Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I say to Senator Allard, he has been a very responsible subcommittee chairman here. This is a big deal for the country, to South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington, and any other State. It is a huge deal. We need to make sure these sites are remediated and the environment of each State is protected and that we get on with it and not give DOE unilateral authority to tell us what to do, and do it in a collaborative way. We have achieved that in South Carolina. I think it would be inappropriate if Washington or Idaho could reach an agreement between DOE, and Idaho and Washington ran it by the NRC and they say, yes, we like this agreement, we think it protects us, we would like to do it, and then somebody else says no, or they make up a reason of telling us no, which would prevent this from ever happening. Now, we are going to disagree over some aspects of this. But here is where we do not disagree. The States are going to get the money, whether or not they reach an agreement with DOE. We are not going to let them do it unilaterally. We want to make sure every State has a right to negotiate an agreement on their own terms. There is nothing in this amendment that is going to prejudice another State in terms of their ability to reach an agreement with DOE on their terms, if they can. I think this is a very important concept. This is a pivotal time in our effort to clean up these sites. I say to my friend from Nevada and all those folks at Yucca Mountain, if I were in Nevada, I would have the same concerns. I totally understand that. But the rest of us have an obligation, too. I don't think it is fair just to make Nevada be the only one on the receiving end of what is fair and appropriate. If we can, in our individual States, in an environmentally sound manner, deal with some of this waste--an inch and a half--not to send it to Yucca Mountain, not spend $16 billion and take 23 years, I think we have some obligation to be part of the solution. Let it be said that South Carolina, from the regulator's side--their view is we have reached that agreement. I hope we can pass this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3170.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. There was another Energy and Water hearing where the same topic was brought before the Congress. The topic is, how are you doing with your efforts to reach agreements with the three States in question to find cleanup standards they can agree to that are environmentally sound, that will allow things to go forward in a more expeditious manner? The truth is, we have spent billions of dollars talking about cleaning up and we have done nothing but let tanks leak and have waste stay around for years and decades. Now we have a new model. Now we have new money, $350 million of new dollars, and we are using commonsense approaches to cleanup. What are we trying to do in South Carolina? If I can explain very quickly. I am not a scientist, but I do have fairly good common sense. The 51 tanks that have high-level waste, those tanks will be cleaned up. The liquid in those tanks will be converted to glass logs, it is called vitrification, and that will be sent to Yucca Mountain. What we are trying to do is clean these tanks up in a manner consistent with safety for South Carolina. The amendment says no tank can be closed unless the State of South Carolina issues a closure permit. The letter from my Governor says, not only am I aware of what you are doing, Senator Graham, I support it because it will allow the tanks to be closed up 23 years ahead of schedule, it will save money, and we don't have to worry about tanks deteriorating. The plan is to take all of the liquid out and the film on the bottom, which will be 1 to 1.5 inches, treated with concrete and other materials and the tank will be closed. To get that 1 to 1.5 inches out of the bottom of that tank will cost $16 billion and take 23 additional years and put people's lives at risk for no good reason, no good environmental reason. Every State is trying to define what is clean for their State. Washington is trying to do the same thing. Maybe they will want half an inch. I don't know what they want. Idaho is trying to do the same thing. We have done it and I have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report that says what is left in that tank after treatment is waste incidental to reprocessing, not high-level waste. The people in my State who regulate the environment have sent a letter saying we want this agreement because we have final say over where you close the tank and the standards we have negotiated we think are good for South Carolina. The only reason we are having this argument is they don't want one State to go--I guess some groups want to have the leverage of all three States to get standards they believe are better than those by the South Carolina folks who regulate our environment, and they are trying to use some standard that may not be necessary for Idaho and South Carolina. We don't have the same problems they do in Washington. I will stand behind any Senator from Washington to make sure DOE doesn't run over them. I will stand behind any Senator from Idaho to make sure they can negotiate on their own terms. I am asking this body to approve an agreement that is environmentally sound, fiscally responsible, that affects South Carolina, and is what all three States are trying to achieve. I have had printed in the Record the letter from my Governor. I have had printed the study from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I ask unanimous consent to have printed the letter from the Department of Health and Environment Control in South Carolina, saying this is good for the State, they retain control over the tanks, and this is environmentally sound.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The reason I speak as we close out this evening is to comment on a few things about the amendment pending before the Senate in regard to an effort to do two things: to make sure the $350 million that is available for the Department of Energy to provide cleanup in the States of Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina can move forward without any strings attached, and to ratify an agreement that the State of South Carolina has entered into with the Department of Energy concerning 51 tanks containing high-level waste. I really do very much like my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, but we dramatically disagree on this. I cannot emphasize how dramatically we do disagree about what is at stake and what we are trying to accomplish. My senior Senator from South Carolina could not have been possibly better to me since I have been in the Senate almost 18 months now. He is going through some accusations that I find not consistent with who Senator Hollings is. I am not going to dwell on that, but I believe that most of us who know Senator Hollings very well believe he gives everybody the same treatment: Really hard. He is a fair man. He is a good man. We have some disagreement about how to handle the amendment before us, but I did not come to this issue without some time, attention, and thought to the matter. Well over a year I have been involved with my State working with the Department of Energy to make sure that the 51 tanks that have high- level waste as a result of the cold war legacy material at the Savannah River site is cleaned up in a way that is environmentally sound for South Carolina, good for the taxpayer, and it makes sense. I have a letter from the Governor of South Carolina. Contrary to what Senator Hollings suggested, the Governor of South Carolina not only knows what we are doing, he encourages what we are doing. I received a letter to that effect. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education which declared separate but equal unconstitutional. I believe that ensuring that our public schools are open to everyone is a great equalizer in America. I will soon be turning 49, and I know that having an integrated school system has enriched my generation by allowing all of us in South Carolina to learn, socialize, and compete together in a public school setting. The brave men and women who fought to end the segregation of public schools have done a great service to South Carolina and our nation. It is appropriate they be honored accordingly and all of us should commit ourselves to build upon their legacy. I join you and my colleagues in the U.S. Senate in commemorating this historic decision.