Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I compliment our majority leader for his statement. It was very eloquent and it means a lot to Senator Thurmond's family. I know personally that Senator Thurmond had a great fondness for Senator Frist. He told me he is a very smart man and he is a good doctor, too. If you ever need him, look him up. I rise today in support of this resolution on behalf of myself and Senator Hollings. I appreciate the majority leader and Senator Daschle allowing this to occur. It is offered in the spirit of Strom Thurmond's life. Something can be said about Strom Thurmond in the Senate very easily. He loved the Senate and the Senate loved him. His colleagues who have served with him so long all have personal stories of fun, good times, tough fights. He was a valuable ally and a worthy opponent, and the Senate has lost its longest serving Member. Many of us have lost a very dear friend. That goes for the Senate family, the people who help us with the doors, the clerks, and the reporters of debates. Everyone enjoyed and appreciated Senator Thurmond. It is important to comment on Senator Thurmond, the man. His children have lost their father. Whether one is 100 or 200, it is always difficult, no matter how long one lives, to give up their father and mother. I have talked to two of his three children today, and I have expressed my condolences. They are doing very well but they are sad because they have lost their daddy. I have talked with his wife. We reminisced about their life together, the raising of their children, and the experiences they have had. So my prayers, along with the prayers of everyone in the Senate, go to the family. He was a good family man. If a script was written in Hollywood about his life, it would not have ended any better in this regard. He became a first-time grandfather at the age of 100 last week. He has three children under 30. He had his first child when he was 68. He was just a phenomenal person. He has done things that most of us could not dream of doing in many ways. I am convinced that two things drove him in his final years: That he wanted to finish out his term because he is not a quitter, and when he was elected to serve his last 6-year term he meant to serve it out. He helped me to become his successor, and I will be forever grateful. He also wanted to see his grandchild born, and God allowed him to do that. He was presented his grandson last week. They tell me it was a very magic and touching moment. A week later, he passed on. He has suffered personal tragedy, lost a daughter in an accident. He has experienced much good and bad in his life. He has touched so many people. It is a loss to the Senate. It is a loss to his family. It is a loss to his staff. Duke Short, who served with Senator Thurmond in Washington for so many years, was a very loyal and capable staff director. I know that Duke and his family feel the loss. Dr. Abernathy in South Carolina has been with Strom Thurmond since the 1940s when he worked with him as Governor. Dr. Abernathy is a legend in his own right. There are so many people who have worked for Senator Thurmond throughout the years, and I know they feel this loss. Senator Thurmond has had enough interns to probably fill up a football stadium. His first group of interns are now on Social Security. He was elected in 1954. I was born in 1955. All I have known in my life is Senator Thurmond, and for 36 years Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings served together. Both of them are distinctive gentlemen, bigger than life. A lot of us who have associated with Senator Thurmond feel his loss. South Carolina has lost her favorite son. Much has been said and will be said of Senator Thurmond's legacy. The majority leader, Senator Frist, went over his life very well, and it is just an amazing story to tell: Being a superintendent of education in the 1920s; getting elected for the first time in 1928; being a judge in South Carolina at the start of World War II, deciding to give up that job which would have exempted him from service, being in his early forties; joined the 82nd Airborne, landing in a glider. The pilot of the glider was killed when it landed. His men were wounded. He led them out and secured the objective. When the war in Europe was over, he volunteered to go to Japan and he fought until they quit. He was just an unbelievable person who embraced life. People ask me: How did he make it so long? He just had a passion. He had a passion for everything he did--his family, his constituents. His legacy in South Carolina is quite simple for every South Carolinian-- black, white, rich, poor, no matter whether you are from upstate, middle, low State--I am sure every State has different regions and different dialects but the one thing we had in common: If we had a problem, we knew who to call. We knew to pick up the phone and call Senator Thurmond because if he could help you, he would. The average, everyday South Carolinian, from the company owner to the janitor, believed that Senator Thurmond was on their side. And when they called, they received a call back. When they wrote a letter, they received a letter back. The reason I know that is people tell me everywhere I go. One guy told me Senator Thurmond used to cut his grass. These stories abound. Some of them have been embellished, I am sure, but the only way that he could have lasted this long in politics, doing as many things as he has done, taking on the issues that