Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, this will be a tough act to follow. The Senator from Alabama has done a wonderful job going through the nuances of where we find ourselves and explained the career of Miguel Estrada better than I could possibly do and has talked about the factors that bring us here at 1:10 in the morning. All I can add to it is that I am new to the body. I was hoping my first engagement with the Senate would be about Social Security and talking about saving that system. But I find myself in the middle of something very historic; that is the filibustering of a circuit court of appeals judge--apparently, the only time in the history of our Nation such tactics have been employed. And you ask yourself, Why? What has gotten us here? Why have they chosen to do this? One thing about being a Presiding Officer of the Senate is you get to learn a lot and hear a lot. One thing I have learned is that in the past the abuses of the judicial nomination process have sometimes been striking, and apparently both sides have engaged in some practices that just really do not seem right. There are all kinds of cases where judges were never given a chance to be voted on and left in committee for years. And people did not like one judge, and they decided to make sure they never got a vote. And they were in the majority. It goes on and on and on. I guess that is politics. I do not suggest that the Republican party, in the past, has not done some things that were probably unfair to people, too. But what we are about to engage in will become the mother of all abuses. It will take the country in a direction that it need not go in terms of judicial nominations. And the country, I hope, will wake up and listen a little closer to what we are doing over time. Editorial writers are beginning to write, and they are beginning to understand what is at stake. And from a Republican point of view, it is very unusual to have all these papers siding with us and criticizing our friends on the other side. That is normally not the case. What we are doing does affect the future of the country in a very dramatic way. A courtroom--unlike the business of politics that we all chose to engage in--is a place for quiet reflection. All of us here as Senators have something in common. Our goal is to get 50 plus one vote, or 50 percent of the vote plus one. We engage in a business that is loud, expensive, nasty, and sometimes unpleasant but very important and very rewarding. Our objective, when it comes to election years, is to convince people to vote for us, call attention to what we have done, to how we are different from our opponent, and that we are better for your family and your business than the other person running. We have a big deal made about it, and we spend a lot of money, and we beat each other up, and the public votes and they get to express themselves. The majority wins. Well, the courtroom is a different place. Our Founding Fathers understood that. There has to be someplace in a democracy where somebody who feels they have been wronged by a large group has a place to go other than the ballot box, because the ballot box sometimes is not the best place to ensure that justice is done in an individual case. So in our system the weak can sue the strong. They can go to a court, be judged by a jury of their peers, and the case will be presided over by somebody with a lifetime appointment, who doesn't have any polls to worry about, or any particular constituency to please. The only person to be pleased is Lady Justice. The appeals process sends the case forward, and the courtroom itself, in terms of a trial, can be a pretty loud place, because you have witnesses, and a lot of testimony, and a lot of cross-examination. It can be a very flamboyant place. But whether or not that case will withstand scrutiny is determined by a panel of judges at the appeals level. And there is no quieter place in our legal system than the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court itself. People who are there for life listen to very well-constructed arguments by lawyers, who look at the precedents involved in the case, look at the Constitution, and try to render a fair verdict. Our Founding Fathers understood that the judiciary needs to be an independent, separate branch of Government, immune, as much as it can be, from popular opinion, so that the unpopular may have a just verdict, or they may not get one otherwise. Unfortunately, in this particular instance, the political trends to be set, if this filibuster is successful, will do great damage to the process of trying to pick qualified men and women to serve in this capacity in the future. The Constitution recognizes that the independent judiciary also needs a check and balance. Our judges at the Federal level are nominated by the President, the executive branch, and the Constitution has conferred upon this body the advise and consent role, a check and balance to the executive branch. The Constitution envisioned supermajority votes of the Senate in a very few cases, and confirming a judge is not one of them. The Constitution envisions that nominees of any particular President will come to this body, and the Constitution envisions that a majority vote will determine the fate of that nominee. The Senate rules, over time, have allowed the minority to be able to stop any particular matter, unless the majority can gather 60 votes. That is not part of the Constitution; that is part of the way the Senate works. For some reason, our friends on the Democratic side have chosen to filibuster a circuit court of appeals nominee for the first time in the history of our country. They have chosen Miguel Estrada for some reason. Well, I am not privy to their caucus conversations, but I have a feeling this goes back to last year's election. The Republican party picked up seats in last year's senatorial election that even we could not have envisioned as a party 2 years ago. Something happened in the 2002 election that allowed us to get 51 seats. For every Member of the body, there is probably a different opinion as to what did