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on Saturday, May 29th, we will dedicate a national memorial to the more than 16 million men and women who served from December 1940 to August 1945 in our Army, Army Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marines, as well as the 400,000 men and women who gave their lives during World War II. The memorial is a fitting tribute to all who served and contributed to the war effort at home and abroad. When visitors enter the memorial, they are greeted with an inscription that puts the memorial, its placement on the National Mall and its importance to our nation into perspective: ``Here in the presence of Washington and Lincoln, one the 18th century father and the other the 19th century preserver of our nation, we honor those 20th century Americans who took up the struggle during the Second World War and made the sacrifices to perpetuate the gift of our forefathers entrusted to us: a nation conceived in liberty and justice.'' The memorial, composed of bronze and granite, has a memorial plaza and a rainbow pool as its main features. These features symbolize the totality of the war effort, both at home and overseas. Its two arches depict the two theaters of the war--the Atlantic and the Pacific. The fifty-six pillars represent every state and territory that committed men and women to the effort. A ``freedom wall'' with 4,000 sculpted gold stars commemorates the more than 400,000 Americans who died while serving in the armed forces during the war. I hope that for generations to come, this memorial, will etch into the collective memory of all Americans who visit the sense of duty, patriotism, valor and sacrifice of the millions of citizens--men and women, from all walks of life, from America's farms and cities, made up of all races, religions and ethnicities--who served and who answered their nation's call in a time of great need. This memorial is truly a shrine to democracy. World War II was a test of our Nation's democracy, against the forces of fascism and totalitarianism, which threatened to engulf the globe. Americans combated this evil as citizens of the world's bastion of democracy. It is only fitting that around each memorial flagpole--flying the symbol of a free and democratic people--is inscribed, ``Americans came to liberate, not to conquer, to restore freedom and to end tyranny.'' America's spirit was captured by President Franklin Roosevelt when he said of his countrymen, ``They have given their sons to the military services. They have stoked the furnaces and hurried the factory wheels. They have made the planes and welded the tanks, riveted the ships and rolled the shells.'' It was through the collective contribution of millions of Americans that victory was ultimately achieved. At war's end, General Douglas McArthur said it best when accepting the surrender of the Japanese in Tokyo Bay, ``Today the guns are silent. The great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won. The skies no longer rain death--the seas bear only commerce--men everywhere walk upright in the sunlight. The entire world is quietly at peace.'' I hope that when Americans visit this memorial and pay tribute to the millions of veterans who served to preserve our freedom, they will realize there was a time when the mission was clear, the cause was just and righteous and Americans were united in their quest for victory. As a nation, we honor the memory of ordinary Americans who were asked by their country to perform extraordinary feats, rose to the challenge and will forever be remembered. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, that would resolve it to be the sense of the Senate to express the grateful thanks of the nation to the more than 16 million veterans who served in the Army, Army Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine in World War II and to the millions of Americans on the home front who contributed to the war effort during World War II and to recognize the dedication of the National World War II Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, the District of Columbia, on May 29, 2004, as an occasion to acknowledge and pay tribute to the duty, sacrifices and valor of all members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in World War II, a group known collectively as the ``Greatest Generation.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator from Iowa, and look forward to working with him to continue to pressure the Chinese government to adopt a market-based currency valuation system. section 29

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank Senator Grassley. chinese currency I rise today to express my deep concern about the Chinese government's continued manipulation of its currency. In my mind, the Chinese government's adherence to a currency valuation system that does not rest on market-based principles is wrong and constitutes an unfair competitive advantage. It is time for the unfair valuation of the yuan to stop. I understand the administration has taken steps to address the problem and some progress has been made. But this is a serious problem. Clearly more needs to be done.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the fact that the Chairman recognizes the serious nature of this problem. Unfair manipulation of currency cannot be tolerated. I would like to see additional progress on this issue in the next 60 to 90 days. If progress is not forthcoming, I hope the Chairman would join me in supporting Senate hearings. However, these hearings should only be the first step. Should China fail to make substantial progress and the Senate fail to address this issue substantively, appropriate and responsible legislation may then be necessary, and I reserve the right to attach our China currency amendment to any available legislation that comes before the Senate.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the vote that is coming up this afternoon, the resolution about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. No. 1, I would like to compliment Majority Leader Frist and Senator Daschle for bringing this matter up, and the committees and those who are involved in drafting the resolution, and allowing it to come to the floor. I think it is important for the Senate to be on record; but, more importantly, that this not just be used or seen as an opportunity for politicians to pile on and talk about the story that is hard to watch or view, that we are all on the right side here in making sure the world understands we condemn this, and it is more about us protecting ourselves politically. I think it is a symbolic gesture, but much of democracy is symbolism: The idea that an elected body--some say the most prestigious deliberative body in the world, and I can understand why people would say that about the Senate--would take some of its time to have a vote on something that goes to the core of who we are as a people. As I travel around and listen to constituents about this prisoner abuse scandal, a couple of points are reflected back to me. No. 1, the people there are probably not nice people; they are criminals; maybe terrorists; that other people do worse; let us not be so hard on ourselves; and people in a war environment where there is much stress sometimes overreact. That is all true. But that is not the point. The point is if we use as a standard to govern ourselves the shortcomings of a dictatorship, then the big loser is us. I spoke at a graduation this weekend. I said never use the standard of someone else's failures to be your benchmark as to how you would like to live your life. We know how bad people treat good people and others. We have seen it in history for thousands of years. It was a real part of Saddam Hussein's regime. The question is, Can we prove to the world and ourselves that good people treat bad people differently? Not only can we, I think we must. There are a lot of Iraqis who are