Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe how the substitute and the bill actually works in the real world is to tell a story that actually happened. You talk about an assault on Roe v. Wade; I am talking about a assault on Shawana Pace, an African American woman who lived in Arkansas. On August 26, 1999, she was kidnapped by three men, she was pregnant, she was near her due date, she had already named the baby Heaven once she got the ultrasound test back. She had a baby boy, and she had already named her unborn child Heaven. Her boyfriend, the father, former boyfriend, paid three people $400 to kidnap her and terminate her pregnancy because he did not want to pay child support. They did that. They kidnapped her, they took her away. She is lying on the floor and they are beating her within an inch of her life, and one of them says, ``Your baby is dying tonight.'' Strangely enough, she was pleading for her baby's life, not hers. The good news in this story, if there is any, is that the three people plus the boyfriend, two of them are on death row in Arkansas because Arkansas, several weeks before, had passed a law recognizing the unborn child as a separate victim; and under that statute, the prosecutor was able to bring a murder charge, not enhance the punishment on the assault charge. Now, I did not have the death penalty in this bill because I did not want to get into that debate, but if this had happened in Federal jurisdiction, there would have been no enhancing of the assault charge, there would have been a murder charge because that is what they were hired to do, that is what they did, and I think most Americans would want them to be prosecuted for murder, not play some game of enhancing punishment that ignores what really happened. They can do that without affecting Roe v. Wade. That is why I had so many pro-choice votes last time. One can be pro-choice and still support this bill. It happened before, and it is going to happen again today. Those people that were hired to do a terrible thing get the full force of the law because there is a statute on the books in Arkansas that is just like the one that I am trying to pass here in Congress. Rae Carruth, NFL football player, hired a person to kill his pregnant girlfriend. She refused to have an abortion. He did not want to pay for the child. The hit man charged $5,000 for the mother and $5,000 for the baby, charged him twice. Let us punish him twice. That is what this bill does. The substitute is just an irrational way to deal with the unborn. We can have an honest, healthy debate about abortion rights. In my bill, I protect the right to have an abortion because it is the law of the land; but pro-choice and pro-life people should come together when the woman chooses to have the baby and put the full force and effect of the law against a criminal who is paid or otherwise takes that life away. They are not inconsistent. It would be a better country if we passed this bill, and prosecutors will have more tools because if one takes the murder or assault charge off because they do not recognize the baby, the ability to fully prosecute that case is undermined, and I think most prosecutors would agree. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) is my friend. He says this is an assault on abortion. It is not. In his State, they passed this same law using the same words in 1998. People still have the Roe v. Wade rights in Pennsylvania, but people assaulting pregnant women face stiffer penalties and more punishment because of what Pennsylvania did. Let us do this at the Federal level. Let us come together and make sure that people in the future who take money or otherwise assault a pregnant woman and destroy the unborn child are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, no excuses, no apologies.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this has been a spirited debate, a lively debate. I think it is good for the country to have this debate. I hate to interrupt good stories with facts and law, but I guess I will. I am going to go red herring fishing. That is a hard thing to catch; but when one catches it, they have something. A couple of red herrings that I think have been thrown out here about the bill: this is an abortion bill. If this is an abortion bill, it is one of the worst-drafted abortion bills one could think of. It does a lousy job, and let me read from the bill: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion, for which the consent of the pregnant woman or person authorized by law to act on her behalf has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law.'' If we are trying to outlaw abortions, we did a pretty lousy job in that paragraph. ``Nothing in this section shall allow the prosecution of any person for medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or of any woman with respect to her unborn child.'' Why is that language in there? The purpose of this bill is very simple: Once the woman chooses to have the child and someone takes that child away from her through an assault or an act of violence, we want to put them in jail for the damage done to the unborn child. This is not a two-victim bill. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is right. The reason it is not a two-victim bill is because there are laws all over the country preventing assaults against women who are pregnant in their own States. There are 24 States that make it a separate offense to take her unborn child's life. At the Federal level, there is no such law. There soon will be. That will coexist with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade has never stood for the proposition that the State or Federal Government cannot protect the unborn against violent criminal activity. It stood for the proposition that the Federal-State government cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion first trimester and under certain circumstances thereafter. Why did 254 Members of this body last year vote for this bill? All of them are not pro-life. I happen to be pro-life. Why would a pro-choice person vote for my bill? I think they have sat down and read it, and they understand a couple of things about the bill, and I want to applaud them for doing it. We may disagree on a woman's right to choose, and America splits evenly on that. If you disagree with me on that issue, I will not question your politics, your religion, or your patriotism. I have my view; you have yours. But here is what I am so excited about from last year's vote, and hopeful for this year that Congress has come together on this central theme, that once a woman chooses to have the baby, we are going to protect the baby and the mother. This body spends millions of dollars a year helping women through pregnancy. Low-income women get help from the Federal Government to make sure the child is fully developed. We help at-risk pregnancies. That is a good thing. That is not a bad thing. That is not about the abortion debate. I think most Americans, even though we divide on the issue of abortion, would come together on the issue that if a woman has the child and some criminal takes that right away from the woman, we ought to put them in jail to the fullest extent of the law. That is what we do, and that is what 24 other States do. Another red herring about the definition: The definition in this bill is exactly what exists in 11 other States and it withstood constitutional challenge and it is exactly what the House voted on on July 25, 2000. Let me tell you how important that is. 417-0, the House came together and said we are not going to execute a pregnant woman. Why? Does that infringe on Roe v. Wade? No. I think there would be riots in the streets in this country, from pro-choice and pro-life people, if a pregnant woman was executed, because nothing good is served. No public policy is advanced by taking that unborn child's life. We have not helped anybody. We have done a bad thing, not a good thing. So let us come together and do a good thing. Let us put criminals in jail who assault pregnant women to the fullest extent of the law, no more, no less, and my bill does that. The definition will withstand constitutional scrutiny. It is a matter of proof. The two-cell zygote defense is a red herring. It is the same definition the body voted on before. It is the burden of proof problem for every prosecutor. If you said you could be prosecuted after 6 weeks of pregnancy, you would have to prove that the pregnancy existed longer than 6 weeks. Prosecutors can do those things, and defense attorneys will have their objections. This bill is well drafted. It makes a lot of common sense. It is not about the abortion debate; it is about America coming together protecting unborn life when we find consensus. We should be looking for consensus, from adoption to this bill, to partial-birth abortion, to bring life into the world where we can. And when we have these debates about a woman's right to choose, I honor your right to disagree with me, but that is not today. Today is about bringing the country together, this body together, to put people in jail that deserve to go. As to the question does this really happen, let me tell you, it happens more than I thought it did. When I was a prosecutor in the Air Force, we had a handful of cases of pregnant women being assaulted and losing their child. There was no statute to prosecute them for that. That was frustrating. If this bill passes, they will have those tools. Timothy McVeigh will be in the news again soon, and I respect the view of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on the death penalty. I disagree with that. But we will be reminded about Oklahoma City soon. You may not know this, but three women in that building were pregnant. One of them was the wife of Michael Lenz. They had a sonogram of the baby, she is showing it to office workers. The next day she goes to work, the building is blown up, she is killed, and the baby is lost. Mr. Lenz came to Congress 2 years ago and told us, ``That day will mark me for life, but that day I lost two things, not one. I lost the mother of my child, my wife, but I also lost Michael Lenz, III.'' Without this bill, there is no recognition of him as being a victim of Oklahoma City. He should have been a victim, because he was wanted by the family and his life was taken away through an act of violence. That person should go to jail for that act of violence. I will tell you later why the substitute does not get us to where we need to go. It is not the way the law is trending here. But read the bill, think about what we are trying to do. And to those pro-choice Members of Congress who voted for this bill last year, thank you. Thank you for coming together and having a rational debate on how to protect the unborn without getting into the abortion debate. I want to thank you very much.

Mr. GRAHAM. When the fetus attaches to the womb, that is what the prosecutor has to prove. And if I may answer your question, the definition used in this bill is the exact same definition that the House endorsed and passed 417-0 that the gentleman from New York voted for. This is the same definition that he voted for July 25, 2000.