happen in 2002. I argue to my friends on the other side that 100 years from now people will not write much about the 2002 election; they really won't care to know why Lindsey Graham got elected with nine other Republican freshman Senators. Unless I can do the Senator Thurmond thing, I will be long gone myself. But they will care and they will write about what happened to our country if we filibuster controversial judicial nominees as a matter of political practice. That will have taken us down a road that no one, so far, has gone down. I am afraid that road would be a very unpleasant journey for our Nation. I think our friends on the other side of the aisle lost seats in 2002 because we had a popular Republican President, serving right after one of the most horrific events of our time--the tragedy of 9/ 11--a President Americans liked and trusted to make hard decisions. He was able to make the case to enough American voters in the 2002 election that the Senate in the hands of our Democratic colleagues was not producing in an appropriate fashion. Now, I know people will disagree with that analysis, but that is what I believe. In my campaign, we talked about a homeland security bill that was held up because of special interest labor union politics. We talked about an antiterrorism insurance bill that would allow people to build buildings without having to absorb the risk of a terrorist attack by themselves because of legal provisions that trial lawyers wanted. Also, we talked about judges who could not get a vote on the Senate floor. I am convinced that resonated, that after 9/11 people wanted us to work together and, rightly or wrongly, enough people in the country believed the Democratic-controlled Senate was not working as an efficient body and helping a President the public liked and wanted to be successful. Right after the election in November, we had a special election in Louisiana in December. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were able to hold a seat. I argue that the momentum of the 2002 election was a moment in time, and that those in the Democratic Party who believe they must stand up to George W. Bush at every turn and take him on personally with every agenda he has control of must understand there is a limit to that strategy. The limit to that strategy has to be the common good. I argue that we have gone into an area where the common good is not being served. That the filibustering of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is not only unprecedented, I believe it is part of an overall strategy. I believe-- and I hope I am wrong--that we will see this happen time and again this year; that this is part of a strategy by our friends on the other side to further obstruct the ability of the President to move judicial nominees through the system. By employing this tactic, they have set a course that will be hard to turn. Politics being what it is, people have long memories, and there will come a day when a Democrat will occupy the White House and the Republican Party will be in the minority in the Senate, and it will be talked about: Remember what they did to Miguel Estrada. There is a certain part of politics that appeals to our basic instincts, not the common good, and I hope, and I literally pray, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will find a different tactic to take to make their points of view known about President Bush's agenda, including judges, rather than engaging in a tactic that will basically supplant the constitutional role of confirming judges by requiring Senates of the future to have to gather 60 votes to confirm a controversial judicial nominee. This tactic will hurt us all. This tactic will belittle and demean the judicial nomination process. This tactic will change the constitutional process we have lived with for well over 200 years in confirming judges. This tactic will allow a bitter minority of the greatest body in democratic history to act in a way that will make it very hard for good men and women to serve. And that bitter minority one day may be a Republican minority. I hope that reason will prevail; that we can reach a compromise of some sort that will allow everybody to walk away from this in good faith and say they fought the good fight and that Miguel Estrada will have a vote up or down, and that this tactic of filibustering, requiring a supermajority vote for judicial nominees, will give way for the sake of the common good. It has been amazing to me to see the transformation of the arguments against Miguel Estrada and how they have changed over time. Being a member of the Judiciary Committee, I can recall being shocked by hearing the phrase from someone--and I cannot remember who--``he's not Hispanic enough.'' Obviously, I am not Hispanic, and I do not know what being ``Hispanic enough'' means. It was a phrase that just really did not sound nice, was not befitting of the experience we are all in, and was used to explain the fact that Miguel Estrada, by going to a private school, somehow did not share the Hispanic experience. That sounded offensive, and it was offensive. Nobody says it anymore, and that is the good news. When the Hispanic groups that came out against Mr. Estrada's nomination first rallied around this cause, they were pretty hard on him as a person. Once one understands who he is and what he has gone through, it really is unfair to be hard on him as a person because he is a good person and he has overcome obstacles that everybody should be proud of, that I could only imagine. He truly has lived the American dream. He made something of himself in the most difficult of circumstances. We do not hear much about that anymore. As a matter of fact, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this has nothing to do with his ethnic background. Good. Because it should not. It should be about who is qualified. We should enjoy and relish the fact that diversity is part of the American dream, and that for the first time, we will have a Hispanic member on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest court in the land. That would be a good thing