Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank the Chair. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1816.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. We have a great team defending America right now. That team is made up of active-duty members who have made a decision to serve 4 years or maybe have a career in the military. But that team is supplemented by the Guard and Reserves. There are 224,000 Guard and Reserve members called up to active duty and, working together, they are doing a great job defending our freedom. It is time to look anew at the role the Guard and Reserves play. I say to Senator Daschle, I want to publicly thank him for making this possible because he has been great to work with, and Senator DeWine. I think we have been a pretty good team here on the floor. We disagree on a lot, and there will be a lot of fussing and fighting before this bill is over with, but that is the American way. It is OK to express our differences. It is great to be able to tell people you disagree. There are a lot of countries where there are not many ways to express your disagreements. But one of the things we have done tonight, and I think in the spirit of the country, is to come together to support our men and women who serve. So why do we need this? One-fourth of the Guard and Reserves are on active duty now, with more to come. We need to acknowledge the obvious. They will be asked to do more, not less, over the coming months and years. Why? The cold war model of having tanks in the Fulda Gap and a large nuclear deterrent force standing up against the former Soviet Union, that war, thank goodness, is in the history books for the most part. The new war, the war on terrorism, has a totally different dynamic. The Guard and Reserves, which were tangential, to be honest with you, in the cold war are in the forefront of this war on terrorism. Most of your military police are guards and reservists. Seventy-five percent of the aircrews flying C-130s--and I know our Presiding Officer knows this because we took nine trips in the theater of Afghanistan and Iraq. Eight of the crews are Guard crews, one is a Reserve crew. Seventy-five percent of the people flying C-130s are Guard and Reserves. Fifty-five percent of the people flying airlift to get the supplies and resources into the region to protect our troops and help them survive are reservists. Almost 90 percent of the intelligence service for the Army is in the Reserves, 90 percent is civil affairs Reserves. It is growing by leaps and bounds. What we are trying to do tonight is provide a better benefit package than they have had before because we are going to ask so much of the Guard and Reserves. Senator Stevens made this possible. We have passed two bills by 80- plus votes, but there is no money behind it. For all those who follow the Senate, they know who is in charge of the money. Senator Stevens made this possible because we are putting money behind the bill. What does that mean? It is no longer talk. Twenty percent--2 out of 10 people--who are Guard and Reserves are without health care. This bill immediately will allow them to have health care year round. They will pay a premium like a retiree would pay, but they will have health care by being a member of the Guard or Reserves. We need to do more, and we will. The problem of a Guard or Reserve family goes like this: If you are called up to active duty for a year, you go into the military health care system called TRICARE. If you have health care in the private sector, most times--almost all the time-- your physician network is replaced. You go from the private health care sector to the military health care sector. And when you get deactivated, you change, and there is no continuity of health care. Thirty percent of the people called to active duty were unable to be deployed because of health care problems. We are not done yet. There is more to do. It is my goal, my hope, my dream, for the Guard and Reserve forces that if you will join, and you will participate, and you will help defend America as a guard or reservist, we will offer you full-time health care. You pay a premium, but you and your family will be taken care of in the health care area. I think it is the least we could do. I think it is what we should do. And tonight is a huge step forward. I thank all of the Senators who made it possible. The fussing, the fighting yet to come on this bill is part of America. But let it be said at about 8:50 at night, Republicans and Democrats came together to help Guard and Reserve members. When you are in a war, they do not ask you if you are a Republican or a Democrat. They are asking you to do your job. So I am honored to be part of this effort. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel and Senator Allen be added as cosponsors.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of one of my constituents, David Brown. I rise to commend him for his tenure as president and CEO of the South Carolina Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce as he leaves after 9 years of service. Under David's leadership the chamber has received capital investment commitments exceeding $3 billion, resulting in 15,000 new job opportunities in the Greenville area. During his tenure, the chamber has become instrumental in infrastructure development, education reform, and workforce development, creating the Corporate Partnership for Operational Excellence and the Carolina First Center for Excellence. Other major projects under David's leadership include the Southern Connector, Bi-Lo Center Arena, and several industrial parks. A graduate of Dartmouth College, David has served as the president of the Monroe County, Michigan Industrial Development Corporation and the president of the Fort Wayne, IN Chamber of Commerce. David and his wife, Maggie, have two sons: Gregory and Elijah. I invite you to join me in thanking David Brown for his service in the Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce and his dedication to the State of South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States since 1898. Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico have been citizens of the United States under Federal laws applicable in the territory. One of the interesting, and most misunderstood, aspects of Puerto Rico's unique relationship with the United States, is that the U.S. citizens who reside there are not required to file tax returns and pay income tax on the money they earn on the island. That might lead one to conclude that this is a huge benefit to the majority of people who live on the island. The reality, however, is that well over half--and perhaps as much as three-quarters--of Puerto Rican families would likely owe no U.S. income tax if they were taxed in the same manner as other citizens. Why? Because Puerto Rico struggles with a high rate of poverty. Fifty-eight percent of Puerto Rican children live below the national poverty level--which is an improvement from 67 percent in the early 1990s. That means that today more than one-half of Puerto Rican children live in a family that earns less than $17,000 a year. In contrast, the State with the highest child poverty rate, Mississippi, has a child poverty rate of 27 percent. For over 30 years, U.S. policy toward improving the economic situation on the island has focused on corporate tax incentives. Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on providing direct stimulus to the part of economy in Puerto Rico that has been neglected--Puerto Rican families and children. Putting money into the hands of the people who will spend it will provide the most direct stimulus for the economy of the island. This bill puts Puerto Rican families on par with other families in America by extending to them the benefits of our social safety net. Specifically, the bill makes residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax credit, the refundable per child tax credit, and the Supplemental Security Income program. Although Puerto Rican families are not subject to the Federal income tax, they do pay Federal payroll taxes. Just like other working families in America that work hard and play by the rules, low-income employees in Puerto Rico deserve relief from those payroll taxes. The earned income tax credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit have long been recognized as an effective way to provide such relief. The Puerto Rico Economic Stimulus Act says that families in Puerto Rico should also be able to claim these credits, in the same way, and subject to the same limitations, as families in Florida, Tennessee, Texas, or New York. Workers in Puerto Rico pay payroll taxes like all other Americans. While some may disagree with the notion of providing refundable credits to offset payroll taxes that is a different debate than whether low- income families in Puerto Rico should be treated the same as low-income families in the 50 States. This is a matter of equity, not tax policy. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States since 1898. Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico have been citizens of the United States under Federal laws applicable in the territory. One of the interesting, and most misunderstood, aspects of Puerto Rico's unique relationship with the United States, is that the U.S. citizens who reside there are not required to file tax returns and pay income tax on the money they earn on the island. That might lead one to conclude that this is a huge benefit to the majority of people who live on the island. The reality, however, is that well over half--and perhaps as much as three-quarters--of Puerto Rican families would likely owe no U.S. income tax if they were taxed in the same manner as other citizens. Why? Because Puerto Rico struggles with a high rate of poverty. Fifty-eight percent of Puerto Rican children live below the national poverty level--which is an improvement from 67 percent in the early 1990s. That means that today more than one-half of Puerto Rican children live in a family that earns less than $17,000 a year. In contrast, the State with the highest child poverty rate, Mississippi, has a child poverty rate of 27 percent. For over 30 years, U.S. policy toward improving the economic situation on the island has focused on corporate tax incentives. Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on providing direct stimulus to the part of economy in Puerto Rico that has been neglected--Puerto Rican families and children. Putting money into the hands of the people who will spend it will provide the most direct stimulus for the economy of the island. This bill puts Puerto Rican families on par with other families in America by extending to them the benefits of our social safety net. Specifically, the bill makes residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax credit, the refundable per child tax credit, and the Supplemental Security Income program. Although Puerto Rican families are not subject to the Federal income tax, they do pay Federal payroll taxes. Just like other working families in America that work hard and play by the rules, low-income employees in Puerto Rico deserve relief from those payroll taxes. The earned income tax credit and the refundable portion of the child tax credit have long been recognized as an effective way to provide such relief. The Puerto Rico Economic Stimulus Act says that families in Puerto Rico should also be able to claim these credits, in the same way, and subject to the same limitations, as families in Florida, Tennessee, Texas, or New York. Workers in Puerto Rico pay payroll taxes like all other Americans. While some may disagree with the notion of providing refundable credits to offset payroll taxes that is a different debate than whether low- income families in Puerto Rico should be treated the same as low-income families in the 50 States. This is a matter of equity, not tax policy. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Craig of Idaho, in introducing the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 2003. For the last six years, I have been working closely with several of my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, including the Senators from Massachusetts and Idaho, to enact legislation that would provide a balanced approach to reforming our agricultural guest worker program. There is one thing I believe we can all agree on--the status quo of agricultural guest workers in America is unacceptable. Under the status quo, we have created an underground society and pushed many of our Nation's hardest workers into the shadows. This is unfair treatment for workers who play such a vital part in our Nation's economic health. Recently, the Miami Herald published a series documenting the horrible working and living conditions of agricultural workers in Florida. I have attached parts of that series for the Record. This series substantiates what we have all known anecdotally for years. Farm workers in our country--those who are legal citizens or residents of the United States as well as those who are undocumented--live in uninhabitable housing, are transported in vehicles that do not meet basic safety standards, and are subject to predatory lending practices that require payment of as much as 100 percent interest on accumulated debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the series be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Craig of Idaho, in introducing the Agricultural Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act of 2003. For the last six years, I have been working closely with several of my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, including the Senators from Massachusetts and Idaho, to enact legislation that would provide a balanced approach to reforming our agricultural guest worker program. There is one thing I believe we can all agree on--the status quo of agricultural guest workers in America is unacceptable. Under the status quo, we have created an underground society and pushed many of our Nation's hardest workers into the shadows. This is unfair treatment for workers who play such a vital part in our Nation's economic health. Recently, the Miami Herald published a series documenting the horrible working and living conditions of agricultural workers in Florida. I have attached parts of that series for the Record. This series substantiates what we have all known anecdotally for years. Farm workers in our country--those who are legal citizens or residents of the United States as well as those who are undocumented--live in uninhabitable housing, are transported in vehicles that do not meet basic safety standards, and are subject to predatory lending practices that require payment of as much as 100 percent interest on accumulated debt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the series be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, Henry Floyd was the first person I thought of when a district court judgeship came open in South Carolina. I am pleased that the Senate has confirmed him today. Prior to becoming involved in politics, I had the good fortune of practicing before Judge Floyd on a number of occasions. He is the model of judicial temperament; learned, objective, and courteous. A product of some of our State's finest educational institutions, Judge Floyd received his undergraduate degree at Wofford College and his law degree from the University of South Carolina. In 1992, after a decade of very successful private practice, he assumed the bench as a judge on the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court of South Carolina. Since that time, Judge Floyd has presided over several South Carolina's most controversial cases with skill and professionalism. It was an pleasure to recommend Judge Floyd to President Bush. I wanted my first recommendation to be an example of how our judicial nominations process should work. We should seek only the best for the Federal judiciary. I believe my first recommendation fits that criterion. I'm confident Judge Floyd will demonstrate the highest degree of professionalism and serve our State and Nation well. Judge Floyd has an exceptional legal mind, impeccable character, and a legacy of fair application of the law. He is a fine man and will be a great addition to the Federal bench.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Feinstein's amendment, certainly not in opposition to her. She is one of my closest friends in the Senate, and I admire her greatly. We just simply disagree on this particular amendment. Of all the debates we are going to have in the coming months, I think this is one of the most important. The amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy from pursuing an advanced concept and research design to transform some current inventories of nuclear weapons, to be able to do something they cannot do today; that is, to penetrate hardened sites to counter the war on terrorism. The war on terrorism is like every other war in many ways. The people we are fighting have the same hopes and aspirations as the people who fought in World War II. In Hitler's world, if you were not of a certain ethnic makeup, you could lose your life. And in Hitler's world, there was total obedience to the state. And the Japanese empire had a very intolerant view of the people who were different and disagreed. The idea that one particular group wants to shape the world in a very harsh fashion has been with us as long as time itself. And in the terrorist world, young girls don't go to school. In their world, there is one way to worship God. It is their way. If you choose to do it some other way, you could lose your life. So the basic concepts of the war on terrorism are very old. But the way we fight this war is going to take some adapting. The group that wins the war on terrorism will be the group that was able to adapt the best. Here is what I see coming down the road for the American military, for American policymakers. The terrorist organizations that perpetrated 9/11 and that we are pursuing all over the world today do not have navies and armies, and they do not have a nuclear force as we faced in the former Soviet Union. But they have a desire, unequaled by anybody, to build a nuclear weapon, to acquire chemical and biological weapons. Their desire is great. Their commitment to use it is unquestioned. Let it be said, without any doubt, if they could get a nuclear weapon, they would use it. If they could get chemical or biological weapons that would hurt millions of Americans or people who believe in freedom, they would use it. The only way they are not going to use it is to make sure they don't get it. And the best way to make sure they don't get it is to bring them to justice, and to end their ability to finance terrorist activities, to organize, and to project force. I can foresee in the near future, not the distant future, that terrorist cells will reorganize. They will use some remote part of the world to form their plans, to plot and scheme, and maybe to actually manufacture--some remote part of the world that is very well guarded and not subject to conventional attacks, in a part of the world where it would be hard to get conventional forces to neutralize the terrorist threat. I see that as a very real possibility in the coming decades, in the