Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in light of the unanimous consent agreement that will bring this bill to closure, there is something I needed to get on the record. I appreciate getting a few minutes. I intend to vote for the bill. Everything the Senator said about the bill is very much true. The Senator from Utah has been working as chairman for years. The legal abuse that the Senator described is real. This bill really brings it to an end. I found Federal court to be a fair place to try cases. The Senator is also right about the scope of class action lawsuits. They involve many people from different places throughout the country. We have a good balance in the bill of when you can be removed. Every class action is not going to go to Federal court. If the formula is right, and if it has enough national impact, Federal court will be the place to go because of the abuses described. Those of us who practiced law for a living before we got here understand that the legal system can be reformed. I admire what the Senator from Utah and Senators Specter and Grassley have done to bring about reform. But we find ourselves in a unique political dynamic with this bill. Our friends in the House say they want it like we have it. We all agree there are amendments that could make the bill better that we would vote for, but the political moment will not allow that to happen. I regret not offering in committee the amendment I am going to speak about. I learned from my mistakes there. One of the things we have done by federalizing certain class action lawsuits is we have taken the abuse out of the system, and we have gone to Federal court to have a more fair way of doing business when the formula is right and when there is a national impact to stop home cooking. The reason the diversity clause exists to begin with is that when you have two people from different States, you want to pick a neutral sight. You do not want to do home cooking. Really, the whole goal of this bill is to get it in a neutral site where people can have their fair day in court. I certainly appreciate that. But there is another component to class actions that is missing in this bill. Class actions, by their very nature, as Senator Hatch described, involve a lot of people from different places and usually a lot is at stake. Sometimes it is money. Sometimes it is a business practice that does not have a lot of economic effect on one person, but when you add up the economic effect, it is bad for the country. People are cheating. People are nickel and diming folks, getting rich at the expense of the elderly or the infirm, by taking a few dollars here, and it adds up to be a very bad situation for the country. Those type cases lend themselves to class action. There is another group of cases that could lend themselves to class action, too. That is when products are not designed right. They are consumer cases where consumers throughout the country are affected by the particular behavior in question. Most States have a procedure, when such cases exist affecting the public at large, where the judge is able to determine what is fair in terms of sealing documents relating to settlements. I had an amendment that was modeled after a South Carolina statute--and over 20 States have a similar statute--that says in cases where the public's interest is present, where there is a consumer case that affects the health or well-being of the community at large, settlements can be sealed, documents can be made secret to protect business interests, but only if the judge determines that the public interest is also being met. The amendment I proposed would have received well over 50 votes in this body, and I think Senator Hatch would have been friendly to it. But I understand the effect it would have on the bill. The current chairman, Senator Specter, and I will have a colloquy for the record. This is the point of my seeking recognition. This bill will leave the Senate and go to the House in a way to solve abuse, but I think it is lacking in consumer protections. The reason I am speaking today is this colloquy for the record with Senator Specter recognizes the value of this amendment and a commitment on his part and the committee's part to allow this amendment to move forward at another date, another time, in another place. The reason I am agreeing to that is enough of my colleagues who are sympathetic to the amendment do not want to vote for anything that would derail the bill. I very much appreciate that because that is the way politics is, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as we do not lose sight of the goal. And the goal is to have a balance, to take care of abuses, but at the same time protect the public when the public needs to be protected. What I am trying to say is I will not put my colleagues in a bad spot of having to vote down an amendment with which they agree because I do not have 50 votes. I am mature enough to know when you can win and when you cannot. Sometimes it is OK to lose. Losing is not bad as long as you feel good about what you are doing. I do not want to offer the amendment, have colleagues vote against it, and create problems unnecessarily, but I do want my colleagues to know--and this colloquy will express this--that this bill needs to be amended and this problem needs to be addressed. We need to have a provision that is married up with the bill that is about to leave the Senate and go to the House that will allow a judge, upon motion of the parties, to determine in a situation where there is a request to keep the settlement secret and seal the documents from public review, to have a judge to determine what documents should be sealed in secret and what documents should be released to the public, balancing the needs of business and the right of the public to know what they should know about their health and their safety. There were class action cases with the sunshine statute, about which I am talking, in effect. Without that statute, deadly lighters, exploding tires, defective drugs, toxic chemicals, and faulty automobile designs would not have been known if it were not for a procedure for the judge to release certain documents because the request was: We will give you money, but you cannot tell anybody about the underlying problem. Sometimes that is very much unfair. I have case after case of sunshine statutes allowing the judge to determine what was in the public interest, to inform the public of deadly events, and peoples lives were saved and their health was protected.