he has taken on, is that at the end of the day people saw that he had a servant's heart. Part of his legacy is the 1948 campaign, and it needs to be mentioned. Senator Frist mentioned it. That was a tough time in our country. He ran as a States rights candidate with a lot of passion for the limited role of the Federal Government. He won on the platform that divided the races. That was a dark time in South Carolina. That was a dark time in our Nation. Senator Thurmond made a choice later in life. He could have done almost anything he wanted. But as the 1950s came to a close and the 1960s came about and people started insisting their Government treat them better, Senator Thurmond made a choice. Instead of hanging on to the rhetoric of the past and the politics of the past, he embraced the future. Here is what he does not get much credit for. Instead of going with the flow, which some people want to ascribe to him, he in a subtle way led a change. He could have been a barrier to change, but he made it easy for people in South Carolina, politicians on the Democratic and Republican sides, to embrace change because when Strom came out for something, it made it easier for you to come out for something because it gave you cover. When Strom Thurmond appointed the first African- American judge in the history of South Carolina to the Federal bench, it made it easier for the people in the statehouse to give appointments to African Americans. That is what we do not need to lose. When he embraced traditional Black colleges and started giving them the same recognition and funding as every other university in South Carolina, it made it easier for the legislature to improve the quality of life for everybody. At the end of his life, in 2001, he was awarded lifetime recognition from the Urban League in South Carolina, that is designed to build racial harmony, for his lifetime of service to traditionally African-American colleges. That needs to be mentioned as much as the 1948 campaign. He will be held accountable in history for that part of his life. History should know that in many subtle ways, in many bold ways, he allowed my State to move forward, and everybody in my State is better off for it. From a personal point, when I was in the House, I was the first Republican to be elected from my Third Congressional District in 120 years. One reason I was able to win when everybody behind me was beaten for 120 years was, Senator Thurmond, for the first time in his political career, embraced a campaign very directly--because he had been smart enough not to get involved in political races and try to represent everybody. He took to me, and I am the beneficiary of that. He said: I will come and campaign for you, Lindsey. I said: Great. And I turned to my staff and said: What do you do with a 92-year-old man? I was worried we would wear him out and we could not utilize his services. I was worried about him at age 92. Three days he campaigned for me. When he left, I said: Thank God he is gone. He wore me out. He had a passion I had never seen. I picked him up at the airport on day 1, in an airplane flown by his personal pilot who was 75 years old, a single-engine plane. We went to a parade in September. It is hot in South Carolina in September. We went from one end of town to the other shaking hands. We went to the funeral home because he remembered the guy who owned the funeral home always gave him apples. He walked in unannounced because the Senator wanted apples, and he got the apples. He campaigned all day. We had a fundraiser that night. We went to a football game that night. He made a speech at half time. We went to a rodeo that started at 9 o'clock at night, and he got up in the middle of the ring on a barrel and gave a speech. He wanted to see the third shift change at the textile plant. I said: I am too tired, and I went home. That went on for 3 days. When he left, I asked him to sign a fundraising letter for me. We were all worn out. He looked at the letter and he said you misspelled your own name and you are in the Third District, not the Second District. At 92 years of age, he had a passion and he helped me. I stand appreciative. When I ran for the Senate, he endorsed me in a primary. I can tell you, I would not be his successor if he had not come out and said: Lindsey Graham is the right guy to follow me. That will stick with me forever. What have I learned from Senator Thurmond? If you are willing to change, you can serve your State and Nation well. If you care about people, they will take care of you. Let it be said that God gave to this Nation, my State, South Carolina, a public servant, a man of great character and heart, and that we miss him, but we thank God that he gave us J. Strom Thurmond. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

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

