. It is going to hurt the manufacturing base of this country, which is already in jeopardy. That is why I will choose to vote no. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to have this time. I acknowledge all his hard work to bring us to having votes. And that is true of the minority leader. The Senate is back in business and we are voting in the fashion of 214 years of our history and some good people are getting voted on. That is all we can ask or hope for. I rise to speak on behalf of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. I intend to vote for her tomorrow when the vote is called. Being from the South, being from South Carolina, about to turn 50, I can say it is a long way from Greenville, AL, as a daughter of a sharecropper to the Supreme Court of California; an African-American female who grew up in the segregated South, daughter of a sharecropper in Greenville, AL, growing up, listening to stories from a grandmother about famous NAACP lawyer Fred Gray, who defended Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. It is a long way--and most of it is uphill. But she made it. And we ought to all be proud of the fact that someone such as Janice Rogers Brown has accomplished so much in her life. Not only did she go from Greenville, AL, to the Supreme Court of California, she served with distinction. California has a unique system in the sense that the voters can decide whether they want to retain a judge. The last time she was up for retention vote in California she received 76 percent of the vote. We can talk about this as long as we would like, and apparently 30 hours is as long as we are going to talk about it. I find it hard to believe that someone could be out of the mainstream to the point they are a rightwing judicial fanatic and still get 76 percent of the vote in California. The last time I checked, it is not exactly the haven of rightwing people. The reason she received 76 percent of the vote in California is because nobody made a big deal about her being a judge. The fact is, she decided a lot of cases with a variety of issues and a consistent manner that made it so that people who came before her did not feel the need to go out and try to get her beat. Only after the fact, only when she gets in this political whirlwind we are in now, where every Federal court nominee is getting attacked in a variety of different ways, mainly on the lines that you are out of the mainstream because you happen to be conservative, only then has she gotten to be a problem. This is politics, pure and simple, because if it was about competency, if it was about professional qualifications, she would never have been on the Supreme Court in California to start with. She would not have stayed 7 or 8 years, and she would not have gotten 76 percent of the vote. To say otherwise defies common sense. We are going to take a vote tomorrow. She is going to be confirmed to the Federal bench on the court of appeals. She is a good candidate for that position. Not only is the California Supreme Court a good training ground for such a position, her story as a person is a great reservoir for her to call upon. The idea that she cannot relate to people who suffer and who have been dealt a difficult time is absurd given her life circumstance. She will be an ideal court of appeals judge because she was a very solid supreme court justice. Is she conservative? You better believe it. The last time I checked, that is not a disqualifier. As a matter of fact, I think that is exactly what the country needs right now. We need Federal judges who will interpret the law and not make it. The Federal judiciary has lost its way on many occasions. She will be part of the solution, not the problem. For 25 years she has been a public servant. She has worked for the legal assistance folks in California doing things for people who are less fortunate. She has been an outstanding jurist. She is a smart lady. She graduated near the top of her class and has given back more than she has taken. The road from Greenville, AL, to the Supreme Court of California now leads to the Federal bench. We all should be proud of the fact that someone like this has done so much for so many people. Instead of picking apart every word she said, we should celebrate her success because come tomorrow, she will be a Federal judge. The country will be better off for it. We will be a stronger nation having someone like her on the Federal bench. I am very proud of what she has accomplished as a person. I am very supportive of her judicial tenure, her judicial reasoning. She will bring out the best in our Nation's legal system. One final thought: Politicians live in a world of 50 plus 1. We think of the most awful things we can say about each other just to get these jobs and to hold on to them sometimes. More and more people are turned off by politics because it is 24/7, running each other down. I wish we could stop. Let me tell you about the present Presiding Officer. He has the perfect demeanor, as far as I am concerned, about a political figure. The Presiding Officer has had many jobs, and he has carried himself well. But we are adrift in politics. We are trying to find who is the least bad among us. By the time we get through with each other, nobody wants to vote for anybody. That needs to be corrected. At least we volunteer for this. We go in it with our eyes wide open. If we continue to do to judges what we have embarked on for the last 15 or 20 years, we will do great damage to the judiciary. This lady has been called a Neanderthal. She has been called some names you would not call your political opponent. There is a lot that has been said about Janice Rogers Brown that is over the top and is unfair. But she stuck it out and she will have her vote and she will win. Let me state to all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, whatever our Democrat