probably not shocked by this prisoner abuse scandal nearly as much as we are. In their world, this is pretty much the way you do business. A lot worse happened in that prison under Saddam Hussein. But what happened there that we know about so far is very hard for Americans to understand and digest. That is the good thing. The fact a lot of Iraqis are willing to accept that this is usual is not a good thing. What will have to occur for Iraq to make it as a functioning democracy is people are going to have to change what to expect from their leaders and their government and those in authority. My question to our Nation is, If we show anything short of disgust and condemnation, would we not be reinforcing to those already disheartened Iraqis that you should not have high expectations? Even the Americans, whom we have all heard about and who tout themselves as the good guy, understand how these things can happen. This resolution is a small step forward to prove to the Iraqi people and others that you should have high expectations of those who are in your government--those who are given the authority to imprison, to make arrests and detain. If you start having those high expectations, you will be amazed at how things in Iraq change for the better. I have been waiting for a demonstration to occur in Iraq against the activities that led to the death of the four contractors. I am fully aware if you join us to stabilize Iraq, to be a judge, or a prosecutor, or a police chief or the army--any symbol of authority that would bring about a transfer of democracy in Iraq--the insurgents are likely to come after you and your family. It is easy for us to talk about demonstrating and showing disgust when we are not threatened. But in the history of our Nation, people have put their lives at risk to make us better. In my lifetime, people such as Dr. Martin Luther King risked their lives to try to make life better for us all. During the civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s, the photos of police dogs attacking African-American men and women shocked us all and it made what segregation is about real. I hope these photos will shock us and make us understand when we fail as a people, when our institutions fail, it is OK to apologize. It doesn't make you smaller; it actually makes you larger. It is OK to say, I am sorry. There is a moral imperative, that when we assess accountability we do not take anybody off the list because of their rank or their status. This resolution today is a small step forward. There will be many more steps to be taken to overcome this prisoner abuse scandal and to transform Iraq into a functioning democracy. But there are voices in our country which are vilifying and undercutting the effort. I appeared on a show this Sunday with former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, a man who served his country in a variety of roles and honorably served in Vietnam and was wounded. But he said something that disturbed me. It took a while for me to realize the depth of the statement. When asked, Will Iraq be democratic, or the effort to transform Iraq be successful, he said, Less than 50. I will give 2-to-1 odds that this operation ends in a catastrophe, for a lack of a better word paraphrasing him. It is not good, I believe, to bet against ourselves, or to put 2-to-1 odds on the ending. People will take that wrong and think they are winning when they are really not. Whether Iraq becomes a functioning democracy or something akin to it is not only possible, it is a must. There will never be a Mideast without turmoil and hatred until some countries in that region embrace the idea that you can worship God more than one way, that there is a role for women, a meaningful role for women, and democracy ensures the two things I have mentioned. All people can participate and one's faith is expressed in many ways in a democracy. Not only is Iraq's transformation to a democracy a worthwhile objective, I think we have a moral imperative to accomplish that mission because it goes to the sense of whether we will ever win the war on terror. For every democracy that is formed in the Mideast, there is one less place for Osama bin Laden and his henchmen to be able to thrive; they know that. That is why they are fighting so hard and so fiercely. The people indigenous to Iraq who do not want a democracy understand their past association with Saddam Hussein will not be rewarded. They want it their way and no other way. They use this opportunity to attack us and run America and other people out as a way to create a vacuum which they will fill. If that occurs and we fail in Iraq, the big loser will be the next generation of freedom-loving people all over the world. The international community is not only essential to transforming Iraq, it must take an active part sooner rather than later. History tells us sometimes the international community is more worried about appeasing the problem than solving the problem. Winston Churchill virtually stood alone because so many people before him believed Hitler would be OK if you gave him just one more country. People like Hitler are never OK with just a little more. They want all you have and then some. Osama bin Laden will never be appeased by having part of Iraq or all of it. People who think the way he does cannot be dealt with in terms that we understand and live by. That is not to say we need to throw our law and our values overboard. We need to understand the only thing that will control the Osama bin Ladens of the world is the same thing that controlled the Hitlers of the world: Good men and women from diverse backgrounds from all over the world coming together and saying, We will fight you. We will fight for freedom of religion, diversity in life. If you want to fight, that is the only way this can be resolved, you will get a fight. The international community needs to help us yesterday. President Bush is right: a democratic Iraq is necessary to transform the Middle East as a starting point. President Bush is right: Iraq is a frontline effort in the war on terror. It is a place in the past where terrorists felt at home; a place in the past with a leader, Saddam Hussein, who fueled money to the Middle East to reward those who wanted to destroy the State of Israel and prevent a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel. This resolution could not come at a better time. But it is only a small first step of many more steps to come. My bet is that it is not 2 to 1, it is 100 percent; that if Americans can come together and stop the partisan fighting over this war, having differences of opinion is absolutely appropriate, and the only way a free people can live. The Iraqi prison abuse scandal is an opportunity for America to come together. Regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat, we see this problem the same. If we work together, we can win. We will work, I am 100-percent certain of that. The only person who can defeat us is ourselves.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask to be recognized to speak in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, we have apparently reached an impasse on the FSC/ETI bill. I am the first one to acknowledge that our majority leader should be insistent we pass this bill. We are dealing with some changes to the tax policy of the United States to avoid tariffs on U.S.