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate Chairman Specter taking the time to join me in discussing a concern I have regarding S. 5, the class action bill. I am still prepared to seek a vote on my amendment, but based on my conversations with a number of senators this week, including Chairman Specter, and in a desire to see this bill pass as soon as possible, I have decided not to offer my amendment. I agreed to support this bill some time ago because I believe we are long overdue for reform in the class action area. Over the last few years, I have worked to support this bill in both the Judiciary Committee and on the senate floor. While I have fully supported this reform, I have also noticed some areas where the bill could be improved. I had hoped to offer an amendment on the floor regarding protective orders during discovery. I am confident that the amendment that I had hoped to introduce with Senator Prior of Arkansas would have made a significant improvement in the area of class action discovery. Our amendment is very simple. It is based on the local rule in South Carolina Federal Courts for obtaining protective orders for documents. All it says is, if you want a protective order, you must make a motion at the beginning of trial, explain why it is necessary for the court to seal your documents, and provide public notice of the motion and a description of the documents. that's it. At least 20 states have taken action to limit secrecy agreements. This type of scrutiny should be extended throughout the nation, especially where we are removing parties from the protections afforded them by their States. And let me be clear. This is not an onerous burden to place on those seeking protective orders. It is not that far a departure from the current discovery rules. We could have gone a lot further; with higher standards, a presumption against sealing, and other controversial discovery reforms. However, we are not seeking to tilt the playing field to one side or the other, just make sure some reasonable, well- thought out ground rules are applied to everyone. My amendment creates a presumption of openness--it would require the parties in class action lawsuits to justify their requests for secrecy, followed by a medical review of the information they want the court to keep under seal. They would have to identify the documents or information they want sealed--and most importantly the reasons why it's necessary to keep them secret. They also would have to explain why a protective order approach is necessary and justify the request based on controlling case law. The public would be notified of the information that was being put under seal--and a descriptive non-confidential index of the secret documents would be provided. In the end, however, it is still up to the judge's discretion, albeit with a slightly higher standard than currently exist under the Federal rules of civil procedure. I am doing this because I am convinced Federal Judges will come down on the side of consumer protection where it's in the public interest and come down on the side of secrecy where merited. In short, while the burden here is on any party that wants to keep something secret, it is not an onerous task, nor impossible. Valid trade secrets and proprietary information--sensitive information that goes to the heart of a company being able to compete in the market place should and will be protected. There must be safeguards for businesses--they have a right to protect valid trade secrets--patents and other proprietary information. But this isn't something that can just go on automatic pilot--there has to be some judicial review and I am confident the procedures protect all the parties in a class action lawsuit. So again, we have merely tried to find a way to balance the legitimate interests of companies, who we want to remain strong competitors in the marketplace, with the public's interest in disclosing potentially harmful products or practices. Our amendment strikes the right balance because it raises the bar only slightly for companies to justify why they need to impose secrecy, using our courts to do so, but does not force them to open up their companies to every passerby simply because they are defending a lawsuit. Now there are critics who warn that an amendment like this is going to create a number of problems in the judicial system, making discovery more difficult and deterring settlements. I do not agree. Take a look at Florida, which has one of the most stringent sunshine laws. I don't think anyone can tell you Florida is a magnet for class actions. In fact, the most recent studies in the 20 States that have sunshine laws show that limiting court secrecy has not led to more litigation or curtailed the number of case that are settled. In fact I do not believe there is any evidence that supports the proposition that more cases will go to trial and fewer settlements will be reached if some procedural safeguards are put in place. Also, you have to remember that our amendment only applied to court- ordered secrecy. Parties would still have been free to privately agree upon secrecy between them. In closing Mr. President, I must say I have been a bit taken aback by all the turmoil this amendment has caused. I am pretty sure we can all agree that ours was a fairly benign procedural amendment, one that serves both the public and those before our courts. Toward that end, I very much appreciate the understanding I and Senator Pryor have been able to reach with Chairman Specter regarding the substance of our amendment. The chairman has graciously agreed to assist us with this amendment in the Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him to address this issue in the near future.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank my chairman for his future assistance. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that they will have done a good thing by passing this bill. They will do a very good thing if we can take up this amendment at another time to make this bill more balanced because the abuses as described by Senator Hatch are real. My colleagues have worked a long time to bring about this date. They should be proud of it. There is a way to make this bill better, and if we do not address this problem, I predict something is going to happen out there without a sunshine amendment. There is going to be a class action case involving consumer interests, and if there is no procedure for the judge to balance the public interests against business interests, we are going to shield the public from something they should know. There is no reason we cannot do both: Stop the legal abuse and help consumers. It is my pledge and my promise to work with everybody in this body to make that happen. I yield the floor and thank the Senate for its indulgence.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I want to concur with the statement issued earlier by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee regarding section 222 of this bill. I don't understand the reasoning or motivation behind this provision. But it is clear that it could be easily abused. This is a great example of how the process is inadequate in terms of passing legislation without legitimate input from the Members of this body. The thought of an individual Member of a legislative body, including this one, having access to tax records of individual Americans is unacceptable and must be changed; but equally importantly the process needs to be changed. I am not attributing bad motives, but this must be changed and I take the chairman of the Appropriations Committee at his word that it will be changed. We need to change this process to ensure mistakes like this are not made in the future.