friends have done, we are capable of doing the same on our side. If we do not slow down, take a deep breath and reassess what we are doing to judicial nominees, we will destroy the independence of the judiciary because it has become another form. If you have ever had a thought in your life and you have expressed it, it will be used against you in a political fashion, not a qualification fashion. I hope we will learn from the past 15 or 20 years and declare a cease-fire on the judiciary. If you do not like people, vote against them. If they have bad character or bad ethics, bring it up and we will come together and deal with that. I hope we will stop declaring war on these people in such a personal fashion because the downside of this is good men and women of the future who would want to be judges are going to take a pass. Who in their right mind in the future is going to put their family and themselves through what these nominees have gone through? They do not have to. They have decided not to get in the political arena. They decided to devote themselves to the rule of law. The difference between my business and the courtroom is the difference between very loud and very quiet. Pack your political agenda at the courthouse door, at the courthouse steps. The courtroom is a quiet place where you are judged based on what you do, not who you are. You do not have to pay in the American legal system because you have a big wallet. In the American political system, we hit the rich pretty routinely. In the American political system, the unpopular have zero chance because they do not poll well. In a courtroom, we do not take any polls. We look at what you do, not where you came from, and we let your peers, the citizens of the community, decide your fate, with somebody presiding over the trial with no ax to grind. What a marvelous system. The jury is not special interest groups. They are not out raising money. They do not get rewarded or punished. They leave when the case is over, and they get a few dollars for their time. And do you know what. It works marvelously well. And that person in a black robe is nobody's campaign manager. They are there to call the balls and the strikes. This has worked well for 214 years. And if we do not watch it, we are going to ruin it. Hopefully, over the next coming weeks, we can get back to the traditions of the Senate, treat people with the courtesy they deserve, and if you do not think they will be a good judge, vote against them. I think that is your obligation. The name-calling needs to stop. So come tomorrow, at 5 o'clock, Janice Rogers Brown is going to continue her journey from Greenville, AL, and she is going to wear the robe of a Federal court judge. I think that is something we all should celebrate. Mr. President, 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 appreciate Senator Voinovich allowing me to speak a moment or two on the John Bolton nomination. No. 1, when it comes to how and why Members vote, every Senator has to make a decision they feel comfortable with, that is good for the Nation, good for the Senate, good for the White House, good for the American people. One thing I am confident of: Senator Voinovich, of all the people I know in the Senate, is right at the top of the list of those who make decisions based on conscience and principle. Whatever problems he has with this nominee have come from soul searching, thinking, and looking. He will articulate why he feels the way he does and vote his conscience. That is exactly what he should do. I am all for that because that is what makes the Senate great. That is what makes America great. In terms of myself, I would like a moment or two to express why I have come to the conclusion that I think John Bolton will make an outstanding ambassador to the United Nations. We have heard a lot about his disposition, about his temper, about his working relations. Everyone will make a judgment about where they come down on that. I made a judgment that, obviously, some of the things about his working relationships can be troubling. The idea that he has been confirmed four times, has served his country for well over 20 years in a variety of posts and done an outstanding job, is what I will base my vote on-- not a conversation here or there but 20-plus years of serving the United States at the highest level of Government, with a great academic background. But why him and why now? Are there other people who can be United States ambassador to the United Nations? There are a lot of good people out there. What drove the President to pick him now? The honest truth is, I haven't talked to the President about why he picked John Bolton, but I have a pretty good idea what was on his mind. The President sees very clearly the need for the United Nations. This world is in tremendous conflict. We are splitting along religious lines. We are having all kinds of problems getting along with each other and trying to find out how to fight the war on terrorism. The United Nations provides a hope for the world, a place where we can come together and have good people stand up to bad people. Sometimes it is hard to determine who is good and who is bad, but many times it is not, and it should be a place where people of good will can deal with problems for bad people such as Saddam Hussein and others, the Osama bin Ladens of the world, a place where they can be controlled and checked. The President sees from the American conservative perspective that the United Nations has lost its way. From a conservative point of view, being a conservative Republican, I hear continuously of problems with the United Nations from people I represent and people I know. The worst thing we can do is to allow the good will of the American people to slip away from the United Nations and reject that body. What will it take to repair the damage done from the Oil-for-Food Program, the