for America, and we should rejoice in it if it does happen. Then the attacks moved to a different level: He has never been a judge. When I first heard that, it made me wonder. To be on the circuit court of appeals, maybe it is a good thing to be a judge before you get promoted. Then I learned that Justice Rehnquist and untold numbers of men and women serving in the Federal judiciary were promoted to very important positions without ever having any previous judicial experience, which makes sense because being a judge is a cocktail of several items: Temperament, intellect, the ability to understand human behavior, the ability to reason and to have a kind and compassionate disposition. That is what I am looking for, and people can bring those qualities to the table without ever having worn a robe. That argument, that he has never been a judge, fell by the wayside when the untold numbers of judges who never had any experience before came forward. So he is like so many others. It makes no sense to say no because of that. The next argument is he is ideologically driven; that there is something about this man that would not allow him to look at my case or your case or anyone else's case fairly because he is so driven by his ideology that he cannot see justice, that he cannot see facts, and he cannot see prior decisions. I am assuming this ideology is one of some extreme view of the law that only a radical conservative could have; that he is ideologically not equipped to serve in such an important job. That has to be analyzed in terms of the man's life. It is easy to say something, but it should be a requirement that it be true. I will just offer one fact for people to consider. If he is so ideologically driven that he cannot fairly render justice, how in the world could he have worked for the Bill Clinton administration? I would argue that any ideologically driven conservative would have had a hard time working for Bill Clinton. Not only did Miguel Estrada work in the Clinton administration's Justice Department, he performed in an outstanding manner. One of the gentlemen who accused him of being ideologically driven happened to be the person who rated his performance, and during the reporting periods involved, he said he was an outstanding lawyer who always applied the law and the facts based on reason and not personal agendas. The idea that Miguel Estrada is some right-wing ideologue makes absolutely no sense, and he is being supported by the people who know him the best--by Democrats and Republicans who understand that he is a man of great credentials. I will assure my colleagues of one thing, if you do not believe anything else I have said, that the American Bar Association is never going to unanimously support somebody who is an ideologue on the conservative side, and he received a most highly coveted rating, well qualified, by the American Bar Association. That argument that he is an ideologue that cannot see reason is stupid. The next one is: We do not know enough about him and the only way we are only going to know about him is for us, our friends on the other side, to have access to all the memoranda he has ever written as a lawyer when he worked for the Department of Justice. There is a reason that all the Solicitors General have come out unanimously against the idea of producing legal memorandum in that Department to the Congress. Nobody would want the lawyers who worked for them, who advise them with written or oral opinions, to have that work product disclosed to the public in a fashion that would change people's opinions and change the way they would advise. If it ever becomes the law of the land, if this case results in internal memos written by lawyers to clients, if that becomes part of how a judge is chosen, then I would argue that Government lawyers who have any aspirations of being a judge are going to find themselves in a very difficult circumstance. There is a reason that every Solicitor General living today has said that the memos requested by our friends on the other side should not be released. What I find most astonishing is that the last administration, and some who know me understand that I was probably not their biggest fan, time and time again used privilege after privilege, mostly made up, to protect everything they touched. I thought they abused the privilege doctrines, but here is something we should all be able to agree upon: That when a lawyer writes a memo to a client, that should stay between the client and the lawyer. And if the client does not want the memo released, for the good of us all, for the sake of the attorney-client privilege, for the sake of good government, that request should be denied. We do not know enough about him because we really have not had a chance to talk to him. I was in the Judiciary Committee. The man was there all day. There is a volume that was produced from the hearings. He has been around for a year and a half. He has answered questions. I think he has given good answers. This is not about not knowing enough about him, not being able to answer the questions that were not properly asked, because the people who want this information are going to vote no anyway. This is about conservative versus liberal. This is about politics. This is about trying to rectify the losses in 2002. I am convinced that our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that the only way they can get back into the game is to oppose President Bush. Instead of learning from the 2002 elections that obstruction was not the way to a majority, I think they have blinders on now in that they have engaged in a political dynamic that not only will not allow them to regain the majority of this body but could do irreparable damage to our country in the future. I know that each and every one of them believes that there is a high purpose for what they are doing; they love their country as much as I do and would disagree with my assessment. But this I am sure of: if this filibuster is successful, 100 years from now we will have changed the way business is done in the Senate in regard to confirming controversial judicial