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this body the fact, in January, a distinguished leader of the Air Force left office to begin a new chapter in her life. Carol DiBattiste, Under Secretary of the Air Force, has recently resigned from her position, and I want to join her many friends and colleagues in commending her for a job well done. During her tenure, Under Secretary DiBattiste served with honor and distinction, providing exceptional leadership to reinforce a promising future for the Department of Defense, the Air Force, and for American aerospace power. Coupled with her unprecedented energy, commitment, and enthusiasm, Under Secretary DiBattiste's initiatives became catalysts for success, and helped lead the Air Force through a critical period of modernization and consolidation. She was the Air Force's key leader in the fight to solve and reverse Air Force retention shortages and recruiting shortfalls. Her successes in these endeavors are both impressive and lasting. Most notably, Under Secretary DiBattiste did a remarkable job on behalf of Air Force members and their families. Her leadership of a special Department of Defense task force to formulate anti-harassment policy resulted in outstanding guidance on this emotionally charged subject. This emphasis on equal opportunity and her tireless pursuit of higher standards for Air Force quality of life are examples of the many ways she found to invigorate morale and retention during a period of critical shortfalls, personnel reductions, and increased operations tempo. Her visionary and aggressive campaign against recruiting shortfalls, including creation of the Air Force Recruiting and Retention Task Force, the Air Force Marketing and Advertising Office, and the Strategic Communications Outreach Program, made all the difference for the Air Force in their ability to make recruiting goals and erase shortfalls. Under Secretary DiBattiste led by example, delivering almost 100 speeches in a 12 month period, and traveling to over 85 bases and locations throughout the world during her tenure. I join my colleagues on behalf of a grateful nation in thanking Carol DiBattiste. The increased opportunities and improvements she affected across the Department of Defense and the Air Force have poised both for a brilliant future.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to recognize the impressive achievements of Dr. Robert Alexander. On June 30, 2000, Dr. Alexander retired from his position as Chancellor of the University of South Carolina at Aiken. He has been a leader in the Aiken community and his retirement leaves a great void in South Carolina Higher Education. Dr. Alexander was born in the small coastal town of Kinston, North Carolina. A product of the public school system, Dr. Alexander earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Duke University, and later a Masters of Divinity. In addition, Dr. Alexander received management certification from the University of South Carolina and the Harvard Business School. Before earning his Doctorate in Higher Education in 1977 from the University of South Carolina, he held a number of administrative posts in student services. Following receipt of his doctorate he became an Associate Professor in the College of Education and later served as an Associate Vice President of the University of South Carolina system. In 1983, Dr. Alexander, his wife Leslie, and their son Robert moved to Aiken. From the beginning, Dr. Alexander used his management expertise and experience to magnify the University of South Carolina at Aiken's (USC- Aiken) already vital role in South Carolina. He worked tirelessly with leaders from business, government, and the education communities to forge new avenues of cooperation that benefited USC-Aiken and the people it serves. Under Dr. Alexander's leadership, USC-Aiken, once a small branch of the University of South Carolina, is now thriving. Enrollment has doubled, and student/faculty ratios are among the lowest within South Carolina's state assisted four year public institutions. Undergraduate degree programs have tripled, and several graduate programs have become a part of the university. USC-Aiken has seen dramatic improvements in its infrastructure during Dr. Alexander's tenure. Among them are the expansion of the Gregg- Graniteville Library and the Etherredge Center for Fine Arts in 1986, and the Ruth Patrick Science Education Center and the School of Nursing Building in 1999; construction of a state-of-the-art Sciences Building in 1989; the Children's Center and the Ruth Patrick Science Education Center in 1991; the Business Education Building in 1994; the DuPont Planetarium in 1995; the natatorium in 1997; relocation of the historic Pickens-Salley House to the USC-Aiken Campus; and acquisition of Pacer Downs student apartments. Due in large part to his efforts, the endowment of USC-Aiken is now more than $11 million with 13 endowed faculty chairs. This endowment allows USC-Aiken to offer programs and services not usually found at state-assisted institutions of similar size. He worked diligently with the US Department of Commerce and the BellSouth Foundation to create the Rural Alliance for Teaching Enhancement. This Alliance significantly enhances the educational opportunities of students in rural public schools in a 10 county area by providing technological support. Recently USC-Aiken received significant awards from the National Endowment for Humanities, the John Olin Foundation, and the National Science Foundation. These awards will contribute to the operations of the Ruth Patrick Science Education Center and the Economic Enterprise Institute. Perhaps the most significant legacy of Dr. Alexander is the enhanced regional, state, and national reputation USC-Aiken has developed during his tenure. In 1999, U.S. News and World Report recognized USC-Aiken as one of the top three regional public liberal arts colleges in the Southeast. In their 2000 rankings, USC-Aiken is ranked second. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the National League of Nursing, and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education also recognize the many quality educational programs offered at USC-Aiken. Dr. Alexander's commitment to the community does not end with the university. He is an honorary member of the USC-Aiken Alumni Association. He also is an active member in the Aiken Rotary Club where he served as a member of the Rotary International District Scholarship Committee and on its board of directors. He also served on the Executive Committee of Security Federal Bank, the Executive Committee for the Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties, as a member of the board of trustees for Aiken Regional Medical Centers, on the vestry of St. Thaddeus Episcopal Church, and continues his work with the Diocese of Upper South Carolina's youth programs. He once served as Chairman of the Savannah River Regional Diversification Initiative created by the US Department of Energy. He served on the board of directors for the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce where he was president in 1987, the United Way of Aiken County, and the Business Technology Center. Dr. Alexander held positions on the advisory board of Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, and the Aiken County Commission on the Future. He is also a past trustee of Hopeland Gardens and a chairman of the Peach Belt Athletic Conference. He served as the Chairman of the South Carolina Council of State College and University Presidents as well as their representative on the Business Advisory Council of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, on the executive committee of South Carolina 2000 where he spearheaded the development of the South Carolina University Research Consortium, as a member of the Commission of the Future of South Carolina, South Carolina Council of Economic Education, Vice President of the Strom Thurmond Foundation, Board of Visitors for the Kanuga Conference Center in Hendersonville, North Carolina. Nationally, Dr. Alexander was appointed to the National Advisory Committee of Student Financial Assistance in 1991 and served as the committee chair from 1995-1997, past chair of the Modernization Task Force of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, past member of board of director for the Institute for Continuing Education for the National University Continuing Education Association, and past member and institutional representative for the Association for Higher Continuing Education. Through all of his hard work and determination to make a difference, Dr. Alexander has collected many deserving awards and honors. In 1999, he received the Earl Kaufftman Award from the USC-Aiken Academy for Lifelong Learning for his commitment to providing educational opportunities for senior citizens. The Student Personnel Association at the University of South Carolina awarded him the Distinguished Alumnus of the Year in 1996. In 1990, the University of South Carolina Black Faculty and Professional Staff Association honored him with an honorable mention award for Affirmative Action. The South Carolina Association of Higher Continuing Education presented him with the Outstanding President's Award in 1987. In 1985, Dr. Alexander was selected as Man of the Year by the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce. He reached the pinnacle of service to the State of South Carolina in May of this year when he was bestowed the Order of the Palmetto, the highest designation the governor awards to an individual. Dr. Alexander's retirement as Chancellor of USC-Aiken closes a successful chapter in the school's history. He developed the university and its students in every way by surpassing his required duties in all areas. His years of service leave an indelible mark on the institution. Dr. Alexander's accomplishments will benefit countless others in the future, and his legacy will be solidified by the successes of future generations. A leader in the higher education field and a dedicated community citizen, Dr. Alexander will be sorely missed as Chancellor of USC-Aiken.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to echo my congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and all those who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor. We are in the last hours of the Congress and I believe we are on the verge of doing something good for the American consumer and business community. This bill is the reaction to a problem. Under the old bankruptcy code, there were people throughout the land running up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debts, making incomes of $100,000, being able to file bankruptcy and walk away from their obligations, leaving a lot of the American business community holding the bag. This bill has a balance to it. It is going to change the culture of our country. It is going to allow people to start over in a very fair fashion but it is going to ask people, if you can pay, to pay your debts the best that you can. Chapter 7 if you get under that provision, you discharge all of your debts and you basically walk away. This bill is saying, Wait a minute. If your income is such after you take your food, your clothing, private school expenses, necessary living expenses in a liberal fashion and compute it, that if you can afford to pay $100 a month over a 5-year period to your creditors, pay it. Because that is good for the American business community. It is good for the economy. I think it is good for America, to try to get people who owe something to someone else back on their feet without leaving anybody hanging. I disagree with my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). Child support payments are elevated in this bill. That is the balance that we need. From being seventh you are now first. And you cannot get discharged from Chapter 13 if you file under that chapter if you do not keep your child support payments current. We tell the credit card community, you are just not going to be able to inundate people with free credit. You have to inform them better. There is a debtor's bill of rights that tells people options to bankruptcy and ways to make your payments and try to get people together so you do not have to file bankruptcy. This is long overdue. This is not only good for our business community, good for consumers, it is going to change our culture. I am proud to have been a part of it. I urge its passage.