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize WHRI-AM and WRHM-FM for their combined 100 years of service to Rock Hill, York County, and the State of South Carolina. WHRI first signed on the air in the Rock Hill community in December 1944. During its 60-year history, the station has remained dedicated to providing quality programming and has been a committed partner in community development. WHRI operates under a principle established by its founder, Jim Beaty: ``Never underestimate the audience.'' In doing so, the station provides coverage of local and national news, sports, and events. WHRI remains an active participant in the community, the station and its staff contribute time and talent to numerous service projects. One of WHRI's greatest success stories has been their involvement with the Shrine Bowl. When this all-star football game featuring high school athletes from North and South Carolina came to Rock Hill in 2001 there were only a handful of stations that carried the game. Three years later the network has been expanded to 50 stations. This increased exposure has also helped bring greater awareness to the cause of the Shriners and helped them raise additional funds for their hospitals. WHRI has remained dedicated to serving the community in which they live. In keeping with their commitment to service, WHRI purchased WRHM in 1987. WRHM signed on the air in Lancaster more than 40 years ago in July 1964. After a 3-year station upgrade in the late 1980's, WRHM grew to serve a large region of South Carolina. Today, WRHM is broadcast to more than 15 counties in North and South Carolina, and continues the same tradition of excellence and regional service inspired by the success of their sister station. I wish WHRI and WRHM continued success for years to come.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and Senator Levin for allowing us to use the time, and I appreciate it very much.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I have been listening to the debate. I am sure putting together legislation is a very complex matter right at the end of the session. I need to make a comment and ask a question. I could not agree more with the state of affairs as has been described by the Senator from Louisiana. The Guard and Reserve are being used in historic fashion. Does the Senator realize that of all the part-time employees who exist in the Federal Government, the Guard and Reserve is the only group that does not have full-time access to health care?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Does the Senator agree with me that no matter what happens in the last hours of this session, that next year, because 40 percent of the people serving on active duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places are going to come from the Guard and Reserve, that we need to fix this, and whatever excuses exist today why we can't, that the Senate and the House need to understand that thousands of families are going off to get in a fight, getting injured, getting killed, and having their pay cut and no health care, and that the No. 1 priority of the Senate and House along with whomever is the President next year is to rectify some of these problems?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Does the Senator further realize that at least half of the people called to active duty from the Guard and Reserve leave behind civilian jobs and thus have a reduction in pay, sometimes substantial?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. I wish to make some remarks on an amendment that I have filed. I will not ask that that amendment be brought before the Senate this evening, but I look toward doing so at an appropriate time. Mr. President, 3 years have passed since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Largely because of the anger and the concern and the desire to show that the lives of those 3,000 Americans who were sacrificed on that day had meaning, we are nearing passage of a meaningful intelligence reform plan. But as we commit ourselves to implementing this plan, I remain convinced that we still will not be doing all we can do, all we should do to win the war on terror and to hold our adversaries to account. Why do I hold those views? It is my view that we have allowed to escape at least one and possibly more make-believe allies that have and may be today supporting terrorists with financial, logistical, and even diplomatic resources. These allies are saying one thing in their public relations campaign but doing quite another in their palaces, in the halls of government when it comes to nurturing al-Qaida and other terrorist networks. Let me give a little explanation of why I think this issue is so important. For 19 relatively young men, most of whom were strangers to each other, to be able to come into the United States without much command of the English language and almost no knowledge of American culture and practices, stay in this country for, in some cases, 18 months, to be able to refine a plan that had been developed prior to their entry, to deal with unexpected complications, such as the detaining of the 20th hijacker, and to be able to practice that plan and finally execute it with the tragic consequences of September 11 is not an easy task. Many have asked how could they have done it. I believe, for one thing, these 19 people were more capable than we may have originally thought, and that itself is a chilling observation, because it says something about the adversary we are going to continue to be facing once we restart the war on terror. But second, I also believe they were not here alone. In that famous August 2001 briefing which the President received at Crawford, TX, one of the items in that briefing which has, in my opinion, been inadequately observed was that the President was told that al-Qaida had a network inside the United States. Supplementing that network, I believe the Saudis were given license to take advantage of a network that was already in existence in the United States for another purpose, primarily the purpose of surveilling countrymen who were in the United States to determine if they were fulminating any plots that might be adverse to the interests of the royal family. That network was then made available to at least 2 and maybe more, possibly all, of the 19 hijackers. I will remind my colleagues again, as I have previously, that much of the information that makes this case is contained in the 27 pages of the final report of the House and Senate inquiry into 9/11, the 27 pages which were censored by the administration and, therefore, have never been made available to the American people. But I can say this: A California-based former employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, a then 42-year-old Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, had extensive contacts with two of the Saudi national hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. These two men had entered the United States in January of 2000 after having attended a summit of terrorists in Malaysia a few weeks earlier. Bayoumi was paid $40,000 a year by a Saudi Government subcontractor, but he never showed up for work. He was what is referred to as a ghost employee. Indeed, a CIA agent described him as a spy of the Saudi Government assigned to keep track of Saudi citizens in southern California, particularly