nominees. And 100 years from now, people, if they could, would come back to each and every one of us and say: Why did you do that? I wish you would have not done that. We are paying a price for your desire to get a political advantage that you could not even envision. I am hopeful that over time there will be Members on the other side of the aisle sufficient enough in number who will say: I will not engage in this practice to the point that I am legitimizing a filibuster of a circuit court nominee that will set in motion forces of the future that will change the way the Constitution works. I am hopeful we will eventually get enough votes not to confirm Miguel Estrada but to allow a vote to be had to confirm Miguel Estrada. If that vote is had, he will win, I am convinced. For the sake of the future of this country, I hope that some time in the near future this tempting practice of making it hard for President Bush to get forward any judicial nominee our friends on the other side do not like will be abandoned because I am convinced they will look back in their political career with great regret that they ever did this. Several of them are on record of having said in the past, just give him a vote. I will never engage in a filibuster of a judge because I think it is wrong, I think it is bad for the country. When Senator Leahy said it, he was right. When Senator Kennedy said it, he was right. When Senator Feinstein said it, she was right. At the time they saw very clearly the consequences of what could happen. We are too close to the 2002 election for some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to see clearly. All they see is a majority lost and a real desire to get it back. Please reflect, please do not be blinded by the political moment. Please do not take our country down a road that we will all regret.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Monday, February 24, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. to conclude a business meeting regarding S. 195, Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2003; Several Committee Resolutions on GSA Prospectuses; and Committee Funding Resolution. The meeting will be held in the President's Room (S. 216).

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Is my understanding correct that it is not only the Senator's suspicion, but they have actually said that? People on the other side have said one of the concerns they have about this gentleman is they are suspicious of his ideology and that he may be inflexible in applying the law in a fair way. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Along those lines, if the Senator will continue to yield.

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Will the Senator continue to yield for one more question?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Will the Senator agree that for any conservative to be able to work for the Clinton administration and do well shows a tremendous amount of tolerance?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Would the Senator agree with me that if one of the really serious questions about whether or not this man is a rightwing ideolog who couldn't shape the law in a proper fashion--that any rightwing ideolog would have a very difficult time working for the Clinton administration? Would you agree with me about that concept?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. It is my understanding one of the attacks is Mr. Estrada is in fact a rightwing ideolog who may use his political philosophy to shape the law in an unfair way. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Did this gentleman in fact work for the Clinton administration?

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, all Americans were saddened by the terrible tragedy last weekend involving the Space Shuttle Columbia. The world has lost seven incredibly talented people who were striving to make this a better planet for us all. Our hearts go out to the families of the astronauts. I hope God will provide them comfort and healing during this difficult time. For decades, Americans have been proud of our space program and the brave men and women who have led our explorations in space travel. They have been pioneers seeking a better understanding of our own planet and what lies in the deep, dark expanse of space. In the coming days and weeks our Nation will mourn for the astronauts of the Space Shuttle Columbia as well as the friends and families they left behind. We will also mourn for the thousands of dedicated workers at NASA who are suffering from this painful loss. We will take our time to carefully study and examine what went wrong and then we'll make the necessary corrections and adjustments. At the appropriate time, we will once again move forward into new frontiers and new missions for space exploration. It is who we are. It is what we do. It is why we are Americans.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was printed in the Record, as follows:

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

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, twice now we have witnessed the horror of vapor trails separating in the sky. Twice now we have gazed in shock at photographs of the optimistic faces of seven young heroes, captured as they stood at the brink of one of mankind's greatest adventures. Twice now we have endured the loss of a space shuttle and its valiant crew: First, Challenger on January 28, 1986, at the start of a landmark voyage dedicated to teaching a new generation about space. Now, 17 years and 4 days later, Columbia on February 1, 2003, at the conclusion of a successful scientific mission. Both incidents remind us that space exploration is fraught with risk, but also with limitless possibility. Even as we mourn the loss of Columbia's crew of seven brave heroes, including the first astronaut from Israel, we must rededicate ourselves to continuing to pursue knowledge of the heavens and the benefits we derive from our research. We in Florida feel the losses most intensely. My State is home to the Kennedy Space Center and thousands of the dedicated