-manufactured products going into Europe. The WTO has ruled against us and we need to change our law. We have a lot of other things being added onto this bill that are probably not related to that but, as this bill is being touted as a jobs package, I think that is an appropriate way to describe what we are trying to accomplish in this bill. But I am going to be honest with you, I have an amendment I have had pending on this bill for a very long time, along with Senator Schumer, and this amendment deals with requiring the Chinese Government to float the currency. It basically says if within 180 days the Chinese Government does not take corrective action in the way they peg their currency to the dollar, then tariffs will be levied against any products coming out of China into the United States that benefit from that currency devaluation. To make a long story short: China cheats. The Chinese have a system of valuing their money that creates between a 15-percent and 40-percent discount on all products produced in China. This currency manipulation is putting our manufacturing community at a severe disadvantage. It is creating an unfair advantage for Chinese-produced products, and it is done by the Government. Free trade, fair trade, these are words people throw around. If you are a free trader, that code word means you don't care for the consequences to the worker. If you are a fair trader, the code word means you are a protectionist. I would like to be thought of as a balanced trader. You cannot have balance if your trading partner at the governmental level cheats. I don't have enough time to go into how I think the Chinese Government intentionally steals intellectual property rights of American companies and foreign companies, but 90 percent of all the videos and tapes sold in China are pirated. If you do business in China, your intellectual property is very much at risk because there is no rule of law protection. The Chinese Government helps companies transship--illegally ship goods produced in China to get the benefit of trade agreements to which they are not party, and it goes on and on. But one of the biggest abuses is to value the currency in an artificially low manner that pegs the Chinese currency to the dollar in a way that gives a 15-percent to 40-percent discount. Our amendment, that of myself and Senator Schumer, tries to let the Chinese know we are not going to take this anymore. They need to take corrective action. If we are going to trade with you, if you are going to be a member of the family of nations, you need to comply with international trade laws when it comes to how you value money; that you can't cheat without a consequence. If you doubt what I am saying, talk with any manufacturing entity that is a domestic manufacturer that competes with China and ask them about the money problem, the currency, the devaluing of the Chinese currency, and how it affects their ability to be competitive. In droves, they will tell you that you need to either get China to float their currency like every other market-based economy has done, to find its true value, as we do, or you need to revalue it to get a more fair and accurate representation of the value of the Chinese currency. We have had great job growth in the last 2 months. That is encouraging. But one thing we have not been able to accomplish yet is a rebounding in manufacturing jobs. I am here to say I support the President in every endeavor to try to grow this economy, but we--the administration, the Congress, the House and the Senate--need to deal more aggressively with Chinese abuses when it comes to trade. From September 2002 to September 2003, there has been a 6.6 percent decline in manufacturing jobs in South Carolina. One of the great reasons is not productivity gains; it has been a loss of market share to China--not because they work harder, not because they are smarter, but because the Government cheats. As a whole, the U.S. manufacturing jobs have decreased by 4.2 percent. Only two States, Hawaii and Nevada, have seen an increase in manufacturing jobs. In South Carolina, 41,000 jobs in 2003 were lost in manufacturing and 3 million American jobs have been lost in the last 5\1/2\ years. China's access to the U.S. textile industry and apparel market more than doubled in 2002, growing at 117 percent. That is in addition to 114 percent up in 2003. The bottom line to all this is there will be no economic recovery in manufacturing until our country aggressively deals with trade abuses of China in a wide variety of areas, but one of the chief abuses is the Chinese Government artificially devalues its money, creating a discount from 15 to 40 percent on every product made in China. That is not fair to those people who are competing with Chinese companies. It is done intentionally and it has a serious and dramatic effect on our ability to sustain manufacturing jobs in this country. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was a commission established by the Congress to look at Chinese policies and how they affect our economy and whether China is playing fairly. It is a bipartisan group. It is a group before which I have testified. They have taken testimony from a variety of people in the United States about China and how China affects the U.S. market and whether Chinese practices comply with international trade regimes. Here is what they said: China, in violation of both its IMF and WTO obligations, is in fact manipulating its currency for trade advantage. The Commission urges the congressional leadership to use its legislative powers to force action by the U.S. and Chinese governments to address this unfair and mercantilist trade practice. They are telling us that, yes, the currency in China is being intentionally manipulated and it is costing us jobs and it has a detrimental impact on the American economy. It is being undervalued on purpose to create a trade advantage. They are urging us to get the administration and us as a body--the House and Senate as bodies--to fight back. I am here to say I accept their challenge. I am willing to fight back. We are not going to have a cloture vote with my vote until I get a promise we are going to address this problem this year. Since 1994, when China pegged its currency to the dollar, the trade deficit has increased dramatically. In 1994, they tied the value of their currency to the United States dollar in a way that the China Trade Commission found to be unfair and a way that Secretary of the Treasury Snow's office found to be manipulated, to be unfair. In 1994, the trade deficit with China was $30 billion. In 2003, it is $124 billion and it is going up. This says a lot about the problem we have with China. You will never convince me their markets are fairly open and their conduct as a government is not responsible for this increased trade deficit. All of it is not due to the currency devaluation, but a great deal of it is. The question for the Senate is: Are we going to sit on the sidelines and ignore this problem? Are we going to continue to allow the Chinese Government to continue to intentionally devalue its currency, creating an advantage for Chinese companies over American companies, and have no response? The answer of this Senator is, no, we are not going to sit on the sidelines. As Senators, we need to be held accountable about this abuse by China. If Members do not think it is an abuse, come to the Senate and say so, but speak up one way or the other. No more being silent on an issue this important to our economy. Since permanent normal trade relations have been established by China, there has been an explosion of Chinese exports. PNTR status used to be most-favored-nation status. They changed the acronym because no one wants to say China is the most favored nation because they are so abusive to their people and the world at large. We changed the acronym. The reason we changed the acronym is because people did not want to associate themselves with saying China is a most favored nation. We need a more ``Ronald Reagan response'' to China. It is an evil empire that abuses people. It does not allow freedom of speech or freedom of religion. It is hard to trade with people who have none of the values you possess. Since 2001, there has been over a 20-percent increase in Chinese imports. Our exports to China have basically been flat. They are taking us to the cleaners. China has been in clear violation of IMF and WTO commitments by maintaining an unfairly low exchange rate to gain competitive advantage. IMF article IV states that members should avoid manipulating exchange rates in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members. That is what is going on in China. We are proposing in our amendment that if China does not fairly value its currency to meet international standards of doing business--and, yes, every country has sovereignty over their own currency, but countries do not have the right to manipulate their currency in a way to create an unfair advantage in the world marketplace and still consider themselves a member of the family of nations. What we are talking about is bringing