corruption at the United Nations, the, at the least, inconsistent approach to regulating dictators such as Saddam Hussein? How can we get the United States and the United Nations back together where we can work as one team? It will take a person Americans have faith in. And that is a big problem with the United Nations right now. American conservatives need to feel better. John Bolton will provide that assurance from a conservative point of view that the United Nations would be pushed to reform itself. From a moderate and liberal point of view, I can assure members that the policies John Bolton will fight for will be those policies directed by President Bush, who won the last election. And some may not agree with the policies, but that is where he will get his marching orders. He sees the United Nations as a value-added product to the world. He sees clearly where it has gone astray. He has the credibility with the American public, particularly among conservatives, to be a force for change. The worst thing that could happen is for the United Nations to slip away, in the eyes of Americans, as an effective body. It surely has gone that route. The best thing that can happen from this nomination is that John Bolton goes to the U.N. with an attitude of: I will work with you, but you have to be better--and to effectively articulate President Bush's policies. I think that can happen. I think it must happen. Not only am I enthusiastic about his nomination, he clearly--given the dynamic our country has with the United Nations--is the right person at the right time and can do things no other person could do; namely, repair the image of the U.N. with a large percentage of the American people, who believe it has lost its way. That is why I will support this nominee with enthusiasm. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will take up where my colleague left off. Before she leaves the floor, I acknowledge what a pleasure it has been to work with her and other members of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to do something for our Guard and Reserve Forces. She has outlined very well what we are trying to do. It shows what can happen when the body will come together on an issue that should never divide us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat or independent, this war affects us all. No one asked the young men and women fighting the war their party identification or affiliation or their political background when they went off to serve our Nation. The least we can do as a body is stand behind them and their families to provide a benefit they need. We had a hearing yesterday, to build upon what Senator Clinton said. We had the chief of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserve components, and the Naval Reserve, and we talked about the stress on the force in terms of the Reserve community. We have 175,000 people today who have experienced duty in this war from the Guard and Reserve. Forty percent of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are guardsmen and reservists. We could not fight without them. This is the biggest utilization of the Guard and Reserve since World War II. The skill set they bring to the fight is indispensable. There are civil affairs people helping Afghan and Iraqi officials set up a democracy. We have medical personnel and many others who are indispensable. The military police are predominantly guardsmen and reservists, and they are indispensable in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have done a terrific job. The reason we are involved in this legislation and we have so much bipartisan support for what we are trying to do is the Guard and Reserve is the only group of part-time Federal employees--and as a guardsman or reservist, you work for the Federal Government. You also work for the State government, but you have a dual status. Reservists are part of the Federal military, the DOD. They are the only group in the whole Federal Government that is not eligible for some form of health care from the Federal Government. A temporary employee in your office or my office, somebody working in a temporary capacity, is able to sign up for Federal health care benefits that we enjoy. They have to pay a premium. A part-time worker is able to sign up for Federal health care benefits. The only group that works part time and doesn't get any benefits is the Guard and Reserve. The one thing we found from the hearing is that is a mistake. At least 10 percent of the people being called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve are unable to be deployed because of health care problems. About 30 percent of the people in the Guard and Reserve have no private health care insurance. So from a ratings point of view, about 10 percent of the force is taken out of the fight without a shot being fired. That makes no readiness sense. The health care network for the Guard and Reserve today is not doing the job in terms of making the force fit and ready to serve. When a person is deployed from the Guard and Reserve, they leave behind a family more times than not. Half of the people going into the fight from the Guard and Reserve suffer a pay reduction, having no continuity of health care or predictability of what the benefits will be in a continuous fashion. How long you will be gone and when you are coming home matters in terms of recruiting and retention. Sixty-eight percent of the Army Reserve's goal is being met in recruiting. The Guard and Active Forces are suffering in recruiting because this war has taken a toll. The more attractive the benefit package is, the more we can appreciate the service, the more likely we are to get the good people and recruit patriotic Americans. What this legislation is designed to do is fill in that gap and solve the problem that faces the Guard and Reserve families, and that is lack of health care. Every