professionals who work for NASA as well as its contractors. Floridians consider ourselves part of the special family that makes up the space program. We launched the Columbia on its 16-day mission, and we were ready to welcome her crew home. Now, Floridians are firm in our belief that, just as we did in the 1980s, we must fully explore the causes of Saturday's disaster. We must identify what went wrong and fix it. We must ensure the safety of the remaining three orbiters and future astronauts. But then we recommit ourselves to returning to space, to resuming launches, to continuing to build the International Space Station, and to forging ahead with missions to Mars and other planets. We are already hearing cautious voices calling for spacecraft to be piloted by robots, or even insisting that no new money be spent on space. I say that is wrong. On May 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy declared it a national goal to land a man on the Moon, he did so with these words: ``If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.'' In the spirit of John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and our other space pioneers, astronauts must once again be sent soaring through the Earth's atmosphere to explore and discover.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as the now ranking member on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I must make my fellow Senators aware of the impact of the proposed across-the-board cut in the appropriations for the executive branch for fiscal year 2003 on the Department of Veterans Affairs and its ability to provide health care and benefits to our Nation's veterans. Yesterday morning we were talking about a 1.6 percent cut, of which VA's share would be over $424 million. But let me put that in context. That would have meant that 125,000 fewer veterans will be seen in VA's hospitals, that 250 benefits claims adjudicators would lose their jobs. And it would mean that a hiring freeze would be in place across the VA. These cuts are being put into place at a time when there are 235,000 veterans waiting over 6 months for an appointment at VA. It takes an average of 200 days for a veterans disability claim to be decided. But today we are talking about a 2.9 percent cut across the board. VA has not computed what this will mean to America's veterans yet. Let me be more specific, so that my colleagues can understand the consequence of this decision. The proposed 2.9 percent cut would cost the Veterans Health Administration almost $695 million of the $2.4 billion increase VA health care was slated to receive. The VA-HUD Appropriations Committee recognized VA's dire need for health care resources, and responded accordingly in a bipartisan effort last year. Meanwhile, VA announced just today that in light of rapidly rising numbers of veterans coming to VA for health care and prescription drugs, they will have to cut off enrollment for a certain category of veterans. How can we possibly consider cutting funding now, in the face of such sharply rising demand for VA health care? There are over 44,000 veterans waiting half a year to see a doctor in my home State of Florida right now--this is unacceptable. The system clearly needs higher increases in funding, not decreases. Mr. President, it is also important to point out that a vital segment of the VA health system will receive a drastic cut as a result of this proposal, VA research. This program is invaluable not only to the veteran community, but to the Nation as a whole. VA research is responsible for advances such as the CT and MRI scans, the cardiac pacemaker, and performing the first kidney transplant. The groundbreaking dynamic of the VA research program also serves to attract leading researchers and physicians to VA. Reducing funding for this program is a true disservice to all Americans. On the benefits side, this is a true cut. The original Senate- reported amount of $992 million will be reduced by $29 million. VA has been battling a backlog of claims. It has been making some progress. The VA Secretary has set a goal of deciding new claims within 100 days by the end of this fiscal year. He will not meet his target with this appropriation. As I said, FTE will be cut. There will be a hiring freeze. While the Florida office is now doing slightly better than the national average, it still takes 155 days to process a claim. In addition, the nationwide overtime authorized at various regional offices to process disability claims will be severely curtailed. Currently, each regional office is averaging 40 overtime hours per month. This overtime program has resulted in a reduction in the pending claims backlog. An across- the-board reduction in overtime will mean that veterans will have to wait longer to have their claims reviewed. The accuracy in decisionmaking will drop. We must restore funding before the backlog grows again to unmanageable proportions. As you all know, the veterans' population is aging rapidly. We are losing over 1,200 World War II veterans per day. While the VA is attempting to make a special effort to adjudicate claims of veterans over the age of 70, every day a veteran dies while his or her claim is awaiting a decision. I understand that there are many competing demands being placed on the executive branch right now. But in a time when the White House can afford to offer a tax cut of $640 billion, and in time when we are asking the men and women in the military to go back into harm's way, can we really afford to turn our backs on them when they return from war?