about corrective action that international trade regimes require. That is all we are talking about. We are going to give the Chinese 180 days to correct this problem and work with them to do so, but we are not going to let them get away with it. About 3 or 4 months ago, maybe even longer now, this body unanimously passed a resolution I authored condemning the Chinese manipulation of their currency, saying it was unfair, created damage to the American economy, and hurt American manufacturing. That was passed by a voice vote, with no opposition. That has not done anything. I thought it might. I thought it might get their attention, but the abuse still continues. It is now time to be serious. The amendment we offer says if you do not peg your current currency in a more accurate way, or ``float'' as you should, being a major economic force in the world, we will start putting tariffs on your products 6 months down the road. And we have the right to do that under international law. A reevaluation of the yuan should permit other nations' currencies to go up at least partway, maybe 10 percent or so. The whole idea of trade is to help developing nations and rise all boats. The Chinese manipulation of their currency and their practices are to sink every boat around them. The Dominican Republic and other developing nations are having a hard time competing with China. China is not interested in raising the boats of other nations. They are interested in stealing market share and sinking every boat they can get hold of. If they change their practices, it will allow their neighbors to accurately value their currencies, helping American manufacturing in a tremendous way. What would that way be? If you put all these currency changes together--not just China, the Asian region--the result would be a $50 billion reduction in the United States current account deficit, which in turn translates to something like 500,000 high-paying jobs, mainly in manufacturing in this country. That is according to Fred Bergsten, Ph.D., Director for the International Institute for Economics. That sentiment has been echoed by people in the manufacturing community, economists, all over this country, all over the world. The European Union is having a problem with Chinese currency practices. Again, 500,000 high-paying jobs could come about if the Chinese only played fair. I have something to say to the Senate: Chinese are not going to play fair on their own. If we want the Chinese Communist dictatorship to play fair, we will have to push them. A pegged exchange rate policy is not appropriate for a major economy in the global system such as China. They are pegging the yuan to the dollar where it will always be of less value than the dollar, artificially low, creating a discount on any product made in China. If I am selling the product where dollars are involved, and you are selling a product in China where the yuan is involved, and you have lowered the value of that currency, you have created an advantage for yourself. That is exactly what is going on. Secretary Snow stressed that a flexible market-based exchange rate regime and reduced controls on capital flows are the best system for China and all major world economies. He is exactly right. He stated that in April of 2004. We have manufacturing business owners who are telling us we have a problem. We have Secretary Snow who has looked at it and found abuses. We have world class economists telling us we have a problem with China. We have the Congress's own commission that was chartered to investigate China in terms of potential abuses telling us that the currency is undervalued in a manipulative fashion, hurting American manufacturing unfairly. Now we have labor unions commenting. While many factors contributed to this devastating job loss (in manufacturing), it is clear that the Chinese government's manipulation of its currency, violation of international trade rules and egregious repression of its citizens' fundamental democratic and human rights are key contributors to unfair competitive advantage. The Chinese government is flouting its international obligations and the U.S. government must act urgently to hold it accountable. That is from the AFL-CIO. The truth is, myself and the AFL-CIO probably do not agree on a lot of domestic issues. Sometimes we do. On this issue we see China the same. China is a dangerous, growing threat to this country. Their military is doubling, exponentially growing in terms of its capabilities. They are getting money from international trade regimes where they are cheap. The Chinese people, I am sure, are good, decent people and living under very oppressive conditions, something we would not stand for 5 minutes. At the end of the day, the least we can do is fight back against its Communist dictatorship when they cheat. If we are going to trade with China, then we need to make China part of the family of nations. But this country needs to stand up to the Chinese Government when they cheat. They are undervaluing their currency on purpose. It is costing us a lot of jobs. It is not fair, and it needs to be addressed. I am here to say, as a U.S. Senator in his first term, I am going to do everything I can to bring this issue to the Senate. I want to do it on this bill. If I can reach an agreement with our leadership and friends on the other side, we will do it down the road. But we are going to address this problem. I hope we do something about China's trade abuses sooner or later before it costs us more jobs. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, today the Senate will conduct a period of morning business with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The leader announced last night that we have been unable to reach an agreement, and it appears it will be necessary to file cloture today on the FSC/ETI JOBS bill. It is disappointing that many of the amendments remaining have nothing to do with the underlying bill. The leader also announced that no rollcall votes will occur today and all Members should be aware that the next rollcall vote can be expected Monday evening. We will hear more on the schedule later in the day. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 1524, the Motorsports Facilities Fairness Act. S. 1524 would clarify the tax treatment of motorsports facilities, codifying the 7-year depreciation classification that track owners have used, in good faith, for many years. This classification went without question in numerous audits and reviews until very recently. Now the IRS wants to implement a new interpretation of the law that would result in a retroactive tax increase for motorsports facility owners. This new interpretation would penalize the owners of motorsports entertainment facilities who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in these properties in order to meet the demands of sanctioning bodies and racing fans. Technological changes and enhanced safety requirements can render even recent track repair and reconstruction obsolete. Tracks must also compete to host premier racing events, in part by drawing as many fans as possible. This is why facilities must constantly renovate, rebuild, upgrade and expand. Darlington Raceway in South Carolina typifies this reinvestment ethic. The track that is ``too touch to tame,'' is undergoing substantial upgrades. Earlier this year, Darlington installed ``SAFER'' (Steel And Foam Energy Reduction) barriers. The track is currently installing lighting for night racing, which will be completed before the next running of the NASCAR Southern 500 in November. S. 1524 would not only cover large facilities such as Darlington. The legislation would also clarify the tax law for hundreds of tracks around the country, including approximately 30 other facilities in South Carolina alone. The government should not punish these track owners for making capital investments in their facilities. These investments provide substantial economic benefits for the communities where these facilities are located. Congress should promptly enact S. 1524 to provide certainty and clarity to the Tax Code and to encourage motorsports facility owners to continue to make economically beneficial investments.