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise to make a brief statement, like my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, about the passing of Senator Thurmond. This is something I really don't know how to put in words. All of us from South Carolina knew Senator Thurmond in so many ways. But his colleagues in this body, the vast majority of you, have served with him for many years. You have great admiration and fondness for Senator Thurmond but I stand before you as his successor. I often state back home that we change Senators every 50 years and that so many people have been waiting to take Senator Thurmond's place. The jokes just go on and on about what a rich life he has lived. Tonight his family is mourning his passing. Whether a person lives to be 100 or 200, it is difficult to lose your father. If you lose someone you love, it is always difficult. But when you think about Senator Thurmond, you always have a smile on your face. He lived a rich life. He lived at times a controversial life. But the biggest testament I can give to Senator Thurmond is that he changed. He changed with the times. Those of you who embraced him during difficult times your love was much appreciated. Recently people have tried to freeze Senator Thurmond in time which is unfair to him or anyone else. Those who knew him best understood that he changed with the times. And his legacy in my State across party lines, across racial lines, and across regional lines was that he was the go-to guy. If you had a problem with your family or with your business, the first thought in your mind, if the Government was involved, or if somebody was treating you unfairly, was get on the phone and call Senator Thurmond. You would get a phone call back, and he would go to bat for you. Whether you owned the company, or you were the janitor, whether you were black, white, rich or poor, his office and he as a person had a reputation of going to bat for individuals. To me, that is his greatest legacy. I stand before you as his successor--but not only that, as his friend. He embraced my campaign in 1995. He came to campaign for me when he was 93 years of age. And I was worried to death about if he could make it through the day. Three days later I was glad to see him leave because he about killed me. He had enthusiasm and passion like no one I have ever met in my life. He did things he didn't have to do. He was a sitting judge in South Carolina in his 40s. He left the judgeship to go volunteer for the Army. He landed in a glider on D-Day, he was shot up, the pilot was killed, and he fought the Germans until they quit, and then he went over to Japan and fought until they quit. This man, your friend, my friend, South Carolina's favorite son, is gone but he will never be forgotten. His biggest legacy is in the small things he did--not the large things he did. There are so many large things he accomplished. But he lives on in families. Great relationships were established, and good constituent service. He won his last election by getting more African-American votes than any Republican in the South. All I can say about Senator Thurmond is that we pray for his family, we mourn his loss, but we thank God that He provided us a great public servant. Well done, Senator Thurmond. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside so I can offer my amendment. I have a modified amendment at the desk that I call up, amendment No. 948.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with the hope we can negotiate a resolution and have it accepted as part of the package. The chairman of the committee has been very gracious in trying to bring that result about. Briefly, this amendment costs no money. The whole idea of reform in the bill is a new alternative traditional Medicare that will be created, called Medicare Advantage, to which people will gravitate, that allows preventive medicine practices that currently do not exist, bringing modernization to Medicare, making it more user friendly and cost effective. That is the goal of the bill, by creating a new option. Estimates range from 2 to 43 percent participation. For those looking for reform, the only vehicle for reform in this bill I can find is the idea of Medicare Advantage, and that is somewhat minimal. This amendment addresses the problem of ``what if.'' What if in 2010, after 4 years of enactment of this bill, the traditional Medicare is the primary choice made? What if the Medicare Advantage Program does not receive 15-percent enrollment? If it has not achieved 15-percent enrollment, creating efficiency and modernization is going to be lost. This is the last time maybe in a generation to look at traditional Medicare and not only improve it for the senior citizen but improve it for their grandchildren who are going to have to pay for it. Traditional Medicare, as I understand this bill, is pretty much unaffected in terms of reforms. Having a prescription drug benefit can be a good idea because it emphasizes preventive medicine practices. Having prescription drugs reasonably available can keep people healthier longer and improve the quality of life and keep them out of the hospital and do a lot of good things. But Medicare is $13 trillion short of the money we need. This bill is going to be $4 trillion additional liability. This is a chance as a body to look at the structural problems that Medicare faces. We are increasing the age limit to 67 for Social Security eligibility. It seems to me that is a good idea given the fact people are living longer. I would like to do that with Medicare. I don't think that is oppressive. I think that is fair to grandparents and grandchildren. I believe we should have a means test. If we have a prescription drug benefit, I believe you should be asked to participate based on your ability to participate because $3 out of $4 coming into Medicare Part B comes from the General Treasury. It is truly a subsidized entitlement. These are the type of reforms I would like to see happen. I don't think they are going to happen. And the Medicare Advantage Program is the only alternative that has a reform