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the other side for allowing me to speak briefly. I want to put this debate in the context I think we are missing. We are talking about process, and what I would like to achieve, along with, I think, most Members of this body, is results. The process we have chosen is legal, it is legitimate, and it follows the rules of this body. I would like to focus Members' attention on the fact that the bankruptcy reform bill passed 313 to 108, and in the Senate it was 83 to 14. The reason we are here in the last hours of Congress having to use the process that we have chosen is because a handful of people who want to defeat the will of both bodies have chosen to make it difficult if not impossible without this route. I would associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). I think the will of the Congress is being expressed in the vehicle we have chosen. Bankruptcy reform is long overdue in this country to protect people, women and children, to make sure their obligations owed to them are there. This bankruptcy bill protects those who are in need to make sure their payments come before anybody else gets their payments. The bill seeks to reform a system that has been outdated and needs to be brought up to the 21st century standards to make sure that people avail themselves of bankruptcy protection in a fair way and that the business community gets a fair shake. So I would just say to my colleagues on the other side who are talking about process, we are here in the last hours of this Congress to do as much good for the American people as we can. This bill was passed 313 to 108 in the House, 83 to 14 in the Senate. The vehicle chosen here was chosen because a few people made us do this. What we have chosen to do here, Mr. Speaker, is legal and follows the rules of the body, and I would ask all of my colleagues who support bankruptcy reform to come to our aid here in the last hours of the Congress and let us do something good for the American consumer and the American business community.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Floyd D. Spence Authorization Act and encourage the adoption of this rule. This legislation contains many provisions that are important to the defense of this great Nation and to our veterans. However, I want to speak briefly on title 36 of the bill, which establishes the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program to provide timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to employees or their survivors for illnesses incurred during the performance of their duties for the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons program. The legislation requires the President to submit to Congress by March 15 of next year a legislative proposal that identifies the types and amendments of compensation for individuals whose health was adversely affected by their work at DOE facilities, and the procedures for providing those benefits and compensation. If Congress does not act by July 31, 2001, to enact a compensation program, eligible employees exposed to beryllium, radiation, and those working in gaseous diffusion plants will be entitled to a lump sum payment of $150,000 and medical care for their disease. I want to thank Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee and Senator George Voinovich of Ohio for their leadership and dedicated efforts on behalf of these workers. Without their efforts, we would not have this legislation today nor any other compensation legislation. Additionally, the bicameral bipartisan compromise that was reached on this program could not have been realized without the tireless efforts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), and their dedicated staffs, as well as Mr. Aleix Jarvis of my staff, who I want to thank for his efforts. I represent the Savannah River site. The workers there and at DOE facilities across the Nation dedicated their lives to winning the Cold War. They did what their country asked of them. Unfortunately, the Government was not always aware or up front about what they were being exposed to and the dangers it presented to their health. Today we acknowledge our mistakes, and I think it is only right that we correct this wrong. This is a good bill. I think it is only fitting that this legislation that does so much for so many years by so many bears the name of my friend and colleague, fellow South Carolinian (Chairman Spence) who has fought tirelessly for both the men and women in uniform and for those who once wore the uniform. I encourage adoption of this rule and passage of the bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, before we start discussing the bill, I would like to offer a debt of gratitude to my colleagues on the other side for allowing this bill to go forward. And we can make it better, I am sure. But I have a few points that were mentioned. This bill is building on existing programs that our Committee on Education and the Workforce in a bipartisan fashion passed a couple years ago. There is a $5,000 student loan forgiveness program in existence today if they will go into teaching in a Title I school. What does that mean? A Title I school is a school where 30 percent of the students are at the poverty level or below. That is usually a rural poor school, an urban poor school, the places that is very hard to recruit. As the chairman said, there is going to be a two-million person teacher shortage facing this Nation. And how do we get the best and the brightest into the teaching profession and how do we get them into the hardest-to-recruit area, rural poor, urban poor? We give them a signing bonus. But the law that exists today has the same requirement as this bill. We just do not want to get bodies into the classroom. We want to have quality teachers in the classroom. Under the current program, they cannot get any loan forgiveness until they teach 3 years. That is exactly what this bill does. But what it does is it goes beyond $5,000. It will