coming years, maybe even the coming months. The legislation we have before us would take off the table our ability to adapt our nuclear deterrent force to meet that threat. Look how much money we spent during the cold war to neutralize the Soviet threat--the Star Wars programs and other ideas that made it very difficult for our enemy at the time to keep pace. It is one of the reasons the world is safer today, because we were able to adapt. We took our nuclear programs, not to use the weapons, but to prevent those weapons from being used against us. We adapted our nuclear force in a way that eventually won the cold war. I think that same scenario exists today. We should have on the table the ability of the great minds in this country to adapt, if necessary. And there is nothing in this proposal by the administration to build a weapon. It is to look at our current inventory and see if it can be adapted to a real threat. I admire Senator Feinstein, but I think her amendment would do a great injustice to the future policymakers and the military men and women of the future when it comes to fighting the war on terrorism because this war has just started. It is not anywhere near over. The major players are still alive, but they are trying to get people to follow in their footsteps. So we are going to be in this war for a long time. The question before the Senate and before the country is, If we knew that bin Laden, or someone like him, was in some mountain fortress in Afghanistan or some other country, on the verge, within that fortress, of developing a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon, what would we do to stop it? I think we should do everything we can to stop it. And the idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something that we have to come to grips with because it is part of the war on terrorism. So I hope the Senate will reject Senator Feinstein's efforts to stop this inquiry because this is an inquiry that needs to be made sooner rather than later. I think the Bush administration is on the right course and the right path in taking the great minds of our time and letting them adapt our nuclear force to the coming threats because the coming threats are not from the Soviet bloc countries; they are going to be our allies. The coming threats are from people who hide in faraway places, deep in the bowels of the earth, with great hatred in their hearts. We need to meet that threat. So I ask each Member of the Senate to dig within their heart and to make sure their vote does not take an option off the table that may well save this country from something we never experienced: a major nuclear, chemical, or biological attack. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, despite the recess, to be able to speak 3 minutes in opposition to Senator Feinstein's amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senators Hagel, Clinton, Ben Nelson, Murkowski, Dayton, Murray, Akaka, and I are introducing legislation to help service members who are injured or become ill while serving in combat. Today, if one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines fighting in Iraq or in Afghanistan are wounded or suffer an illness, they are evacuated to a military hospital. The problem is when they are discharged from the hospital they are given a bill for the meals they were served while being treated. Under current law, service members are required to pay for their meals at a rate of $8.10 per day while they are in a military hospital. For example, a Marine Staff Sergeant recently spent 26 days in the hospital recovering from injuries endured when an Iraqi child dropped a hand grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. Upon his discharge from the hospital, he was handed a bill for $243 for his meals. While eight dollars a day may not seem like a lot of money to you or me, it is to a private who makes less than $14,000 a year. If we are looking to save money, we should not turn first to the pockets of our injured service members. The bill we introduce today is simple. It will prohibit the Department of Defense from charging troops for meals when they are hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or training for combat. This legislation shows strong support for our service members currently in harm's way and helps to alleviate a financial burden on our injured soldiers. This bill is similar to one filed by Congressman Bill Young in the House of Representatives, but also covers those who become ill while in combat or training for combat. We already know that over 100 soldiers deployed to the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia have contracted pneumonia, 30 that become so ill that they had to be evacuated to hospitals in Europe or the United States. This situation highlights why we must include those who suffer from illness as well as injury. I am grateful to Congressman Young for his leadership on this issue and am hopeful we can work together to quickly pass legislation to end the unfair practice of charging our injured service members for hospital meals. The cost to the government for correcting this serious injustice is significant. This year, the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million for hospital meals from hospitalized service members world-wide. This legislation is even more limited in scope, as it only applies to those who become ill or injured during combat or situations simulating combat. While I am cognizant of the budget constraints our military is facing, this is a comparatively small expense that will mean a great deal to those service members affected. Service members and military families are facing many challenges right now. They have to contend with long separations, potential financial hardships from extended Reserve and Guard call-ups, not to mention the very real fear of being wounded in combat. We should not add to these burdens by charging them for their meals after a lengthy hospital stay for a combat-related condition. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues in quickly moving this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the following editorial in support of ending this injustice from the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``Nickel and Diming the Troops'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Senators Hagel, Clinton, Ben Nelson, Murkowski, Dayton, Murray, Akaka, and I are introducing legislation to help service members who are injured or become ill while serving in combat. Today, if one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines fighting in Iraq or in Afghanistan are wounded or suffer an illness, they are evacuated to a military hospital. The problem is when they are discharged from the hospital they are given a bill for the meals they were served while being treated. Under current law, service members are required to pay for their meals at a rate of $8.10 per day while they are in a military hospital. For example, a Marine Staff Sergeant recently spent 26 days in the hospital recovering from injuries endured when an Iraqi child dropped a hand grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. Upon his discharge from the hospital, he was handed a bill for $243 for his meals. While eight dollars a day may not seem like a lot of money to you or me, it is to a private who makes less than $14,000 a year. If we are looking to save money, we should not turn first to the pockets of our injured service members. The bill we introduce today is simple. It will prohibit the Department of Defense from charging troops for meals when they are hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or training for combat. This legislation shows strong support for our service members currently in harm's way and helps to alleviate a financial burden on our injured soldiers. This bill is similar to one filed by Congressman Bill Young in the House of Representatives, but also covers those who become ill while in combat or training for combat. We already know that over 100 soldiers deployed to the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia have contracted pneumonia, 30 that become so ill that they had to be evacuated to hospitals in Europe or the United States. This situation highlights why we must include those who suffer from illness as well as injury. I am grateful to Congressman Young for his leadership on this issue and am hopeful we can work together to quickly pass legislation to end the unfair practice of charging our injured service members for hospital meals. The cost to the government for correcting this serious injustice is significant. This year, the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million for hospital meals from hospitalized service members world-wide. This legislation is even more limited in scope, as it only applies to those who become ill or injured during combat or situations simulating combat. While I am cognizant of the budget constraints our military is facing, this is a comparatively small expense that will mean a great deal to those service members affected. Service members and military families are facing many challenges right now. They have to contend with long separations, potential financial hardships from extended Reserve and Guard call-ups, not to mention the very real fear of being wounded in combat. We should not add to these burdens by charging them for their meals after a lengthy hospital stay for a combat-related condition. I urge my colleagues to join me and my colleagues in quickly moving this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the following editorial in support of ending this injustice from the Omaha World Herald, entitled ``Nickel and Diming the Troops'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I think a recess is coming; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, 2 years ago, our world changed forever. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon were a painful wakeup call to our Nation that we must remain ever vigilant in protecting our freedom. We must confront evil where it exists and defeat it. We must battle the terrorists where they live before they are able to carry out their missions of death and destruction on our homeland. Our hearts still grieve for those who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks, and we must never forget the painful lessons learned on September 11. September 11 was a dark day in America history. While the terrorists were carrying out their evil our national character as a strong, proud people showed through as it produced a new generation of American heroes. The memory of the firefighters who rushed into the Trade Centers before their collapse to save their fellow citizens showed us the best in our Nation, as did the passengers on Flight 93 who decided to storm the cockpit and sacrifice their own lives to prevent the terrorists from carrying out their deadly mission. September 11 was a stark contrast between the best and worst of mankind. On this September 11, may God continue to protect and bless the United States of America.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the men, women, and children who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. The morning of September 11, 2001 will forever be remembered as the day America came face to face with the forces of evil and prevailed. Innocent men, women, and children lost their lives and families suffered. Police officers, firefighters, rescue personnel, and Americans from every walk of life rose to the occasion to save others, in many instances losing their own lives in the process. That day, we learned about a new kind of American hero. In the aftermath of these attacks, our country put aside our differences and came together as one nation to mourn our loss, celebrate our liberty, and demonstrate to the world the strength and compassion of a free people. We united behind a single cause: to root out and destroy those responsible for terrorism around the world. Two years later, America is still leading that fight. The men and women of our Armed Forces stationed throughout the world are defending our way of life, our principles, and our freedom. They do so because we will never forget the loss to America on September 11, 2001. Today, I ask all Americans to pray for those who lost their lives, pray for their families, and pray for those who have given their lives in the war on terrorism. I also ask that you not forget our uniformed men and women still stationed overseas in harm's way.