element to it. My amendment says in 2010, after 4 years, if 15 percent of Medicare recipients are not enrolled in Medicare Advantage, if you cannot get 15 percent to pick Medicare Advantage--you get 2 years to reach 15 percent, January of 2012. If you have not achieved 15 percent by January 2012, it is a chance to have a fail-safe mechanism requiring a commission to be appointed. The President, the House, and the Senate would appoint nine members to this commission who would study and report back to Congress in a timely manner what would be needed at that point in time to save Medicare from bankruptcy to make sure it does not blow a hole in the budget and make sure it is efficiently run. This commission has 18 months to create a work product, legislation that comes back to the House and Senate, and we vote up or down on that legislation. This amendment will force in the future reforms that may not be achieved if we do not have adequate participation in Medicare Advantage. It takes the issue away from Congress in the sense of the commission is required to look at it and bring it back to Congress for our input and our vote. I believe we need an element like this in this entitlement bill because if we do not have a way down the road to take a second look at this program, we are all going to suffer greatly in this Nation. It costs no money. Hopefully, it will never have to happen. If we cannot get 15 percent of Medicare recipients to enroll in Medicare Advantage, there will be no way to reform this program. I hope we can find a resolution in a bipartisan fashion and this amendment will be accepted. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. To call up my amendment, 2 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. James Holloway, Derrick Walters, and Mindy Yergin, interns and members of my staff, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to give due recognition to a colleague whose tragic passing is still fresh in our thoughts. Senator Paul Wellstone served 12 honorable years in the Senate for the State of Minnesota before suddenly perishing with his dear wife, Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, three of his staffers, and two pilots in a plane crash last October. The bill I am proposing today seeks to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, after Paul Wellstone. His distinguished record of service for veterans clearly demands such distinction. Indeed last October, just weeks before the crash that took his life, Senator Wellstone proclaimed on the Senate floor, ``It has been a labor of love for me working with veterans.'' Paul Wellstone served our Nation's veterans with passion and commitment as a distinguished member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. His legacy includes the many veterans today whose lives have been turned around due to his unyielding service on their behalf, such as veterans who are or have been homeless; veterans who are now receiving treatment for their service-related disabilities from exposure to radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing; and veterans who suffer from symptoms associated with Persian Gulf War Syndrome. Year after year, Senator Wellstone rose in this very chamber to try to increase the VA health care budget. In 2000, the Senator was part of an effort to secure the largest one year increase ever for veterans' health care benefits. In 2001, Paul Wellstone successfully pushed through an amendment to the Budget Resolution that provided $17 billion over 10 years to boost health care funding for veterans. And just last June, Senator Wellstone fought to include $417 million for veterans' health care in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for FY 2002. In recognition of his tireless advocacy, he was awarded a number of distinctions by various veterans' service organizations, including: the 1995 Legislator of the Year Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America; the 1995 Patriot Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Congressional Leadership Award from the Forgotten 216th; the 1997 Distinguished Citizen Award from the Minnesota Veterans of Foreign Wars; the 2002 Distinguished Science Award from the Disabled American Veterans; the 2002 Legislative Leadership Award from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; and the Vanguard Award for Legislative Achievement by the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. George Washington once remarked, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' Senator Wellstone knew this all too well and worked to make the Department of Veterans Affairs a more responsive organization. The Minneapolis VA Medical Center was a source of great pride for Paul. He once described the facility as having become ``the pride and joy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and more important, of veterans throughout the region.'' The naming of the Paul Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center will forever honor his commitment to our veterans by distinguishing the very institution that carries on his ``labor of love.'' Mr. President, this is only a small mark of the appreciation that we all owe to an individual who served veterans with such compassion and conviction. Finally, I thank Frederick ``Rock'' Rochelle--a past President of the St. Paul Chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America--for working with me on this legislation to honor the memory of Paul Wellstone. I have compiled a list of statements made by friends and colleagues in remembrance of Senator Wellstone. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the above mentioned list of statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to give due recognition to a colleague whose tragic passing is still fresh in our thoughts. Senator Paul Wellstone served 12 honorable years in the Senate for the State of Minnesota before suddenly perishing with his dear wife, Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, three of his staffers, and two pilots in a plane crash last October. The bill I am proposing today seeks to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, after Paul Wellstone. His distinguished record of service for veterans clearly demands such distinction. Indeed last October, just weeks before the crash that took his life, Senator Wellstone proclaimed on the Senate floor, ``It has been a labor of love for me working with veterans.'' Paul Wellstone served our Nation's veterans with passion and commitment as a distinguished member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. His legacy includes the many veterans today whose lives have been turned around due to his unyielding service on their behalf, such as veterans who are or have been homeless; veterans who are now receiving treatment for their service-related disabilities from exposure to radiation from atomic and nuclear weapons testing; and veterans who suffer from symptoms associated with Persian Gulf War Syndrome. Year after year, Senator Wellstone rose in this very chamber to try to increase the VA health care budget. In 2000, the Senator was part of an effort to secure the largest one year increase ever for veterans' health care benefits. In 2001, Paul Wellstone successfully pushed through an amendment to the Budget Resolution that provided $17 billion over 10 years to boost health care funding for veterans. And just last June, Senator Wellstone fought to include $417 million for veterans' health care in the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for FY 2002. In recognition of his tireless advocacy, he was awarded a number of distinctions by various veterans' service organizations, including: the 1995 Legislator of the Year Award from the Vietnam Veterans of America; the 1995 Patriot Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the Congressional Leadership Award from the Forgotten 216th; the 1997 Distinguished Citizen Award from the Minnesota Veterans of Foreign Wars; the 2002 Distinguished Science Award from the Disabled American Veterans; the 2002 Legislative Leadership Award from the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; and the Vanguard Award for Legislative Achievement by the Non-Commissioned Officers Association. George Washington once remarked, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' Senator Wellstone knew this all too well and worked to make the Department of Veterans Affairs a more responsive organization. The Minneapolis VA Medical Center was a source of great pride for Paul. He once described the facility as having become ``the pride and joy of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and more important, of veterans throughout the region.'' The naming of the Paul Wellstone Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center will forever honor his commitment to our veterans by distinguishing the very institution that carries on his ``labor of love.'' Mr. President, this is only a small mark of the appreciation that we all owe to an individual who served veterans with such compassion and conviction. Finally, I thank Frederick ``Rock'' Rochelle--a past President of the St. Paul Chapter of the Vietnam Veterans of America--for working with me on this legislation to honor the memory of Paul Wellstone. I have compiled a list of statements made by friends and colleagues in remembrance of Senator Wellstone. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the above mentioned list of statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Robert Dean, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor now and for the duration of the debate on the tax bill.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As quickly as I can--a lot of people want to speak--I will frame the debate for those who are listening. The Armed Services Committee was asked by the Pentagon to give some relief on a 10-year prohibition on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons for a specific military purpose. The Pentagon and others tell us that the warfare of the future is going to have a component to it about which we need to be thinking. As we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places, the enemies of tomorrow and today have gone underground in a deep fashion-- underground not only to hide their forces, but to hide weaponry and to potentially build chemical or biological weapons facilities, underground to develop hydrogen nuclear weapons, underground to protect their troops from the awesome power that we have today. The committee, after listening to the Pentagon's request, in the bill we have before us, lifted the ban on research and development to allow the Pentagon to do research and development in this area as they could on any other weapons system. The question becomes for the Senate, after having received input from our Department of Defense and those experts who are paid to follow such matters, whether saying no to their request to do research