allow a person who will go into teaching in a Title I school, a hard-to-recruit area, if they will teach for 3 years in the area that they major in in college, math teachers teaching math, science teachers teaching science, if they will go into this school district and keep their certification up, in the fourth and fifth and sixth year of their career, we will forgive their student loan up to $17,750 in additional loan forgiveness. And it is a discretionary program. We worked hard to try to find the offset. But let me just assure my colleague this, that the projections are that we will recruit 35,000 new teachers a year if we pass this bill. I would argue that every Member of this body, Republicans and Democrats, appropriators, non-appropriators, will put money into this program if it is bringing in the best and the brightest in areas that are hard to recruit under today's standards. A Newsweek article called ``Teachers Wanted'' is a great expose of what communities are doing all over the country to try to get people in the teaching profession to fill these voids in the classroom. But we go one step further. We just do not want bodies. We want people committed to the teaching profession to keep their certifications up and have a commitment to these schools. And once that commitment is shown, we are going to meet them more than halfway. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), I really appreciate them joining with us to get this bill out of the House. And if we can make it better, we will. But the bottom line is that there are a lot of folks getting ready to decide what career to choose and they want to go into teaching, and one of the biggest problems they face as a college graduate is a big student loan. The average is almost $17,000 now. What we are saying, in a bipartisan fashion, is, if they will make a commitment to teaching and they will keep their certifications up and they will do a good job, we will take that debt away from them in a very quick period of time. I think people are going to respond in droves. The article called ``Teachers Wanted,'' I would just like to let the people of the United States know that we disagree a lot in this body and we have different views of what the Federal Government should do in education. But this is a good day. We are approaching the end of a contentious Congress, but we are coming together as Republicans and Democrats and we are putting into place a program that will help real people in a real way to put a new generation of teachers in classrooms where it is very hard to recruit. And this applies to anybody with a student loan that is willing to go into a Title I school. Let me mention one other facet about this bill. The special education teachers are included. I would like to thank my colleague the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint). We all know how hard it is to get people to go into special ed. So if they are a special-ed teacher, regardless of the school district they go to, we will help forgive their student loan if they will stay in there and help the kids. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the leadership he has shown in allowing this bill to come to the floor and my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This is a good day for the committee. I think it is a good day for the Congress, and I urge support of this bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Is there none?

Mr. GRAHAM. By definition, every statute that the gentleman talked about has a clear Federal nexus; the existing hate crimes statute has a Federal nexus.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the topic that we are addressing today in the motion to instruct conferees on the DOD bill involves an effort made by Senator Kennedy in the Senate to attach Federal hate crimes legislation to a bill in the Senate. This issue is now before the House. It is before America. To Senator Kennedy's credit and to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I would think it is fair, I hope he does not take offense, Senator Kennedy is one of the last liberal lions. He has roared loudly and he has fought for his position and he was successful in the Senate. As to my motion to instruct conferees on this matter, I hope people who agree with my position will also raise their voice loudly because it is an honest debate long overdue about exactly what we need to be doing in America when it comes time to punish people and what role the Federal Government has. There has been a huge departure in the law of the land to the Kennedy amendment. Federal jurisdiction is now available through the Attorney General of the United States in almost every act of criminal violence that may exist in the country if in the mind of the perpetrator and the status of the victim certain people are involved. I hope we will reject this way of thinking. I hope we will, as a Nation, prosecute vigorously those who with intent, malice aforethought, through the violation of existing State law, hurt human beings in general and that there is no need, objectively speaking, politically speaking, to have a Federal crime that only applies based on the hate of the perpetrator and the status of the victim. This legislation has a four-part test that would allow the Attorney General to invoke a Federal statute that does not exist today, and the last prong is the Federal interest and hate crime eradication is insufficiently served by a State prosecution. That is all encompassing. That means whatever the Attorney General wants it to mean. I stand before the House and the country saying that we in America have laws at the State level that apply to everyone. I do not know of any law in this country by any State or any jurisdiction that says we can hurt certain people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. That is not a defense. That is not a problem that we are having to deal with in this country. This is an