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the life of Jim Phillips, one of the most recognized and beloved broadcasters South Carolina has ever known. I cannot adequately express the significance of Jim Phillip's life and the effect his passing has on the Clemson University family. As the legendary voice of the Clemson Tigers, for 36 years Jim broadcast over 2,000 sporting events, from baseball to women's basketball, including games in the Tigers' 1981 Men's Football National Championship season. A five-time recipient of the South Carolina Broadcaster of the Year award, Jim has received several prestigious broadcasting awards including the Master Broadcaster Award by the South Carolina Association of Broadcasters. Jim also served as the sports director at a South Carolina television station and radio station for years. Personally, he was a true friend and one of the most delightful people I have ever had the privilege of knowing. He always had a smile on his face. God gave him a tremendous gift which he shared with so many for all too brief a period of time. He was truly one of the best in the business and will be deeply missed. I invite you to join me in the celebration of Jim's life and the mourning of his passing with the entire Clemson family and all those who were fortunate enough to call Jim Phillips a friend.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the construction of new veterans' hospitals in east- central Florida and Las Vegas, NV. In addition, the legislation would enable the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Medical Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to sustain operations in the event of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. For years now, VA has been under a sort of moratorium for new construction projects. This was due to the capital asset realignment for enhanced services, CARES, process, which is designed to examine VA's infrastructure and try to realign it to better meet the projected needs of veterans. Many here in Congress were understandably reluctant to invest any valuable dollars in a facility that may ultimately be slated for downsizing. However, the CARES process is now nearing its end. The CARES Commission is in the process of reviewing the national draft plan developed by the Under Secretary for Health, and Commissioners will make their recommendations to the Secretary by the end of November. The Secretary will then make his final decisions on what plans will be implemented by the end of the year. Included in the national draft plan were two major construction initiatives: a new hospital and clinic in Las Vegas, NV, and a new facility in east-central Florida. In light of the fact that these two projects are the only new hospitals included in the draft plan, and that the great need in both of these areas has been well documented, the sooner we can get these facilities up and running, the better. Veterans living in east-central Florida are in dire need of a full- fledged VA hospital. One VA report found that since 1996, ``the Central Florida market sustained the greatest workload expansion of the entire VA system--105 percent.'' Other VA studies have deemed Orlando as ``the logical choice for infrastructure investment for all major Inpatient and Outpatient categories.'' The decision about where to place a new VA hospital in this region falls to VA, but I encourage Secretary Principi to carefully study all the options to ensure that the most appropriate location is chosen. Las Vegas, in Clark County, NV, was recognized by VA as, `` . . . one of the fastest growing markets in the U.S.'' VA also acknowledges that there is a gap in long-term care accessibility in this area, and that contracting in the community is not a viable option as there are quality of care issues with the region's private sector facilities. Why should we wait to authorize projects whose necessity is broadly recognized by veterans and VA alike? This legislation would also authorize $30 million for the San Juan VA Medical Center to undertake much needed upgrading in order to ensure that patient safety is not unnecessarily jeopardized in the event of an earthquake. The money would be used to bring the facility in line with the CD-54 natural disasters directive, enabling vital services to continue to be provided for 7 to 10 days after a disaster. Services that would be reinforced by this project are primarily utilities, which in some cases provide lifesaving support to patients. In 1991, the San Juan VA Medical Center was deemed seismically unsound, and other structural deficiencies were uncovered as well. Although the Carribean is not normally thought of as a seismic ``hot spot,'' the islands are mountainous and severe earthquakes do occur there every few decades. The supposed unlikelihood of such an event is no reason to not have contingency operations should something actually occur. Patient safety is not something that can be gambled with in this manner. It is important that we supply the San Juan VA Medical Center with the additional resources it needs to make sure that no patient has to go without life support in the event of a natural disaster. I was disappointed that the San Juan upgrading project was not included in VA's draft plan, but regardless, I do believe we have an obligation to make these needed repairs. Finally, I would like to recognize the efforts of my friend Senator Reid in this initiative, who is also facing a rapidly growing veteran population in his home State of Nevada. Additionally, I want to thank Representative Corrine Brown of the Orlando area, Representative Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas, and Representative Anibal Acevedo-Vila of Puerto Rico, who have all been very helpful in developing a companion bill in the House. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the construction of new veterans' hospitals in east- central Florida and Las Vegas, NV. In addition, the legislation would enable the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, Medical Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico, to sustain operations in the event of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake. For years now, VA has been under a sort of moratorium for new construction projects. This was due to the capital asset realignment for enhanced services, CARES, process, which is designed to examine VA's infrastructure and try to realign it to better meet the projected needs of veterans. Many here in Congress were understandably reluctant to invest any valuable dollars in a facility that may ultimately be slated for downsizing. However, the CARES process is now nearing its end. The CARES Commission is in the process of reviewing the national draft plan developed by the Under Secretary for Health, and Commissioners