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, in 2001, World Trade Organization members accepted China into the organization only after negotiating the most complex accession agreement in WTO history. Under their accession agreement, China committed to adopting a market- and rules-based economy and special safeguards for the domestic industries of other WTO members that could be severely injured by surges of imports from China's non-market economy. China has yet to live up to their commitments. China's problems stem from a significant lack of intellectual property right enforcement, to the continued dumping and transshipping of textiles, to the subsidizing of their steel industry. China also manipulates their currency, the yuan, in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage. These unfair trade practices seriously jeopardize many United States industries, including the textile and steel industries. The textile industry has been hit particularly hard by unfair trade with China. Since 1997, more than 250 textile plants in the U.S. have closed. With quotas on textile and apparel set to be totally phased-out on January 1, 2005, it is not unrealistic to expect even more job losses and factory closings in the textile industry. Quotas are set under the Multifiber Arrangement, MFA, an international agreement that allows countries to impose quotas on the level of goods imported from individual supplier countries. The MFA was designed to prevent a worldwide crisis in textile and apparel trade. Specifically, it was needed to keep very low wage producing nations from overwhelming global markets. If these quotas are lifted, China is poised to control 70 percent of the textile and apparel market share. Allowing China to dominate world markets in this sector will result in the devastation of many third world economies, resulting in widespread economic and social instability. If the goals of the World Trade Organization are to increase global prosperity and economic advancement through orderly trade, and especially to advance the development of the third world through orderly trade flows, we have to ask ourselves the following question: Does our current trade policy with China help further those goals, or will it continue to cost millions of United States' manufacturing jobs and undermine global advancement in general and in the third world specifically? With the expiration of the quotas, the United States will see even more of the products they buy manufactured in a country that allows their workers to be treated poorly. Workers in Chinese factories suffer serious, routine and on-going abuse at the hands of their employers. Health and safety conditions almost always fail to meet Chinese law or international standards, and workers regularly work illegally long hours for overtime pay that is not calculated according to law. Chinese workers also face harsh disciplinary measures and the use of heavy fines for minor infractions of factory rules. We need to let China know that if they keep dumping and transshipping textiles, permanent quotas will be put in place. If China continues to steal intellectual property rights, they will find themselves before every WTO tribunal that exists. One of the best investments the U.S. ever made was spending billions of dollars during the Cold War to prohibit the spreading of communism. We need to show similar strength when it comes to standing up against China's communist dictatorship that trades unfairly, oppresses its people, and bleeds our economy dry. What I would like to see my country do, Republican and Democrat, is to ask the Chinese to stop cheating; to try to persuade the Chinese government through international organizations such as the WTO, to stop stealing market share and become a better member of the Family of Nations. There's a lot of resistance to any idea about change. Our opponents argue that current trade policy is appropriate because of the fact that it may reduce prices to consumers. This is only true if you review what hidden costs we are paying. Such costs include: over 3 million lost manufacturing jobs in the past 5 years, frozen wages, health and pension benefits for workers that have managed to remain employed, shrinking tax base for Federal, State and local government. Maybe the greatest cost, however, is to our national security. There is no doubt that the United States was the single greatest military power in the 20th century because of its industrial strength. If we make China the new industrial superpower, will that not translate into China becoming the single greatest military power of the 21st century? The large economic growth China has experienced over the last several years is not going to the average Chinese citizen. In fact, it is estimated that just 0.16 percent of the Chinese population controls 65 percent of the nation's U.S. $1.5 trillion liquid assets in the Mainland bank deposits. The income distribution in China is likely to be the most unequal in the world. Rather than using this economic growth to help China's 800 million rural residents who earn the equivalent of just 80 cents per day, it is going to their military disproportionately. Today, China is the world's largest purchaser for foreign military weapons and technology. China's defense industry has become far more productive in the last five years and improvements can be expected as the Chinese economy continues to grow. China is now more than doubling its budgeted defense spending this year as part of an aggressive military modernization strategy. And some European countries are even pushing the European Union to lift the arms trade embargo on China. What I considered at one time to be a regional problem is a national security problem. Rigged and unfair international trading rules are a key cause of the U.S. manufacturing crisis. China's unfair trade practices are costing United States jobs and jeopardizing our manufacturing base. They have shown that they are not yet committed to participating in a rules-based global trading system and are not yet willing to make the necessary steps to transition into a market-based economy. China continues to manipulate the currency markets to keep the dollar artificially high and its own currency, the yuan, artificially low. By playing the currency market in this manner, China effectively subsidizes their exports to the U.S. and places a tariff on U.S. shipments to China. This mercantilist practice has caused serious damage to the U.S. manufacturing sector. The U.S. Congress must take action. Senator Charles Schumer and I have introduced legislation that would require China to adopt a market-based system of currency. The goal of this legislation is to remove China's unfair currency advantage and the detrimental impact that it is having in the U.S. and abroad. Something must be done to alleviate the detrimental economic impact China is having on our manufacturing industry. I urge the Leadership to allow a clean vote on this important legislation. I believe it will receive overwhelming bipartisan support and give the administration one more tool to get the Chinese to uphold their WTO obligations.