the large number of Saudi students studying at higher education institutions there. The day that al-Bayoumi met the two hijackers at a Los Angeles restaurant, he had first attended a meeting at the Saudi consulate with a Saudi official who subsequently was denied reentry into the United States because of his alleged terrorist background. He then, over lunch, invited the two terrorists to come from Los Angeles to San Diego where he proceeded to first allow them to live with him until they could arrange for an apartment, he cosigned their lease, paid their first month's rent, hosted a welcome party, and helped them get a variety of services, including driver's licenses and flight school applications. He introduced them to others who served as their translator and other support roles. This is just one strand in the web of connections between hijackers and the Saudi Government. But, again, I am restricted in terms of how fulsome the details can be. There is other evidence of Saudi complicity, especially when it comes to financing al-Qaida. In a monograph on the finances of al-Qaida prepared by the 9/11 Commission, staff investigators found government- sponsored Islamic charities had helped provide funds for Osama bin Laden. The monograph states: Fund-raisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf raised money for al Qaeda from witting and unwitting donors and diverted funds from Islamic charities and mosques. It attributed this thriving network to ``a lack of awareness and a failure to conduct oversight over institutions [which] created an environment in which such activity has flourished.'' The 9/11 Commission investigators concluded: It appears that the Saudis have accepted that terrorist financing is a serious issue and are making progress in addressing it. It remains to be seen whether they will (and are able to do) enough, and whether the U.S. Government will push them hard enough, to substantially eliminate al Qaeda financing by Saudi sources. At least one other authority body is even more skeptical. The Council on Foreign Relations established a task force on terrorist financing, and representatives of the task force testified last week on the 29th of September before a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. Mallory Factor, vice chairman of the Independent Task Force on Terrorist Financing, said this: The Saudi Government has clearly allowed individual and institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper within Saudi borders. Let me repeat that statement: The Saudi government has clearly allowed individuals and institutional financiers of terror to operate and prosper within Saudi borders. He continued: Saudi Arabia has enacted a new anti-money laundering law designed to impede the flow from Saudi Arabia to terrorist groups. However, significant enforcement by Saudi Arabia of several of these new laws appears to be lacking. . . . He continued: Furthermore, even if these laws were fully implemented, they contain a number of exceptions and flaws which weaken their effectiveness in curbing terror financing. . . . Quite simply, Saudi Arabia continues to allow many key financiers of global terror to operate, remain free and go unpunished within Saudi borders. Lee Wolosky, the codirector of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, added: There is no evidence . . . that since September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia has taken public punitive actions against any individual for financing terror. That directly contradicts the statements made by this administration that the Saudis have been cooperating and continue to deserve to be considered as allies. Despite all of the evidence, President Bush has said nothing to suggest that he is reconsidering the assurance he offered to the American people in the Rose Garden on September 24, 2001, when he said: As far as the Saudi Arabians go . . . they've been nothing but cooperative. Our dialogue has been one of--as you would expect friends to be, able to discuss issues. On Sunday, like several million Americans, I watched the Sunday interview programs and I saw a lady I admire, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, as she attempted to explain why she and other key members of this administration, aware of the fact that there was a considerable disagreement as to whether aluminum tubes which were destined for Iraq but had been intercepted, but which had been determined by the best experts in the United States, those in the Department of Energy, to not be appropriate for the construction of a centrifuge, one of the preliminary steps in the development of weaponizable material--she said any prudent policymaker would have to take the most conservative view if there was a disagreement, take the view that would best protect the American people. I say this: If we have the kinds of comments that have come from responsible citizens who served on the 9/11 Commission, statements that have been made by a respected independent task force of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the recommendations of the joint House-Senate task force, why do we not take the same conservative position as relates to Saudi Arabia? This is what our colleagues in this Chamber and the House said in December of 2002. Recommendation 19 of the final report of the joint inquiry stated: The intelligence community, and particularly the FBI and the CIA, should aggressively address the possibility that foreign governments are providing support to or are involved in terrorist activity targeting the United States and U.S. interests. State- sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more lethal attacks against the United States. This issue must be addressed. If we believe that we should take the stance which is most protective of the security of the people of the United States of America, why have we taken this position of coddling passivity and deference to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with this record of their support of terrorism? My lack of confidence in both Saudis and the administration, my lack of confidence in their ability to level with the American people, leads me to offer this amendment on behalf of the families of those who died on 9/11. Several groups of families and survivors have filed lawsuits against the Saudi Government, members of the Saudi Royal Family, other Saudi entities, alleging that they were part of a conspiracy that led to the successful attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The Saudi Government, in Federal court, has moved to strike not only the Royal Family, not only individuals but also to strike virtually every entity under the umbrella, that those entities are a part of the sovereign immunity in Saudi Arabia and therefore come under the umbrella of sovereign immunity from their acts. The effect of this position is to prevent the victims' families from proceeding to the discovery portion of the trial which could yield valuable information about the Saudi Government's activities. This amendment would waive sovereign immunity protections for foreign governments involved in lawsuits related to the September 11 attacks. It would not automatically declare that