will make their recommendations to the Secretary by the end of November. The Secretary will then make his final decisions on what plans will be implemented by the end of the year. Included in the national draft plan were two major construction initiatives: a new hospital and clinic in Las Vegas, NV, and a new facility in east-central Florida. In light of the fact that these two projects are the only new hospitals included in the draft plan, and that the great need in both of these areas has been well documented, the sooner we can get these facilities up and running, the better. Veterans living in east-central Florida are in dire need of a full- fledged VA hospital. One VA report found that since 1996, ``the Central Florida market sustained the greatest workload expansion of the entire VA system--105 percent.'' Other VA studies have deemed Orlando as ``the logical choice for infrastructure investment for all major Inpatient and Outpatient categories.'' The decision about where to place a new VA hospital in this region falls to VA, but I encourage Secretary Principi to carefully study all the options to ensure that the most appropriate location is chosen. Las Vegas, in Clark County, NV, was recognized by VA as, `` . . . one of the fastest growing markets in the U.S.'' VA also acknowledges that there is a gap in long-term care accessibility in this area, and that contracting in the community is not a viable option as there are quality of care issues with the region's private sector facilities. Why should we wait to authorize projects whose necessity is broadly recognized by veterans and VA alike? This legislation would also authorize $30 million for the San Juan VA Medical Center to undertake much needed upgrading in order to ensure that patient safety is not unnecessarily jeopardized in the event of an earthquake. The money would be used to bring the facility in line with the CD-54 natural disasters directive, enabling vital services to continue to be provided for 7 to 10 days after a disaster. Services that would be reinforced by this project are primarily utilities, which in some cases provide lifesaving support to patients. In 1991, the San Juan VA Medical Center was deemed seismically unsound, and other structural deficiencies were uncovered as well. Although the Carribean is not normally thought of as a seismic ``hot spot,'' the islands are mountainous and severe earthquakes do occur there every few decades. The supposed unlikelihood of such an event is no reason to not have contingency operations should something actually occur. Patient safety is not something that can be gambled with in this manner. It is important that we supply the San Juan VA Medical Center with the additional resources it needs to make sure that no patient has to go without life support in the event of a natural disaster. I was disappointed that the San Juan upgrading project was not included in VA's draft plan, but regardless, I do believe we have an obligation to make these needed repairs. Finally, I would like to recognize the efforts of my friend Senator Reid in this initiative, who is also facing a rapidly growing veteran population in his home State of Nevada. Additionally, I want to thank Representative Corrine Brown of the Orlando area, Representative Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas, and Representative Anibal Acevedo-Vila of Puerto Rico, who have all been very helpful in developing a companion bill in the House. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and publicly acknowledge all the hard work on his behalf, working with my colleagues on the Democratic side. Senator Frist has been very responsive, trying to get this bill up for a vote, and it seems we are making progress. In terms of our leadership, I could not be more pleased with the efforts he has made to fill in this gap. The Laci Peterson case probably explains the dynamic better than I could ever explain it. However, there has been an ongoing fight to fix this problem of the Federal law for many years. Senator DeWine has been the champion of this bill in the Senate. When I first introduced it in the House, in the 106th Congress, it passed by 254 votes to 172 with over 50 Democratic Members. A lot of pro-choice people voted for the bill because America does divide on a woman's right to choose evenly. But when you ask Americans if a woman chooses to have the child and that child is harmed while she is pregnant through criminal assault, about 80 percent of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, say together that the criminal should be prosecuted for both events, damage to the mother and the child. There is a lot of bipartisan support for this bill. It passed in the 106th Congress in the House, 107th Congress in the House with over 250 votes, with Democrats and Republicans, pro-choice, pro-life people coming together. Senator DeWine has been an advocate for this bill since it originated. I thank him. The reason we need this bill is because there are more events such as this than you would want to believe where people attack pregnant women, causing them to lose their child, and in a certain class of cases where the Federal jurisdiction is the exclusive form of prosecution, there is no right under Federal law for a prosecutor to go after the harm done to the unborn child. In the Oklahoma City bombing case there was a lady working for the DEA. She was a secretary, Carrie Lenz. On the day of the bombing, she came to work early to show her coworkers an ultrasound picture of her unborn child, Michael Lenz III. She was showing her coworkers the ultrasound picture and the building blew up, killing her and her child. In the House when we were doing hearings on this bill, the father, Michael Lenz, came to testify. He told us in very emotional, eloquent terms that that day he lost two things. He lost his son Michael James Lenz III and he lost his wife. If this law had existed, the prosecutor would have been able to prosecute Timothy McVeigh for two acts of violence, not one. We need this bill. Unfortunately, these events do happen. And when they do happen, most Americans, a high percentage in polling, Democrats and Republicans in the House and I do believe in the Senate, would want the full weight of the law to go against defenders who attack pregnant women. I believe this bill will be signed by the President because he said he would sign it. I know it will pass the House. If we can get a vote in the Senate, it will pass the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote. I thank Senator Frist for pushing this measure, and I hope we can accommodate our friends on the Democratic side to get a vote on this bill so that we can do something that will be very positive in this Congress, and that is make sure the people who attack pregnant women get whacked as hard as we can whack them.