and development only is a wise decision. My colleague who previously spoke mentioned the word ``crazy.'' I think it would be incumbent upon us to listen, as the committee has done. And the committee, in a bipartisan fashion, after listening, voted to lift the ban on research and development, to go forward and look at the ability to combat the threats of the future by having a low-yield nuclear weapon that could go to the underground chemical or biological weapons factory that may exist in the future--to go to the underground nuclear weapons facility that may exist in the future. As we have seen from Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy has dug deep into the earth. From the last gulf war to Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have seen how the military has modernized and transformed itself. In the first gulf war--Desert Shield and Desert Storm--only about 10 percent of the weapons used were precision-guided munitions. That changed to the point where 90 percent of the weapons used in Operation Iraqi Freedom were precision guided. I argue that that modernization effort, keeping that technological edge, saved a lot of American and Iraqi lives. I suggest to my colleagues that this is a dramatic moment in our Nation's history. We have just upgraded the threat level to orange. We have seen last week what is going on in the world--al-Qaida is still alive. They are on the run, but they have the ability to hurt people. They desire nuclear weapons. There are a lot of rogue states that are going to try to pursue a nuclear weapon, or fissile materials, and they will most likely be successful. People are going to enhance their biological and nuclear weapons ability. I argue that to stop research and development on a potential weapon that could destroy a terrorist group or prevent a rogue nation from creating a chemical or biological capacity that is deep underground is illogical--just to take it off the table in a blind fashion, trying to say we are doing something that is going to spread nuclear weapons. I don't believe we are. Secretary Powell has written a letter on this matter, on May 5, in which he says: I do not believe that repealing the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research will complicate our ongoing efforts with North Korea. It is a reality that the enemies of today and tomorrow will go underground. They will go deep into the earth, and they will have laboratories and research facilities available to them to develop weapons of mass destruction. I hope the Senate will listen to the Pentagon and develop a weapon that counteracts that threat. Whether or not we deploy that weapon we will decide later. But to take the research component off the table and not even plan for that possibility is very irresponsible. We will take up as a body whether or not to authorize this development, as we should. I implore my colleagues, please do not ignore the threats that exist today, an enemy going deep into the Earth where conventional weapons may not be able to destroy that chemical or biological factory or that nuclear weapons program. Let's at least look at the possibility of having a weapons mix in the future that protects us from the evil that exists today. I think what the committee has done is very responsible. I congratulate the chairman and all those involved in lifting this ban at the Pentagon's request. History will judge us poorly--who knows what is going to happen down the road--if we as a political body do not listen to what I believe to be a real threat and try to at least talk about and develop a counteraction to that threat for the future. That is what this debate is about. If this amendment is adopted, it would tie the hands of the American military in looking at weapons systems to combat a real threat at a time when the threats we face are growing, not lessening. I think that would be a very bad move on the Senate's part. It would tie the hands of the Department of Defense unnecessarily. We are not talking about deploying a weapon. We are talking about researching and developing a weapon that may save lives in the future, and I hope the Senate as a whole will follow the lead of the committee and vote this amendment down. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. If it is appropriate with Senator Sessions, I will proceed.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I am glad to yield to the Senator for a moment.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. About 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Reserving the right to object, what was the last thing the Senator said?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I have been working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to approve a compensation package for guardsmen and reservists. We have a modification to Senator Daschle's amendment. I second-degreed his amendment last night. We have reached a compromise where we merged the best of the two packages. Basically, what we are trying to do is make sure that Guard and Reserve members, if they choose to, can become members of TRICARE, the military health care network for military members and their families, by paying a premium. It would be what a retiree pays plus $100 for an enlisted Guard or Reserve member, $150 for an officer. So it is a very good deal for the Reserve and Guard families. They pay into the system if they choose to be a member of TRICARE. That way when they are called to active duty they do not leave one health care plan for another. They will have continuity of health care. They do not get bounced around between systems. It would really help with recruitment and retention. It has been a bipartisan effort like none I have ever experienced. I want to add cosponsors, and then I will yield for Senator DeWine, who has been a tremendous leader on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to this compromise product: Senators Clinton, DeWine, Kennedy, Miller, Allen, Leahy, Stabenow, Mikulski, Landrieu, Chambliss, Campbell, Collins, and Dorgan. I compliment Senator Daschle for his fine efforts in making this possible.