the Saudi Government or any other government is responsible for the attacks or was complicit in the attacks, but it would give victims' families a chance to have their day in court. While exceptions like this are rare, this is because terrorist attacks of the magnitude of September 11 are rare. Congress has waived sovereign immunity before. In the case of the Iran hostage-taking, sovereign immunity was waived because there was reason to suspect that the hostage-takers had received support from the Iranian Government. We decided an exception to the law was necessary in this case in order to both get to the truth and see that justice was provided for innocent American families. I believe the family members of the victims of 9/11 deserve to have an equal opportunity to get to the truth, especially in light of the coverup our Government has engaged in and which has prevented the American people from a full understanding of the extent of that complicity. For all we know, the network which functioned prior to 9/11 and which contributed to the ability of these 19 people who were new to the United States, woefully deficient in the English language, to be able to hide out for 18 months and then refine, practice, and execute a plan of terror, that infrastructure is still in place. This amendment would help these families and the people of the United States better understand what has happened to us in the past, what the threat might be today, and to hold those responsible and accountable for their actions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, may I inquire as to the parliamentary situation in the Senate?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to urge swift passage of S. 2484, which reflects a compromise agreement on a new system for compensating physicians and dentists in the Department of Veterans Affairs' VA health care system, as well as alternative work schedules for VA nurses. VA doctors and dentists have not gotten a pay adjustment in over a decade. All of these measures are aimed at improving VA's ability to recruit and retain quality health care professionals. I would like to highlight some of the key aspects of this legislation. The compromise agreement sets forth a three-tiered system for paying VA physicians and dentists. The three tiers consist of base, market, and performance pay. The base pay element is similar to that employed by other Federal agencies, also known as the General Schedule GS-- system. As such, increases are guaranteed for every 2 years a physician or dentist remains employed by VA. The second component of the new pay system is market pay. This element will be implemented by the Secretary in the form of pay bands that will be determined by surveys of regional salaries in the academic and private sectors. Also relevant to the market pay determinations are factors such as the scarcity--or abundance--of certain specialty physicians, type and years of experience, and board certifications. Finally, the Secretary will consult with professional review panels composed of other physicians or dentists. The final component is performance pay. Performance pay will be awarded to doctors and dentists if they meet certain goals and measures set forth by the Secretary. Currently, VA has extensive performance measures that it utilizes to motivate its health care providers and ensure quality of care. This element has a maximum of $15,000 or 7.5 percent of the sum of the base and market pay. One other major section of this agreement establishes alternative work schedules for VA nurses. It is widely known that the entire country is suffering from a nursing shortage. VA anticipates that it will be hit especially hard by the retirement of a significant portion of its nursing workforce over the next 10 years. S. 2484 allows VA to employ different types of working schedules in order to attract more nurses to the system. I am proud to have worked on this valuable piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I send to the desk the amendment consistent with the statement I have just made and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, as we all know, people from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, some people are brought here against their will and kept as human chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom. After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these horrible crimes. In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an estimated $9.5 billion a year. The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The State Department estimates that more than a million women and children are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws to combat this terrible problem. Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the death penalty. In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch. I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of immigration issues. While we are engaged in the nationwide debate surrounding immigration, we must also ensure that the crimes related to smuggling and trafficking are punished appropriately. We should not wait for the conclusion of debate on the overall issue. Whatever your feelings are regarding immigration policy, I think everyone can agree that we must not allow otherwise innocent men, women, and children to be abused and killed by those who seek to profit from the desperation of others.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, as we all know, people from all over the world want to come to America to pursue a better life for themselves and their families. Unfortunately, however, some people entrust their lives to some very dangerous people in their effort to gain our shores. And, tragically, some people are brought here against their will and kept as human chattel, enslaved in horrible conditions, in the midst of our freedom. After hearing of the horrible deaths of aliens smuggled into the country and inhumanely abandoned along a Texas highway last year, I wanted to examine whether we are doing all we can to combat these horrible crimes. In talking with various law enforcement officials and victims, I heard of alien smugglers and traffickers who, through unabashed acts of profiteering, endanger the lives of countless aliens while compromising the integrity of our immigration laws at the same time. Make no mistake, the incentives for human smugglers are enormous. According to the Department of State, human smuggling around the globe generates an estimated $9.5 billion a year. The commodities involved in this illicit trade are men, women, and children who, for the smuggler, represent substantial profits. The State Department estimates that more than a million women and children are trafficked around the world each year, generally for the purpose of domestic servitude, sweatshop labor, or sexual exploitation. At any given time, the Department estimates that thousands of people are in the smuggling pipeline, with the United States being the primary target. Smugglers deliver some 50,000 aliens here each year. Alien smuggling is a global problem which requires a systematic and coordinated response. We should do all we can within our criminal laws to combat this terrible problem. Given