Reserve component chief says that when they talk to the troops, the one thing that means the most to them, on top of every other request, is continuity of health care. So we are proposing a benefit for the Guard and Reserve that they will have to pay for, but we will allow, for the first time, Guard and Reserve members to sign up for TRICARE, the military health care system, like their Active-Duty counterparts have, with one major difference: they will have to pay a premium, unless they are called to active duty, similar to what we pay as Federal employees. I believe that is a fair compromise. It will allow uninsured guardsmen and reservists to have health care at an affordable price. It will allow people who have uneven health care in the private sector to get constant health care. We will have a system where people, when they are called to active duty, will have the same set of doctors and hospitals that service the family as when they are in the Guard and Reserve status. We think it desperately will help recruiting and retention and readiness, and it will make people ready for the fight. We have worked on the costs. We are looking at cutting the cost of the program in half by requiring a slightly higher premium from the force and offering TRICARE standard versus TRICARE prime. I believe it fiscally makes sense but still achieves the goal of the original legislation of providing continuity of health care. The reason we are not offering the amendment on the supplemental is that because of the cost saving we have achieved in redesigning the program, there is no cost to be incurred in 2005. We are working in a bipartisan manner with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee to go ahead and offer a full-time military health care benefit to guardsmen and reservists that they can sign up for, to give them continuity of care at a fair premium. It is a good deal for all concerned. The reason we are doing this is obvious: We are utilizing the Guard and Reserve in a historic fashion. If we don't change the benefit structure, we are going to drive the men and women away from wanting to serve. After a while, it gets to be too onerous. I hope we will be able to produce a product in committee in the authorization bill that will allow this program to be offered to the entire force. Here is what we did last year. I will end on this note. The body reached a compromise last year. Last year, we came up with a program that for every person in the Guard and Reserve who was mobilized for 90 days or more, from September 11, 2001, forward to today, for every 90 days they served on active duty, they would get a year of TRICARE for themselves and their families. That program goes into effect April 26 of this year, a few days from now. I have the brochure called TRICARE Reserve Select. About a third of the force would be eligible. It will cover the Selective Reserve, drilling reservists. That is one change we made. I am still in the Reserves, but I am in an inactive status. I do my duty over at Bolling Air Force Base. I am not subject to deployment, so I will not be included. The bill we are designing covers people subject to being deployed and being sent to the site. The compromise of last year will allow a year of TRICARE for every 90 days you are being called to active duty. There are thousands of reservists who will be eligible for this program, and this brochure called TRICARE Reserve Select will be available to your unit, and you need to inquire as to whether you and your family would be eligible to join TRICARE because of your 90-day- plus deployment. The goal this year is to build upon what we did last year by offering the program to the entire drilling force. The other two-thirds of the Select Reserves who are subject to being deployed, who drill and prepare for combat-related duties so that when they get called, if they do, they will be ready to go to the fight, it will be a benefit for their families that I think most Americans would be glad to provide. So we have a program in place for those who have been called to active duty for 90 days or more since September 11, 2001. It goes into effect in a week. It will make you and your family eligible for TRICARE a year for every 90 days you serve. So if you serve a year in Iraq, you get 4 years. The goal this year is expanded to total drilling Selected Reserve force. We cut the program in half by increasing the benefit payment required of the Guard and Reserve member and reshaping the benefit package. I think it is more affordable than ever, but the cost of having 10 percent of the force unable to go to the fight is financially and militarily very large. The cost of lack of continuity of health care for Guard and Reserve families is emotionally devastating. With about two-tenths of 1 percent of the military budget, we can fix this problem and reward Americans who are doing a great job for their country. The likelihood of the Guard and Reserve being involved in a deep and serious way in the war on terror is probably unlimited. The last fact I will leave with you is this: We talked to the Reserve commander yesterday about the utilization of the Air Reserves. Fifty percent of the people flying airplanes in terms of transport into the theater of operation and servicing the theater of operation with a C- 130 are Reserve or Guard crews. I have been to Iraq 3 times now, and I have flown about 16 or 17 flights on a C-130 from Kuwait into Iraq and Afghanistan. Every crew except one has been a Reserve or Guard crew. There is a rule in the military that a Guard or Reserve member cannot be deployed involuntarily for more than 24 months. That rule has served the force well because it takes stress off the force, it keeps people gainfully employed because if you are gone all the time, it is hard to keep a civilian job. So we put a cap of 24 months of involuntary service into the