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Daschle and the folks he worked with to try to come up with the solution to the retention problem we are going to have. It is inevitable because these forces are being utilized at such rates. Senator Daschle put forward an amendment that would basically allow Guard and Reserve personnel the benefit of health care as a condition of membership. I congratulate him for doing that. I have an amendment that has a little bit different approach to it. We have similar cosponsors. The reason I am doing this is to get my amendment out so we can have two looks at the same problem and see if we can address the concerns that are growing in the country regarding the utilization rates of Guard and Reserve personnel. The comment the chairman had about Senator Daschle's amendment he will have about this amendment. We need to look at it. There is no money in the budget resolution for it. But I think what we are trying to do, in a bipartisan fashion, is put on the table for the country to digest, as well as the Senate, House, and Department of Defense, what it is going to be like 10 or 20 years from now if we keep using Guard and Reserve members at the level we are doing it now. The honest answer is, if you are in the Guard and Reserve, you are going to be called on more and not less because the war on terrorism will go on for a while. It is not anywhere near over. Iraq has a component to it for the Guard and Reserve. People are in Bosnia, and that is a Guard function. This amendment, along with what Senator Daschle is trying to do, puts some new programs on the table to make it more attractive to enlist in the Reserve or Guard and to stay. Senator Warner's concerns are very legitimate. The force has changed. The utilization rates of Guard and Reserve forces have changed. In the last gulf war, I was serving at MacIntire National Guard base as a staff judge advocate for the base. During that service, it was eye opening for me. When a Guard member is called to active duty, as our units were, half of the people went over to the desert; the other half stayed behind. I stayed behind to provide legal services to the members and their families. When you are called to active duty, more times than not the pay you receive versus that as a civilian goes down. There are provisions under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act to allow renegotiation of interest payments, and to do some short-term things to make the burden of being called to active duty for a Guard or Reserve family a bit easier to bear. But more times than not, there is a dramatic reduction in income for the Guard and Reserve member called to active duty. Sometimes these tours can last a year or more. What we are trying to do is create a benefit package that is not better than the Active Forces and that complements the Guard and Reserve forces and provides an incentive that will make it more attractive to stay. If you are a small business owner, as a Guard or Reserve member, sometimes your business suffers greatly. As a lawyer, I was called to active duty for about 100 days, so my partners had to take over my obligations. If I had been a sole practitioner, it would have been tough. But that is what you sign up for--to help your country. We are suggesting to create a benefit package more like that of the Active Forces, and one that is more user friendly. When a Guard or Reserve member is called to active duty, family counseling is not usually available at those bases. Some are at civilian airports. Military families have counseling available. They have many assets available on Air Force and Army bases that provide support for the families. Literally, the Guard and Reserve families have to make it up as they go. Our Presiding Officer is a cosponsor of the bill. He has been a great advocate of the Guard and Reserve and Active Forces. We have to understand this is one big family. The Guard and Reserve component serves in a unique way, but it is vital to the overall mission. What we are trying to do--Senator Daschle and myself and others, in a bipartisan fashion--is address the health care problem. Here is what happens. If you are called to active duty and you are in the civilian community, you have one set of doctors and health care network available to you. When you are activated, you have to change systems. So we are trying to create continuity of health care. My main goal is to allow a Guard or Reserve member to access health care in a fashion that makes health care better for the overall military family unit. This is the difference between our approach and Senator Daschle's. His bill has two ways that a Guard or Reserve family can have access to health care. One is that they can sign up for TRICARE at the same participation rate as Federal employees, and that would be $420 for a