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthy, appropriate debate and could not be more serious. The gentleman from Connecticut, a very good friend of mine whom I admire greatly, indicated that, in his opinion, the Spratt resolution would strengthen the hand of the President. Here is what the President believes. He rejects that. He does not believe that the Spratt resolution strengthens his hand. He asked us Monday night to come together and speak with one voice. What has happened over the last few weeks is amazing, and the American public should rejoice in it. The Speaker of the House, the minority leader, a group of bipartisan Senators, McCain and Lieberman and others, have sat down with the White House and have structured a resolution that gives a one-voice approach to a very serious problem for our country. I am not here to tell Members that they should follow blindly their President or their leadership. God knows, I have never been accused of that. But in matters such as this, we must try to achieve consensus because so much is at stake. Many watch what we say and do here. Please do not believe otherwise. We will either be stronger, or weaker, in our ability to negotiate and to make the world safer. There is strength in Hastert, Gephardt, Hyde and Lantos. The strength comes from the Speaker, the minority leader, committee chairmen and ranking members and the President reaching consensus. No disrespect to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but that is strength. The Spratt resolution would show weakness. It would be a defeat for the House leadership. It would be a defeat for our President. Other Members can write the headlines tomorrow. I choose not to write that headline because our enemies are watching, and they read. The Spratt resolution, I think, is ill-advised and ill-structured. To suggest that our President is not working with the United Nations would be wrong. The Speaker, the minority leader, and a bipartisan group of Senators believe he is; and the facts are clear that he is. He is working with our allies. He is trying to find a way to disarm this terrible, evil person before he does more damage. The resolution that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is asking us to adopt not only would be a rejection of this consensus, but it would mandate by U.S. law that the United Nations act before the President can act. I speak again. The U.S. Congress would be telling the President he must go to the U.N. and he must win their political game. We would be making our President win a political game that I do not want to put him in. I believe the resolution is clear on what would be required of the President before he could act. U.N. politics takes a dominance in the Spratt amendment, not the one we are trying to support here today. If he loses the U.N. political battle, the President comes back to this body, and just imagine the frenzy. Write those headlines. The President comes back a loser in U.N. politics, and the forces in this world will seize upon that, and we will be weaker, not stronger, more division, a horrible scenario. Please reject it. I know many Members want to vote yes/yes. That may be good politics, but it would be bad for the country. Mr. Speaker, there are forces for good in this world, none greater than the U.S. Congress. Use our powers wisely. The world is watching. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the last time I speak on the floor of the House. It just suddenly dawned upon me. I do not know what the future holds for me, but I am not really worried about me tonight. We have dealt with weighty issues during my 8 years here but none more important than this. I rise in support of the resolution, and I appreciate all of our Democratic colleagues who made it happen. I know the pressures on some of our friends on the other side are probably a lot more immense than they have been on me, and I applaud their courage. I applaud your courage. For those who vote ``no,'' I respect you and I understand you are voting your conscience, and that is the way it should be. The resolution, I do believe, is balanced, is firm, and is focused on defending the United States, in my opinion. People in America need to know the following: this passage is a certainty. Debating is almost over. Action will soon follow. Please make no mistake about what faces our Nation. The U.N. will act; Saddam Hussein will not comply; the United States and its allies, sooner rather than later, will use force to bring about regime change; U.S. lives will be lost; civilians will be killed and harmed. Victory will come at a very large price. We are setting in motion tonight forces long overdue. When the smoke clears, the Iraqi people will taste freedom for the first time in decades, the terrorists will have one less ally, the world will be much smaller. Evil is about to face the forces of good. Thanks to the men and women who serve us and their counterparts worldwide, one more domino will soon fall in the war on terrorism. Regardless of how we vote, we will pull together soon and we will be one people, supporting our President. I ask for God's protection and guidance of our President and for all who serve under him. With God's guidance and his grace, we will prevail; and the world will soon be a better and safer place.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. About this committee, there is so much going on in America that is uncertain, with a potential military confrontation around the corner, a downturn in the economy, how to fix it. There is much to be debated on the floor of the House before we leave. The committee is operating in a fashion, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, that I am very proud of; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, deserve much credit. Not enough is being said about how this committee has produced quality legislation to address real problems. There is no uncertainty about teacher recruitment. We are going to have to replace half of the teachers that exist today in the next decade. And how do we get quality teachers to fill in those slots? Most college students graduating from college, the biggest debt they face is a student loan. It is a good investment to get a college degree. I think it is a good investment for the taxpayers to help forgive those loans if those college graduates go into teaching into hard-to-recruit areas. And we are not just talking about putting bodies into classrooms; we are talking about quality. And what I like most about this bill is it does provide an incentive for people who graduate college to go into teaching in the hardest-to-recruit areas. Title I schools are