the risks associated with these crimes every time they are carried out, the punishment should be appropriate to deter future smuggling or trafficking, and to sufficiently sanction those who are caught. Currently, Title 8 smuggling provisions provide that a person found guilty of alien smuggling where death results is subject to the full range of punishments, including the death penalty. However, if death results from a Title 18 trafficking offense, where the victims are arguably more vulnerable, the defendant is not subjected to the death penalty. In my opinion, an important component of criminal justice prosecutions is to serve as a deterrent to others who may be disposed to commit a crime. We should ensure that the punishments for smuggling and trafficking crimes are such that the risks of apprehension, prosecution and punishment far outweigh the payday at their delivery point. And, we need to be diligent in making certain that notice of these penalties is conveyed to those who are engaged in this enterprise, up and down the smuggling and trafficking organizational chain. Obviously, in my opinion, the best way to do that is the vigorous prosecution and harsh punishment of those we do catch. I also want to say a word about the goal of this legislation. Clearly, the smuggling and trafficking problem impacts a host of immigration issues. While we are engaged in the nationwide debate surrounding immigration, we must also ensure that the crimes related to smuggling and trafficking are punished appropriately. We should not wait for the conclusion of debate on the overall issue. Whatever your feelings are regarding immigration policy, I think everyone can agree that we must not allow otherwise innocent men, women, and children to be abused and killed by those who seek to profit from the desperation of others.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of October as Spina Bifida Awareness Month. Spina bifida is the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect. It is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Each year more than 4,000 pregnancies are affected and of these 1,500 babies are born with spina bifida. The most severe form of spina bifida occurs in 96 percent of children born with this disease. However, thanks to the good work that the Spina Bifida Association of America is carrying out to promote prevention and to enhance the lives of all affected by this condition, substantial progress is being made. During Spina Bifida Awareness Month, a special effort is made to increase public awareness about spina bifida and its prevention. Simply by taking a daily dose of the B vitamin, folic acid, women of childbearing age have the power to reduce the incidence of spina bifida by up to 75 percent. Recent studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, show that 40 percent of women of childbearing age now report taking a vitamin containing folic acid every day. In addition, since the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, decision to fortify enriched grains with folic acid, CDC has documented a 26 percent decline in these birth defects. These simple changes that produce profound effects clearly demonstrate the importance of awareness. In addition to educating the public about spina bifida, the Spina Bifida Association of America also addresses the needs of the spina bifida community. Founded in 1973, the association is the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the spina bifida community. Today, there are approximately 60 chapters serving over 125 communities nationwide. I am honored to support the Spina Bifida Association and wish to commend them for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from this birth defect. I greatly appreciate their efforts to improve the lives of those 70,000 individuals living with spina bifida throughout our country. I wish the Spina Bifida Association of America the best of luck in its endeavors and urge all of my colleagues to support the association's efforts.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act today. This legislation would allow States the option to once again provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Traditionally, Medicaid and SCHIP have served as vital components of our nation's health care safety net. These programs have provided coverage to over 50 million non-elderly, low-income Americans, most of them children, and have helped to dramatically reduce infant mortality and provide health care for millions of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private health insurance. However, for many low-income families that are income eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, these safety programs are today little more than a mirage--an illusion to those who need them most. The 1996 welfare reform law arbitrarily barred states from using Federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal immigrants during their first 5 years in the United States. While the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, the legislation unfortunately has punished children. Today, half of all legal immigrant children from families making less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level are uninsured. That's over two and a half times the uninsured rate for children who are United States citizens. In the long term, ignoring the health care needs of legal immigrant children and pregnant women will prove more costly than providing care today. Children and pregnant women who do not have access to preventive care often use the emergency room as a first resort--an expensive treatment for conditions that could have been treated at a fraction of the cost or possibly even prevented. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2000 estimated that $1 spent on prenatal care for immigrant women saved $3 in short- term postnatal costs and $5 in longer-term costs. By spending on prevention today, we can reduce health care costs in the future. Another result of the 1996 legislation was to push the costs of care to the States. The 20 states with the highest number of legal immigrants all used to have state-financed health care programs for legal immigrant children or pregnant women. States put these programs in place because they recognized the enormous toll the 1996 rules have taken on state budgets, when states have to provide preventable emergency-room care to thousands of uninsured legal immigrants. But due to the recent State budget crisis, some of these states cannot now afford programs that are exclusively state-financed. In my home state of Florida, for example, new enrollment in the program has been frozen. This amendment allows states the option to use Medicaid and SCHIP funding to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Over the last 6 years, Senator Chafee and I, along with our colleagues in the House and Senate, have worked to restore this option and we've come very close to achieving our goal. Last year, a 3-year restoration provision was included in the Senate- passed Medicare prescription drug bill, with 65 Members supporting it. Over 400 national, state, and local organizations have supported this legislation, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous immigrant, ethnic, labor, health and faith-based organizations. Despite this support, Congress has yet to enact legislation that restores health benefits to legal immigrant families. Why? Some Members argued it didn't belong on a Medicare bill but instead on a welfare reauthorization bill. That was one of the reasons it was dropped from the Medicare bill. But the same argument has been made when it was discussed in the context of welfare--that it is not a welfare issue, it's a health care issue. Well, while this volleyball match continues, legal immigrant families in this country continue to work hard and pay taxes, while being denied the benefits of the system they are paying into. Meanwhile, States continue to provide as much care as they can from strapped state budgets. We need to send a clear message about our concern for uninsured children and we need to stop pretending that our federal penny-pinching is cost free to the states or to taxpayers. Mr. President, legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It is important that all children start off on the right foot towards good health. This provision can help them do just that. This legislation is offset by a custom user fee extension included in the President's budget. I hope that we will begin consideration of this important measure before the August recess. The health and lives of many children is at stake, and there is simply no reason to delay any further.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am introducing the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act today. This legislation would allow States the option to once again provide Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Traditionally, Medicaid and SCHIP have served as vital components of our nation's health care safety net. These programs have provided coverage to over 50 million non-elderly, low-income Americans, most of them children, and have helped to dramatically reduce infant mortality and provide health care for millions of poor children whose families cannot afford the high cost of private health insurance. However, for many low-income families that are income eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, these safety programs are today little more than a mirage--an illusion to those who need them most. The 1996 welfare reform law arbitrarily barred states from using Federal funds to provide health coverage to low-income legal immigrants during their first 5 years in the United States. While the goal of welfare reform was to encourage self-sufficiency in adults, the legislation unfortunately has punished children. Today, half of all legal immigrant children from families making less than 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level are uninsured. That's over two and a half times the uninsured rate for children who are United States citizens. In the long term, ignoring the health care needs of legal immigrant children and pregnant women will prove more costly than providing care today. Children and pregnant women who do not have access to preventive care often use the emergency room as a first resort--an expensive treatment for conditions that could have been treated at a fraction of the cost or possibly even prevented. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2000 estimated that $1 spent on prenatal care for immigrant women saved $3 in short- term postnatal costs and $5 in longer-term costs. By spending on prevention today, we can reduce health care costs in the future. Another result of the 1996 legislation was to push the costs of care to the States. The 20 states with the highest number of legal immigrants all used to have state-financed health care programs for legal immigrant children or pregnant women. States put these programs in place because they recognized the enormous toll the 1996 rules have taken on state budgets, when states have to provide preventable emergency-room care to thousands of uninsured legal immigrants. But due to the recent State budget crisis, some of these states cannot now afford programs that are exclusively state-financed. In my home state of Florida, for example, new enrollment in the program has been frozen. This amendment allows states the option to use Medicaid and SCHIP funding to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Over the last 6 years, Senator Chafee and I, along with our colleagues in the House and Senate, have worked to restore this option and we've come very close to achieving our goal. Last year, a 3-year restoration provision was included in the Senate- passed Medicare prescription drug bill, with 65 Members supporting it. Over 400 national, state, and local organizations have supported this legislation, including the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous immigrant, ethnic, labor, health and faith-based organizations. Despite this support, Congress has yet to enact legislation that restores health benefits to legal immigrant families. Why? Some Members argued it didn't belong on a Medicare bill but instead on a welfare reauthorization bill. That was one of the reasons it was dropped from the Medicare bill. But the same argument has been made when it was discussed in the context of welfare--that it is not a welfare issue, it's a health care issue. Well, while this volleyball match continues, legal immigrant families in this country continue to work hard and pay taxes, while being denied the benefits of the system they are paying into. Meanwhile, States continue to provide as much care as they can from strapped state budgets. We need to send a clear message about our concern for uninsured children and we need to stop pretending that our federal penny-pinching is cost free to the states or to taxpayers. Mr. President, legal immigrants pay taxes, serve in the military, and have the same social obligations as United States citizens. Legal immigrant children are, as much as citizen children, the next generation of Americans. It is important that all children start off on the right foot towards good health. This provision can help them do just that. This legislation is offset by a custom user fee extension included in the President's budget. I hope that we will begin consideration of this important measure before the August recess. The health and lives of many children is at stake, and there is simply no reason to delay any further.