theater of operations, into the war zone. What astonished me was that two-thirds of the pilots and the aircrews in the Guard and Reserve have already reached that mark. Two-thirds of those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have already met their 2-year involuntary commitment. One fact that keeps this war afloat is that they are volunteering to go back. Legally we cannot make them go back, but they are volunteering to keep flying. And God bless them because two-thirds of 50 percent statutorily do not have to go to this fight. They choose to go to this fight. This benefit package is a recognition of that commitment. I am very optimistic--to all those Guard and Reserve families who may be listening today--that help is on the way, that this body is going to rise to the occasion, and we are going to improve your health care benefits because you earned it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. What do they tell us? There was a general consensus among the witnesses--they held 2 days of hearings--that China remains in violation of its WTO obligations in a number of areas impacting vital U.S. economic interests: It has become increasingly clear that China is not meeting key commitments it made when joining the WTO and that our trade laws have to date been insufficient in addressing these problems. They lay out the problems: China currency manipulation, intellectual property theft; treating China as a nonmarket economy; lack of enforcement of U.S. trade remedies that are on the books; China subsidies to businesses that are in violation to WTO. We have had a very tepid response to China's cheating across the board and we are paying a huge price. Many Americans are losing jobs not because they are being outworked, or because the Chinese are smarter, but because they are being cheated out of their jobs. One way is that the Chinese have taken the value of their currency and artificially suppressed it, creating a discount on every product coming out of China to the detriment of American manufacturing and the world community at large, and all we do is talk to China. A lot of people are depending on us to do something about China in a constructive fashion. Is this the best way to have done it? No. This is the only way I know of, after 2 years, to get anybody's attention, our attention or China's attention. We passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in 2003 that was a compromise that Senator Schumer and I made. OK, let's get the Senate on record. It was a sense of the Senate, and no one objected that China is manipulating its currency in violation of international norms and it costs Americans jobs. That was 2 years ago. Last year, we were going to put it on the FSC/ETI bill. Everybody said you are going to mess up the bill. So we had a colloquy with Senator Grassley, who is a good friend, and we talked about holding hearings and we talked about engaging China anew, because we didn't want to mess up the bill by bringing this bill forward. That was over a year ago. Not one thing has changed--not one hearing--and the problem gets worse and worse. The balance of trade between us and China is absolutely shameful. We are doing nothing about it other than talking. Well, this amendment does something about it other than talking. Let me tell you what the U.S.-China Commission said about currency manipulation. The commission recommends that Congress pursue the following measures to move China toward a significant near- term upward reevaluation of the yuan by at least 25 percent. We look moderate compared to the United States-China Economic Security Review Commission. Consider imposing an immediate, across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports unless China significantly strengthens the value of its currency against the dollar or against a basket of currencies. The experts tell us the yuan is 15 to 40 percent below its true market, causing havoc on American manufacturing. Reduce the ability of the Treasury Department to use technical definitions to avoid classifying China as a currency manipulator. . . . They have a list things for us to do. One is imposing an across-the- board tariff. What I and Senators Schumer, Bunning, and others are suggesting we do is put China on notice: In the next 6 months, allow China to move toward reevaluation in a way that will help the American economy, will make China a true, fair member of nations, and if they do not act in the next 6 months in some significant way, then we will look at the ability of this country to protect ourselves against a Communist dictatorship that cheats. And if the Senate is not here to protect the American worker against a Communist dictatorship that cheats, what the heck are we here for? I hope we will send a message to China they can understand because apparently they do not understand what we are saying any other way. I have enjoyed this experience working in a bipartisan fashion to stand up for American business interests that are being cheated out of jobs because of a Communist dictatorship that cheats and is building up their military at our expense. To the American manufacturing community, there are a million other ways we can help. I talked with Governor Engler today. We are going to do more domestically and internationally to level the playing field, but this is a significant start. Will it solve all the problems? No. Will this put China on notice as they have never been put on notice before? Yes. And if we fail to adopt this message, we are also sending a message to China. I am not sure that is a message the American worker can stand having sent to China. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. We are trying to do the debate within 40 minutes. That was our goal.