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, Christopher B. Elser of Camden, SC, died on the afternoon of April 18, 2004. Christopher, a student at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD, died from stab wounds he received from an early-morning intruder who entered the room where he was sleeping. Christopher had spent the night in a fraternity brother's room after a party so his friend would have a quiet place to study. Christopher was a junior in the Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences at the University. He was also a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity and played soccer his freshman year. He was known as a consummate gentleman, both on campus and off. As one of his fraternity brothers said, ``We all strived to be gentlemen, but we never had anyone embody it as much as Chris.'' His memorial service on April 19, 2004, drew more than 1,000 friends and family members to honor his life. Their numerous stories and memories further cemented Christopher's status as a gentlemen and also demonstrated the tremendous positive impact he had on everyone he met. At an early age, Christopher developed an affinity with the thoroughbred horse business, nourished by his father's occupation as a thoroughbred trainer and consignor. As a precocious 10-year-old, he began his tenure on the Stable Crew at the August Yearling Sale in Saratoga, NY, serving with young men twice his age. Until his death, he worked in Saratoga for two weeks every August and was known for his infectious smile and inexhaustible spirit in both his work at the sale and in numerous after-hours adventures. Christopher's memorial service in Camden, SC, was held outdoors at the Carolina Cup Steeplechase Museum on April 23, 2004. In an atmosphere reminiscent of his easygoing fun-loving demeanor, Christopher's friends and family gathered to celebrate his 20 years of life. As tales about his life unfolded, it became clear to all present what had made Christopher so special: his love for life. This trait brought more than 100 people together to honor an extraordinary young man's life and to mourn his untimely death. After the service, friends and family ate, drank, and told more stories of Christopher and, as he would have wished, there was more laughter than tears on this beautiful, South Carolina morning Christopher is survived by his father, Kip, his mother, Rhetta, and his sister, Taylor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, on rollcall vote 67 I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Will the Chair notify me when I have used 4 minutes?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Five more seconds. The Laci Peterson case is a death penalty case because there are two victims. All we are saying is Federal law should address reality. When Michael Lenz lost his wife in the Oklahoma City bombing incident, he also lost his son, Michael Lenz III. All I am asking for is that justice be rendered in cases such as that. When somebody chooses to destroy a family--the mother and the unborn child--let them pay a severe price, and let's debate abortion another day, another time, and not interject it into a statute where it should not be interjected. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I may take a few minutes, I say to the Senator from Kansas, to explain my relationship to this bill and why I am here today. No. 1, I want to thank the leadership for allowing the bill to come to the floor. Senator Frist and Senator McConnell and our leadership team has worked hard with Senator Daschle to get an agreement so we could come to the floor and debate what I think is an important issue, and to allow Senator Feinstein to have her say about how we should craft this bill. In July 1999, this bill was first introduced in the House. I was the author of the bill. Before I came to Congress, I spent some time in the Air Force. Senator DeWine has taken the cause up in the Senate since it was first introduced. I really appreciate all that Mike has done. He has been very sympathetic to what we are trying to do. He was leading the charge in the Senate as this bill was being debated and voted on in the House. But prior to getting into politics, from 1982 to 1988, I served as a prosecutor and a defense attorney in the U.S. Air Force domestically and overseas. During that experience, I realized at the Federal level there was a gap in law. We had a case involving a pregnant woman who was beaten up, and her child was lost, and she was almost killed. I looked into the idea of charging the offender with the damage done to the unborn child, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice there was no way to do that. So I was sensitive to it from a prosecutor's point of view early on in my legal career. When I got to Congress, there was an effort in some States to create unborn victims statutes, and I associated myself with that effort federally. A lot of pro-life people came over and were very supportive of what we are doing. That is true. Pro-life people generally like the idea of protecting unborn children whenever they can. Pro-choice people are very sensitive to the fact that a woman should decide what to do with her body in an intimate situation like a pregnancy. I understand that debate clearly. I am a pro-life person, so I have biased there. But having said that, there are pro-life people who hate this bill. It surprised me, but it is true, because in the bill, we wrote it in a way that abortion is not covered at all. As a matter of fact, we preserve, under the current law--under this bill--the right to have a legal abortion, and you cannot prosecute the mother under any circumstances. There are cases out there where mothers are being prosecuted who abuse drugs and alcohol and do damage to their children. What I wanted to do was to focus on what I thought we all could agree on, to a large extent. The law in abortion and the politics of abortion really do not play well here because we are talking about criminal activity of a third party. I do not know why you would want to give a criminal any more breaks than you had to if they go around beating on pregnant women. And people say: Well, don't they have to know if the woman is pregnant? No. Why? The law is really common sense. If you attack a woman of childbearing years, you do so at your own peril. If you push somebody, you do not know if they have a severe medical condition. You are liable for the consequences of your actions. There are plenty of cases that say, if you attack a woman of childbearing years, you do not have to have actual knowledge. You are responsible for the consequences of your illegal act. In a poll, when people were asked, if a violent, physical attack on a pregnant woman leads to the death of her unborn child, do you think prosecutors should be able to charge the attacker with murder for killing the fetus, 79 percent said yes; 69 percent of pro-choice people, in that poll, said yes. Why would a pro-choice person support this legislation? It passed three times in the House. The first time we had it up for a vote was September 30, 1999, I believe. Madam President, 254 folks voted for the bill in the House, as I recall. I assure everyone listening to my voice today, there are not 254 pro-life people in the House. Madam President, 52 Democrats have voted for this bill. The parties tend to split on the issue of abortion, with the Democratic Party being more pro-choice and the Republican Party being more pro-life. But we had Democratic support, and we had pro-choice people supporting this idea that when it comes to criminal activity, we are going to define the unborn in terms that make it hard on the criminal--not hard on the mother. You can never prosecute a woman for anything she does to her child, no matter how much you would like to, under this bill. I did not want to get into that debate. You can never ever prosecute anybody for receiving medical treatment related to their pregnancy or lawful abortion. For over 30 years, in the State of California, two things have coexisted: the Roe v. Wade rights of a woman and a statute that will allow you to do what is happening in California today--prosecute a person for doing damage to the mother and the unborn child, such as the Laci Peterson case. This has been a long journey. This July will be the fifth anniversary of the time that I introduced this bill. Back in 1999, I remember saying on the floor of the House there will be a case where a pregnant woman is brutalized and she loses her child and it will be front-page news. The reason I said that then is, having been a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I understand the following: There are a lot of good people in this world, but there are some mean people, too. This happens more than you would ever want to believe. The No. 1 cause of death among pregnant women in the District of Columbia is murder. As much as we would like to believe otherwise, pregnant women have things come their way because of their pregnancy that shocks the conscience. In Arkansas, there are three people sitting on death row today because they were hired by the boyfriend, who didn't want to pay child support, to kidnap his girlfriend, who wanted to have the child, took her off to a remote area and beat her within an inch of her life with the express purpose of killing the child. And when she was on