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I do not consider myself a protectionist, nor a free trader, but a balanced trader. Having said that, I have not been a supporter of so-called free trade agreements in the past. I have been very skeptical of the free trade agreements--FTAs--our country has signed due to the detrimental impact that I believe they've had on our economy, especially the manufacturing industry. Most of the trade agreements we have signed since I have been involved in politics under both Democrat and Republican leadership have put American workers at an unfair disadvantage because they have encouraged trade with countries that have no labor standards, lack environmental and intellectual property laws, and violate agreements under the WTO. Free trade only works when both countries play fairly. That is why I can support the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement--USAFTA. Australia is a country that holds true to their word and will live up to their commitments in the agreement. Australia lives by the same rules of law that we as Americans live by. By maintaining an equivalent cost of production and standard of living to that of the United States, the USAFTA will improve the competitive advantages of both countries without encouraging the displacement of hard-working Americans. I am extremely concerned about the negative impacts that unfair trade agreements have had on the manufacturing industry. South Carolina, particularly the textile industry, has been decimated by unfair trade, first with NAFTA and now with the People's Republic of China. We have lost thousands of jobs at home. In the last six years, nearly 230,000 U.S. textile jobs have been lost. Since 1997, the U.S. textile industry has closed more than 250 textile plants in the country. These mass layoffs and plant closings are a direct result of unfairly traded imports, especially from China. China's access to the U.S. textile and apparel market more than doubled in 2002, growing 117 percent and grew an additional 114 percent in 2003, according to the American Textile Manufacturers Institute. During the negotiations on the Australian Free Trade Agreement, the Bush Administration negotiated a good deal for the textile industry and I appreciate their efforts in this regard. The USAFTA contains a strict yarn-forward rule of origin with no loopholes, exceptions, or carveouts. Therefore, the benefits of the USAFTA are limited to the participating countries only, effectively denying China the loophole through which they annually transship billions of dollars of manufacturing goods into this country. This is the first FTA to contain such a strict yarn-forward rule of origin and I hope that it is the first of many. While I recognize the need to examine the problems with our current trade agreements, I support the USAFTA because I feel it has the opportunity to serve as a model for future FTAs. Furthermore, the implementation of the USAFTA will further strengthen the U.S. relationship with Australia, one of our most important and reliable strategic partners.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 2013, our nation will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon's landing on the east coast of Florida. I am pleased to introduce a bill today that establishes a commission to determine how we can best commemorate his discovery of Florida. For a country as young as ours, a Quincentennial is a rare milestone worthy of tribute. Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the coast of Florida, south of the present-day St. Augustine, in April of 1513. During the Easter holiday, he explored our coasts, visiting the Florida Keys and the west coast of Florida. The first European explorer to step foot on North American soil, Ponce de Leon opened Florida and the mainland of the Americas to the rest of the world. Florida owes its heritage to Ponce de Leon. Even the name Florida dates back to Ponce de Leon's discovery. When he saw the lush terrain, Ponce de Leon named the area the ``land of flowers'' or ``Florida'' in Spanish. While there is no doubt that Ponce de Leon is a key part of Florida's history, his landing in Florida is ingrained in our entire nation's early history. Children read in their history books about the myths surrounding Ponce de Leon's voyages. His quest for the fountain of youth has become a myth symbolic of the age of exploration. Other Europeans were encouraged to make the dangerous journey across the Atlantic toward the Americas, persuaded by the stories of Ponce de Leon's explorations of the new lands of Florida. Ultimately, his discovery opened the path for exploration and colonization of the Americas. I have drafted this bill with the assistance of a notable scholar accomplished in the field of early Florida history--Dr. Samuel Proctor, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Florida. I would like to thank Dr. Proctor for all of his efforts in drafting this bill. Funding authorized by this legislation would support the activities of this commission and would allow for educational activities, ceremonies, and celebrations. Fittingly, the principal office for this operation would be located in St. Augustine, FL. With the establishment of this commission, my hope is to not only commemorate Ponce de Leon's arrival in Florida but to enhance the American public's knowledge about the impact of Florida's discovery on the history of the United States. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of commemorating this historic event. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 2013, our nation will celebrate the 500th anniversary of Ponce de Leon's landing on the east coast of Florida. I am pleased to introduce a bill today that establishes a commission to determine how we can best commemorate his discovery of Florida. For a country as young as ours, a Quincentennial is a rare milestone worthy of tribute. Juan Ponce de Leon landed on the coast of Florida, south of the present-day St. Augustine, in April of 1513. During the Easter holiday, he explored our coasts, visiting the Florida Keys and the west coast of Florida. The first European explorer to step foot on North American soil, Ponce de Leon opened Florida and the mainland of the Americas to the rest of the world. Florida owes its heritage to Ponce de Leon. Even the name Florida dates back to Ponce de Leon's discovery. When he saw the lush terrain, Ponce de Leon named the area the ``land of flowers'' or ``Florida'' in Spanish. While there is no doubt that Ponce de Leon is a key part of Florida's history, his landing in Florida is ingrained in our entire nation's early history. Children read in their history books about the myths surrounding Ponce de Leon's voyages. His quest for the fountain of youth has become a myth symbolic of the age of exploration. Other Europeans were encouraged to make the dangerous journey across the Atlantic toward the Americas, persuaded by the stories of Ponce de Leon's explorations of the new lands of Florida. Ultimately, his discovery opened the path for exploration and colonization of the Americas. I have drafted this bill with the assistance of a notable scholar accomplished in the field of early Florida history--Dr. Samuel Proctor, Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Florida. I would like to thank Dr. Proctor for all of his efforts in drafting this bill. Funding authorized by this legislation would support the activities of this commission and would allow for educational activities, ceremonies, and celebrations. Fittingly, the principal office for this operation would be located in St. Augustine, FL. With the establishment of this commission, my hope is to not only commemorate Ponce de Leon's arrival in Florida but to enhance the American public's knowledge about the impact of Florida's discovery on the history of the United States. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the importance of commemorating this historic event. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.