usually urban and rural poor schools, a hard place to recruit. So if one will teach in one of those school systems for 5 years, we will forgive their student loans in a mandatory fashion at $5,000 with this bill, up to $17,500 in discretionary money to be appropriated over time. I wish it had been mandatory too, but we are living in a world where there is a downturn in the economy and there is a war. I am confident that the money will be there for teachers in the years to come that will get a benefit of this program, but we want quality. They have to maintain their certification. Secondary teachers have to teach in the area that they are trained, math teachers teaching math, history teachers teaching history. Elementary education teachers have to be certified to be competent. So we marry up the need for quality and the problem of recruiting in the poor urban and rural schools by putting some money on the table, $17,500, to be earned for 5 years of service in those schools. What does it mean to America? CBO says it will result at a minimum of 35,000 new teachers coming into the profession. I think that is something to be proud of. The cost of the bill is very manageable. It is over a 5-year period, 300-and-something million dollars, which is a lot of money; but if we can get 35,000 new teachers with quality into hard-to-recruit areas, I think we all can tell the taxpayers that is a good deal because to get the money, they have got to earn it, they have got to work for 5 years; and I think that is a good deal for everybody involved. I appreciate what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has done to make sure this passed in a bipartisan fashion. And the part of the bill that he mentioned about the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. McCarthy) provision about survivors, family members of those people who lost their lives in 9-11, it is small. It is an asterisk in terms of funding. It is not going to cost that much, but the impact it will have is huge; and I want to congratulate her for what she has done to help those families in a very significant way.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Edward Wright, originally from Aiken, South Carolina. Mr. Wright was recently awarded a citation for distinguished service from the Secretary of the Interior for his outstanding contributions in the field of public affairs for the Office of the Secretary. Mr. Wright is the Senior Public Information Officer in the Secretary's Office of Communications, where he is held in high esteem and is respected for his media relations expertise, institutional knowledge, and familiarity with the key issues confronting the Department of Interior. As Senior Public Information Officer, he provides expert public affairs counsel to the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Director of Communications. In addition, departmental communications managers rely upon Mr. Wright for guidance and direction regarding public affairs messages and strategies. Mr. Wright has also fostered important working relationships with reporters in the national media. He has a reputation for his responsiveness and willingness to go the extra mile to meet media deadlines. Earlier this year during the Department of Interior's unveiling of the Competitive Sourcing program, Mr. Wright worked closely with the Office of Policy, Management, and Budget was responsible for all media relations planning and execution. With his guidance, the launch of this plan in the media was an outstanding success, generating accurate and positive media coverage. Most recently, Mr. Wright has been the lead for the public affairs office in the Office of the Secretary for implementation of media outreach and communications related to the Department of Interior/USDA National Fire Plan. In this capacity, Mr. Wright has worked effectively with federal and state communications officers to develop news releases, fact sheets, and interviews with key media. Mr. Wright, through his enduring hard work, unwavering attention to detail and diligence in promoting Departmental ideals, portrays a public information specialist that others can emulate. For his service which has earned him Departmental commendation as well as his coworkers' respect, I recognize Mr. John Edward Wright.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Marion P. Carnell of Ware Shoals, South Carolina. Mr. Carnell has lead an extraordinary life, more than half of which has been dedicated to our state in the capacity of a state legislator. I am proud to represent him in the United States Congress. Mr. Carnell graduated from Ware Shoals High School in 1945. Among his many accomplishments are an Honorary Doctor of Law Degree from The Citadel in 1993 and an Honorary Ph.D. of Law from Lander University in 1999. Currently Mr. Carnell is a successful retail merchant and President of Piggly Wiggly Stores in the towns of Ninety-Six and Ware Shoals, South Carolina. Mr. Carnell and his wife of 52-years, Sara, are the proud parents of Marion Ray and the late Toni Lynn. They are also the proud grandparents of five grandchildren. Since being elected to the General Assembly in 1961, Mr. Carnell has diligently worked to improve the health care system in South Carolina, taking extra steps to advocate for the mentally and physically disabled. On several occasions many organizations have named Mr. Carnell Legislator of the Year. The Greenwood Area Chamber of Commerce inducted Mr. Carnell into the Greenwood County Hall of Fame for his contribution to the economic prosperity and quality of life in Greenwood County. In 1962 he was named the Woodman Outstanding Man of the Year, in 1990 he was awarded the Special Service Award, and in 1995 and 1999 the S.C. Citizens and Merchants Association honored him as an Outstanding Legislator. These are just a few of his many accomplishments that have set him apart and are a testament to his service to South Carolina. I am exceptionally proud to note that Mr. Carnell has recently received the Order of the Palmetto. Awarded by the Governor of South Carolina, this award is the state's highest civilian