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I acknowledge that it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Schumer and others to develop this amendment. We have been involved in this effort for 2 years. We come from different ends of the political spectrum on many issues, but we found common ground here because we hear the comments, whether it is in South Carolina or New York, from manufacturing entities and other business people basically saying China has a business relationship that we cannot compete with. The political dynamic here is real. Senator Lugar explained how this amendment affects this bill. I want to let him know I totally understand that. We are now basically running out of options. As Senator Schumer said, whether this amendment becomes law is probably not the point. The point is that the Chinese need to understand where the Senate and House stand. The President spoke numerous times about trying to get China to change the value of the currency. Secretary Snow has been to China and brought up this topic. There has been a begrudging movement in words but none in deeds. Talk is literally cheap with the Chinese. Their money is cheaper and it is having an effect on our economy and world relationships that need to be met with decisive political action, because the truth is, for the last decade we have had a very mixed message when it comes to China--both Republicans and Democrats. The only thing the Chinese understand is resolve. The one thing this country has had, when it comes to China in terms of trade, is the lack of resolve. No one is advocating building a wall around our country. China presents a great opportunity for American business. What we are advocating is allowing China to become part of the world community under the same set of rules we all abide by. They are missing the mark by miles. The money they are making off these trade agreements, where they cheat, is not going into the hands of the everyday Chinese worker; it is going into their military. If we had the same approach during the Soviet Union era by having trade deals with the Soviet Union that would be constantly violated, enriching the government, the Soviet Union would never have collapsed. China's Communist government is taking the benefit of these trade deals and enriching their military and growing in economic and military strength in the way that I think hampers freedom. It doesn't help spread it. Here are the facts. Since March, 2002, the U.S. dollar has fallen 30 percent against the euro. You know what that has done against the yuan? Not one change. Thirty percent against the euro, but no change against the yuan. They always create an advantage. When we passed normal trading relations with China in 2001, the trade deficit was $100 billion; today it is $160 billion--a 60-percent increase of a trade imbalance since PNTR was passed. Now, is our market access improving? There is a 5-percent increase of American goods going to China. If you don't believe me and Senator Schumer, and you think we are advocating a protectionist philosophy that is antiquated and outdated in the 21st century, maybe you will believe the U.S.-China Commission, which was authorized and empowered by the Congress, the Senate and the House, to investigate China's business dealings, their trade policies. I ask unanimous consent to have this document printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Burr be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. GRAHAM. I do not believe we have any more speakers on deck.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I add my voice to the millions of people throughout the world as we try to put in perspective the passing of Pope John Paul II. As has been said many times in many ways, probably more than anything what struck me the most about the Holy Father was his ability to understand what could be when other people only saw what couldn't be. He understood that communism was an oppressive system. He lived under Nazi rule, and as he had the power to bring about change, he used that power for the good. He went back to his home country of Poland and challenged his people to expect better and to demand better. That is what he did for the world. He tried to challenge his church, to stick to the principles of the church as he saw those principles to be. He challenged the world to do better when it came to the less fortunate. He was consistent. He saw war as a bad thing. He understood that life was sacred and that the state should not take life. He was in opposition to the death penalty. There I may disagree, an honest disagreement. But he had a consistency about him. When we try to put his beliefs in secular terms of being liberal or conservative, we totally miss the mark of understanding the Pope. He understood the past, he changed the present, and the future will be better because of his time on Earth. His passing has left a void in a great religion. The Catholic faith has lost a great leader. The world has lost a great voice for humanity, for decency, for love, for caring, and that voice will echo throughout the ages. As the Catholic Church embarks on picking a new Pope, I can understand the legacy that will have to be fulfilled. The great religion called the Catholic faith is in mourning for the loss of a great leader, but all of us are in mourning for the loss of a great leader. Anyone who loves freedom, anyone who believes that there is a right and wrong when it comes to certain issues, has lost a great guidepost. I believe his legacy will be in challenging the status quo for the common good, seeing pain and hearing the cries of the oppressed when other people only heard faint noises, and having the courage of his convictions. He said, Be not afraid, and that is a lesson for us all. He has gone to his eternal home. He deserves all the accolades he has been given. The world is better for his time on Earth. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

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