single individual, $1,446 for a Guard or Reserve family. Our bill allows you to be a member of TRICARE as an active-duty military family, and your premiums would be $330 for a single enlisted person, $560 for enlisted families, $380 for a single officer, $610 for an officer's family. Basically, we have taken what a military retiree would pay in premiums to be a member of TRICARE and added $100 in additional costs for an enlisted person, $150 for an officer. That is still a great deal. It lowers the cost. It is cheaper to the military families in Senator Daschle's approach. The big difference between our amendments is that, under Senator Daschle's amendment, the Federal Government--the military could pay a subsidy to the private sector health insurance company covering the military person, the Guard or Reserve person. My concern with that is the study that we have seen suggests it may be that up to 90 percent Guard or Reserve people will choose an option where the Government subsidizes health care in the private sector. My goal is to get more people into TRICARE to make it better for the overall military family, and at affordable rates. It is a distinction that matters somewhat. But the point of both of these amendments is to provide health care to Guard and Reserve families that has a continuity component and that is affordable. We need to address this as a nation because you have given some numbers on the other side about how many Guard or Reserve families don't have health care or adequate health care. Both bills take us in that direction. The key difference is, under my proposal, it would work in a bipartisan fashion with Senator Clinton and others. A Guard or Reserve family, or military person, would be in the TRICARE system like their active-duty component, giving a boost to TRICARE overall. I wanted to bring this amendment to the floor. I congratulate Senator Daschle and all the Republicans and Democrats, including both of my colleagues from Georgia, Senators Miller and Chambliss. Senator Clinton appeared at a news conference when we unveiled the bill. Let me tell you, she has been terrific to work with. We are probably polar opposites in terms of political ideology most times, but to have her join this cause and help push this bill is a testament to the power of this bill and of this issue. With that said, I offer the amendment. I hope our colleagues will look at what both amendments do. I hope colleagues will look seriously at this body trying to provide, as soon as possible in the future, in a responsible way, health care to the entire military family unit. That unit does include in a substantial way Guard and Reserve members, and they are part of the military family. We cannot do a mission without the Guard and Reserve. We do not want to have a better benefits package. We want to have an attractive benefits package that will be good for retention and recruitment. That is the spirit in which this amendment is offered. The chairman's concerns are legitimate. This has been scored at $1.4 billion a year. Senator Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion a year, but they are not taking into account that under their proposal, many people would not go into TRICARE but ask for payments for their health care in the private sector. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Zell Miller be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is a very good question. Here is my understanding of how those numbers relate to each other. The cost to the Government under Senator Daschle's package is $1.2 billion per year. The package I am offering is $1.4 billion. So it is more costly to the Government with the way it is constructed at this point. To the military member, it is several hundred dollars a month and more advantageous with our proposal. Senator Daschle's proposal takes a 78-percent participation rate that all of us pay in the Federal health care program. What I do is take the retiree contribution to TRICARE and add $100 for enlisted and $150 for officers. Here is the big difference: By having the second option where the Federal Government will pay an unknown amount of the premium that a Reserve or Guard member has in the private sector and is not identified how much we will pay, that changes the participation rates dramatically. We have been told, under our proposal, it is a 70-percent participation rate. Under Senator Daschle's proposal, it is 50 percent. When you include the component of where we would pay to subsidize the private health care, it could go up to 90 percent in terms of that component, and nobody knows what that cost is.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. The participation rates are at 80,000. They are basing the current numbers on the 2002, 80,000 reservists mobilized. They are telling us that is not a true number; that, in reality, if this second option were offered, they would go from 80,000 to almost 350,000, and that has to be included.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I think it is $1.4 billion, and Senator Daschle's amendment is $1.2 billion, but the points are well made.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes, $400 million.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. It is not included in the true form. It has as a cost estimate using 80,000 reservists when, in fact, they tell us the participation rates will be three times higher than that.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. That is correct.