the floor, she begged for two things: Her own life and her baby's life. Those people under Arkansas law were charged with two crimes, making them eligible for the death penalty. They deserve to be. Under this bill, you cannot get the death penalty. The reason I chose not to include the death penalty is, I did not want to get into the death penalty debate because people of goodwill and good reasoning may disagree with the State imposing that punishment. The Senator from California cares as much about pregnant women as anybody here. This is not about who cares about women and who is trying to do this or that. Her amendment may not be written the way she would like. I would oppose it, if it was changed. It happens in America more times than you would ever believe that pregnant women are the victim of violent assault and their children get killed or severely injured. That concept can and does exist with the idea that a woman, early on in the pregnancy, can choose whether to carry that child. These are two concepts the law recognizes that exist side by side. Why do 84 percent of the people believe a criminal should be prosecuted twice, not once? Because it really does violate common decency. If a woman chooses to have a baby and she loses her baby because of a violent act, most of us, a large percentage of us, want to whack the person who did it as hard as we can. And we don't want to get into the debate about abortion. We want to make sure the prosecutor has the tools to bring about the most severe and just verdict possible. This bill excludes abortion. It excludes the death penalty for political reasons and legal reasons. Pro-life people have criticized me because in this bill, in their opinion, I am legalizing abortion. This bill doesn't legalize abortion. This bill doesn't ban abortion. This bill says: If you are a criminal and you attack a pregnant woman and you hurt her kid, you will get the full force of the law. What is going on in California? In 1999, when I said there will be a woman out there who suffers brutally and loses her child and we will all know about it because it will be front page news, I never dreamed it would happen so quickly. I never dreamed it would be so vicious. The authorities investigating the Laci Peterson crime have two pieces of evidence to offer the jury: The decomposed body of the mother and the decomposed unborn child late in the pregnancy. It is important the jury know about both. It is important the criminal be held accountable for both. We will debate abortion another day. Sixteen States define life under the same legal terms I chose when we wrote this bill. That is as to the criminal world, if the pregnancy comes to an end and the unborn child's right to develop comes to an end because of third-party criminal activity, we are going to hold you legally responsible at the earliest onset of pregnancy. The Roe v. Wade standard makes no sense. Why give a criminal a benefit of the legitimate debate of abortion? Thirteen States define it in stages. California, I think by law, defines the unborn victim statute at the sixth week of pregnancy. Some States, one or two, have the term ``viability.'' There is a sliding scale. But the dominant way to define this in State law is the way we have chosen to define it in this bill. This chart illustrates how the States break out. There is another situation I would ask you to think about. Let's say there is a woman on death row. She is pregnant for whatever reason. How many people would let the execution go forward knowing the woman is pregnant? Think about that. What good would it do to allow the execution to go forward if you knew the woman was pregnant? Would you wait? Here is what I suggest to you, if any State or the Federal Government decided to impose the death penalty on a woman who was pregnant during any stage of the pregnancy, there would be a riot in the street--among pro-choice people, too, because what good would it do at any stage of the pregnancy to have the State kill the kid? You are not enhancing Roe v. Wade. You are not advancing the abortion debate. You are doing something you don't need to do. The definition that was used in the Innocent Child Protection Act of 2000, which I was involved in drafting, is the same definition that is in this bill about the unborn child. It passed 417 to nothing. To me, that makes perfect sense. Four hundred seventeen pro-life people do not exist in the House of Representatives. But when faced with the question, should the State wait if a woman is pregnant, even at the earliest stages of pregnancy, 417 people said yes. The reason I mention this to you is, when it comes time to prosecute people who unlawfully attack a woman at the earliest stage of pregnancy, why should they get a pass? What good have you done? It does not change the abortion debate. Roe v. Wade rights still exist. All you have done is allow someone to interrupt another person's life, take something of value, and they get a pass because you are mixing concepts that don't need to be mixed. That is why over 50 pro-choice people voted for this bill in the House. That is why if we ever get to final passage, we are going to have a bipartisan coming together of pro-life and pro-choice people to say one thing loud and clear: If you attack a woman of childbearing years where Federal law applies, you do so at your peril, and you are going to suffer the full consequences of your action. And the full consequences of that action could be the loss of the child and the loss of the mother or a combination thereof. Why not sentence enhancement? I think there is a reason under the law that no State has gone down this road. Sentence enhancement would say the following: You get a stiffer penalty if the woman is pregnant, but you don't talk about the consequences in terms of the victim's life. That is an artificial distinction that I think denies justice. This was a statement by Kent Willis, executive director of ACLU, and I disagree with this statement: That baby was not a murder victim. He was talking about the Laci Peterson case, the son Connor. I think Connor was a murder victim. The point I guess I am trying to make is that when people talk about what happens to them, the law, wherever it can, should address the full range of what really happened to them. There is another case you don't know about because it didn't get nearly the publicity, but it is just as real. It is a good example of why we need this statute. Michael Lenz and his wife were expecting their first child. She worked in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. She was in the midstages of her pregnancy. She went to work early the day of the bombing to show an ultrasound to her colleagues of their baby. That was going on at the moment the bomb goes off. She was killed. Michael Lenz III was killed. They had already named their little baby boy. The father came before my committee when I was in the House to testify for this bill. He said: I am no expert on abortion, but here is what happened to my family. My wife was killed, and at the same moment I lost my son, Michael Lenz III. The reason they lost their son is not because of Roe v. Wade rights; it was because of a third party crazy man, a criminal, who destroyed many lives that day. When you look at the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing case, when it came time in Federal court, you don't find a place for Michael Lenz III. If this bill had been law, there would have been 22 people, not 21 people, that would have been before the court. I cannot say it any better than that. In terms of Michael Lenz and all the other victims who testified in support of this legislation, sentence enhancement doesn't speak to what happened to them. From a prosecutor's point of view, it makes all the difference in the world to have two charges facing the accused versus one. It gives you more leverage than you could ever dream of. Ladies and gentlemen, in cases like this, it is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from Maine is correct.

Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from Maine is correct. There is no legal precedent where a court has concluded that any of these State statutes undermines the legal basis for abortion rights.