honor. Mr. Carnell rightly deserves this great honor for his 40 years of hard work and dedication in ensuring a bright future for our state. Mr. Speaker, I hope this body will join me today in honoring Mr. Marion P. Carnell for his hard work and dedication to the people of South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We are not the only people in America working at 2 a.m. in morning. In the textile plants, what few are left in the South and other places in the country, there are people working the third shift. And here is what I want to tell them if they have a chance to listen. I am voting on a piece of legislation that affects your jobs, and I have no idea exactly how it works. But I know this: On page 271, 272, page 281, 243, and 244, the amount of duty-free apparel that can come into this country to compete with your job has doubled and tripled, and it is some of the dyeing and finishing protections that we fought so hard for, which I think have been tremendously undermined. My colleagues are asking me to vote on a bill to give the President the ability to unilaterally negotiate trade agreements, and dozens of pages affect textile policy. And when you double the amount that can come in from foreign countries, where the wage rates are almost nothing, no environmental laws, you are going to put some of my people out of business. And you are making me vote in the middle of the night on something I do not know about, and I resent the hell out of it, and I am going to vote no.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding resident of South Carolina, Deborah A. Chambers. Ms. Chambers will soon complete her year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). I am very pleased that one of South Carolina's own was tapped as the 2001-2002 president of this prestigious national organization. The AANA is the professional association that represents over 28,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs). Founded in 1931, the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists is the professional association representing CRNAs nationwide. As you may know, CRNAs administer more than 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia provider in over two-thirds of rural hospitals, affording these medical facilities obstetrical, surgical and trauma stabilization capabilities. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, including hospital surgical suites and obstetrical delivery rooms; ambulatory surgical centers and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. Debbie has been a nurse anesthetist since 1981. She received both her anesthesia training and Masters of Health Service Administration at the Medical University of South Carolina, in Charleston, SC. She has been a solo practitioner since 1993 at the Microsurgery Center in Anderson, SC, as well as in both Greenville Memorial Medical Center and Saint Francis Bon Secours Hospital System in Greenville, SC. In addition to her role as a solo practitioner, she was the Clinical Coordinator at the Medical University of South Carolina School of Nurse Anesthesia at Greenville Memorial Medical Center from 1988-2000. Even with her demanding schedule as a practicing nurse anesthetist and AANA president, Debbie has continued to be active as a CRNA representative for pharmaceutical advisory panels such as Pharmacia and Glaxo Smith Kline since 2001 in order to advance the practice of anesthesia. Debbie has held various leadership positions in the AANA as regional director, vice president, and president-elect before becoming the national president of the AANA in 2001. Ms. Chambers has actively served within the SC Association of Nurse Anesthetist as a District Representative on the board of directors and then in 1994 as state president. Since 1994, Debbie has taken her experience and knowledge from the work place and her AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia related topics before different professional groups and societies. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in recognizing Ms. Deborah A. Chambers, CRNA, MHSA, for her notable career and outstanding achievements. Congratulations Debbie.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, the hardest thing I think in politics or life is to argue with people you are close to personally and that you share a common philosophy and way of doing business with. That is where I find myself. I find myself in the distinct minority among my party. I find myself hearing the Speaker and others saying this particular piece of legislation would destroy my party. I respectfully disagree, but it is no fun being where we are at today. In 1996, when we first started talking about reforming this system, it sounded good to me, and it still does. Half the people in this country vote. Of those eligible to vote, half of those do not even register. We are getting down to just a few people having participation feelings about our government. I am convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the way we conduct campaigns is turning Americans off in droves. The soft money problem, I am glad this amendment is up. We need to ban soft money. I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), we need to do it now, we really do; and I am going to vote for that. But I am going to vote for Shays-Meehan. A lot of this is games. But let me tell you what it is like. If you give $25,000 to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party wants $30,000, because it gets out in about 30 seconds. If you are a company out there and they call you up on the phone wanting money, you say no at your own peril. If there is a bill in Congress that affects the average everyday American, somebody can send $10 million up here to either party, and you will never convince me that does not affect the quality of legislation. I am ready and willing to do something about it, even if I have to argue and disagree with the people that I hold dear personally and professionally. I think America needs to change the way we conduct our campaigns, and I am willing to pay a price by making my friends mad at me.