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I would like to speak, if possible.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I thank Senator Daschle for the great help he has been and for his partnership on this piece of legislation. I associate myself with his remarks about the TRICARE program being extended to family members of the Guard and Reserve. During the last Desert Shield-Desert Storm conflict, I was in the Air National Guard unit that was called up to active duty. Planes, pilots, and crews went over and did a magnificent job. I was in a support role as a military lawyer. I was called to active duty--along with doctors and other folks--to take care of families who were left behind by providing legal services. When a family member is deployed in the Guard and Reserve, more likely than not the military pay will be smaller than the civilian pay. The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Leave Act allows a renegotiation of loans and a restructuring of debt so the military pay can cover family expenses. You are not successful all the time. I spent hours negotiating new loans, house payments, and car payments so the military pay would cover the family expenses. But one thing that we haven't addressed is health care. As Senator Daschle indicated, there are many members without health care. But for those who have health care, once they are activated, the physician network that your family is used to is replaced by the military. In the case of our unit--Swamp Fox Unit in the South Carolina Air National Guard that I served in from 1991 to the present--they have been deployed six times. That is not unusual. You have families bouncing from one health care network to the other. We are trying to make sure that continuity of health care is available to Guard and Reserve families by allowing them, in addition to their membership in the Guard and Reserve, access to the TRICARE military health care system when they are in their civilian capacity as well as when they are activated. So when they are activated, there is no major upheaval in their lives when it comes to health care. They will have a safety net. You can't be everything to everybody. But they are having to pay a premium that is fair to them, helps reduce the cost of the bill similar to what retirees pay. It is important to me to put this on the table, and do it in a way so we can afford it. I think the premium helps offset the cost. I am here to report that I have talked with the administration and the Pentagon which have concerns about implementing this program now because we haven't budgeted for it in this budget cycle. We are going to compromise on the Defense authorization bill and initiate a study of the best way to provide TRICARE coverage to Guard and Reserve members in terms of cost, affordability, and availability. We will have that study. Next year, Senator Daschle and all of the others who have worked with us have my solemn promise we are going to go after the money necessary to fund this program. The proposal we are speaking about today has a statement in it that they are willing to help fund this if we can find the money. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution is important in the sense that we are letting our Guard and Reserve families know we haven't forgotten about them and that we are trying to do this in an affordable and efficient way by studying it for a year. But help is going to be on the way. The recruiting and retention problems that we suffer in the Guard and Reserve we haven't yet begun to understand. You have some Guard and Reserve units that are indispensable to the war-fighting machine that we have created and which is so effective. Their employers have suffered greatly because they are gone from their work stations in the civilian community a lot. Employers have been paying the difference between the military pay and the civilian pay in many instances. We are going to work in a bipartisan fashion to have a tax credit. The retirement age is 60. On active duty, you can retire after 20 years of service. As a Guard or Reserve member, I am 5 years away. I have to get 5 good years somehow so I can get my retirement. I am not worried about me. But we have a proposal that for every 2 years you stay on to help your country, we will allow you to retire early. That is not part of the package we are talking about in TRICARE but it will be part of a package to upgrade Guard and Reserve benefits. The total cost for all three--health care, reduced retirement, and tax credits--is in the $15 billion range over 5 years. That is a lot of money. But I agree with Senator Daschle, we can't afford not to do it. I ask all of my colleagues to look at this closely and support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution so we can sit down with the administration next year in good faith--they have been very good about dealing with this issue in a responsible way this year--and come up with the money and get a commitment from the administration, the Pentagon, the House, and the Senate to fund this program. If we improve the benefit package, not only are we doing what we should do to help our Guard and Reserve families, which they will appreciate, but we will have a better chance of retaining these great Americans because we are asking so much of them. It is time for us to deliver a better benefit package because they have really delivered for this country. I appreciate working with Senator Daschle, and the administration has been very good to work with. This time next year I hope we can take the floor and tell the Reserve and Guard families of this country that they have a benefit package that shows how much we respect and care for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bennett from Utah for that remembrance. It was just exactly what needed to be said. I say to the Senator, I know he loved you and your father dearly. On behalf of the people of South Carolina, I thank you very much for what you just said. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.