effort, I believe, to give Federal jurisdiction to expand the role of the Federal Government in a way that will ultimately divide Americans. The Columbine High School case is a case in point. Two obviously hateful, disturbed young men took it upon themselves to do tremendous violence and damage and murder. Their motives vary. They killed some people because they were jocks. They killed other people because they did not like them personally. They killed some people because of their race. They were twisted minds. They brought a lot of pain and heartache and suffering to many families. My motion to instruct says simply this, prosecute people not for their motives but for their actions. Motives are important. They have to intend to kill. If they tie someone to the back of a truck in Texas and they drag them to their death, I do not care why they did it, if they intended to do it, they deserve the fullest and swiftest punishment available. The Kennedy amendment allows the Federal Government to pick and choose based on the status of the victim. In that case, an African American was dragged to his death because the people involved had hate in their heart. In the State of Texas, one is serving life and two of those folks involved are facing the death penalty. That to me is justice. And that can happen and has happened all over this country. Using the model that Senator Kennedy has put forward, eight murders would fall in the classification of hate crimes, nine of the thousand rapes. I would argue to the Members of this House that every rape is a hate crime. Before I came to this body, I was a prosecutor in the civilian world in the Air Force; and I will assure my colleagues that every woman that has been violated and is forcibly raped, the man involved hated that woman, and I do not care to know any more other than, without their consent, they did a great violence to their body. In the Texas case, here is what could happen if this law that Senator Kennedy has proposed goes forward and if we agree to it today. There is an element of the Kennedy Federal legislation that is very curious and potentially very damaging. We are creating two statutes to deal with the same event. The Federal Government, under this legislation, because we are the Federal Government, would have the ability to prosecute the case first if it reached out and grabbed the case. Let us use the case in Texas for instance. Under the legislation proposed by Senator Kennedy and this House will be instructing conferees on, the death penalty is not authorized. That is a huge point. The basis of the Kennedy legislation deals with events that really are not real in substance. There are no mass ignoring bodily injure cases based on people's sexual orientation, race, gender, or religious background. That is not a problem in this country. And that is good news. But here would be the problem if we adopted Senator Kennedy's way of doing business. The Federal Government, by legal right, would have the ability to take that case over from the State courts, engage in the prosecution, spend the money, the time, and the effort, and the result would be in the Federal system that the two people facing Death Row punishment in Texas could not be sentenced to death under the Federal legislation. It changes the death penalty component of every murder statute in this country. I want the Members to understand what they are voting on. Let us talk about the politics for a moment. There are many people really worried about this vote. If I do not create a new Federal statute that would give the Attorney General the right to take over any case in the land when certain conditions are met based on the attitude and the motivation of the perpetrator, maybe people will think that I am a racist, that I am homophobic, that I have religious prejudice. Because that is the political dynamic going on here. The question we need to ask as a Member of Congress is, do we trust our States to deal with situations where people are assaulted in general and specifically where race, religion, or sexual orientation is involved. If we do, we do not need this legislation. The question we need to ask ourselves is, is there a legitimate reason other than the political dynamic being created for us to give the Federal Government power unknown in the history of our country to reach out and grab a case that could be prosecuted in the State court. I would argue not. I would argue that what we need to do in this country is make sure that those people who hurt human beings, regardless of the motivation, receive the fullest punishment under the law, the full extent of punishment available. The Kennedy proposal takes off the table the death penalty, and the chance of having two prosecutions is very remote because the Federal Government will go first and the only way the death penalty can be applied is to do a separate prosecution in State court. And if they have the desire and the willingness to do that to begin with, there is no need to remove it. So I would argue very strongly to the Members of the House that this proposal does not address real problems in America that exist today, it is creating a whole new set of problems that this country cannot stand. We are thinking of a million reasons to divide ourselves. We focus on our differences in this House in a political fashion that maybe goes overboard. But America needs to come together on the idea that we do not care why they engage in violence, we are going to punish them if they do. And every American should feel good about the idea that they are going to be judged based on their conduct and that their sexual orientation, their religious background, or their race is not going to create one statute for them and leave everybody else behind. That does not make a better America, and that does not address the problems of crimes. Because the hate crime legislation that Senator Kennedy proposed, the real area where the cases would be had is in the simple assault area, areas where people get in all kinds of conflicts and, under the theory of the statute, they could remove it. I would argue there is no need to do that. The real danger here is that we are empowering the Federal Government to remove a case, whether it be the Columbine case or whether it be the Texas case with the gentleman behind the truck who was dragged to a violent death, and prosecute that case in a manner that would do great harm to serving ultimate justice within the jurisdiction where it happened. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will reject the political movement, the political cause of the day, and stand behind a simple concept that the Federal Government has a proper but limited role and that, when individual citizens choose to hurt their neighbors, hurt other citizens within their State, that the State has a chance to do swift and certain justice and that we not pass a Federal law that takes the death penalty in practicality off the table. This is not going to make America a better place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. No. I am asking the gentleman to tell me how many cases are we talking about the gentleman mentioned. Is it 100? Is it 200? Where are they?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the point I am making and the point still stands, there are two very good points, every law we have on the books at the Federal level has a Federal nexus. But in the Senate, there has been a huge departure here. And part of it is politically motivated. Let me tell my colleagues the effect of this statute again. If we go down this road, the Attorney General of the United States for the first time, that person, whoever he or she may be, has the ability under this legislation to take an event that has no Federal nexus at all, reach out and grab it based on the mentality of the perpetrator and the class of the victim. Using an example, if someone in South Carolina or any other State engages in a violent offense against somebody based on the race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, under this statute, the Attorney General can take that case away and prosecute it at the Federal level and take the death penalty off the table. That should really send a chilling effect throughout this body. Not only have we done away with the Federal nexus, bias exists all over the world and will to the end of time. Is that the reason bias in general in theory to go out and destroy the ability of a State to prosecute vicious crimes in their backyard? I would argue that this country is better off because the people in Texas sentenced two of the three people to death who drug the African American to his death behind a truck; that we are better off when local people will stand up and say, wrong, face the ultimate punishment, than we would ever be to have somebody in Washington for political reasons take the case away and get a headline and we can impose that penalty. That is what this is about. This is an effort to empower the Federal Government in a manner never had, and the way you get there is you separate us. Because if I am attacked by the same person that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) may be attacked by, their motive determines what statute applies, and that is wrong. Columbine, when they shoot the man, the young fellow because he is a jock, and killed the person beside him because of her religion, and the one next to the table because of the color of their skin, forget about those differences, prosecute that person based on what they did. And that is what you are trying to destroy here, and that is why I am here. I want people to be responsible for their conduct to the fullest extent of law and let people where the event happens chart their destiny; and there is no reason to give the Attorney General of the United States this much power, because the abuses described do not exist. This is an effort to politicize and federalize where the country will be a great loser. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. GRAHAM. The gentleman talks about, not me directly, but what we are trying to do. I challenge the gentleman to prove to anybody in this body that I, as a person, former prosecutor, would give the gentleman a pass if the victim was homosexual and the perpetrator just did not like, and I will only use the terms that came up in the Air Force case, the faggot that lived down the hall. That guy got the full effect of the law. I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I do not believe that America is such today that the State court systems need to have the Attorney General under this legislation because of any reason they so choose to be able to take that case away.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, to address the point of my colleague here, who I admire very much, this is not about adding into an existing statute sexual orientation and disability. This is about changing fundamentally to its core the way the Federal Government is able to interfere or take over a prosecution of an otherwise State case. There has been a fundamental deviation here from the Senate. Senator Kennedy was able to create an environment legally where the only thing stopping the Federal Government from reaching out and grabbing a case for the first time in the history of the country is the attitude of the Attorney General and put it in a venue where the death penalty does not apply. That is my point. The point is that this statute does so many bad things. Point of Order

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer some of the questions asked. The answer is, no, I am not asking that this body or any body vote to repeal laws that make it unlawful to discriminate based on race, religion, the 14th amendment in general. What I am asking this body to do is not to create a Federal law that does that. Here is the effect of it: if somebody kills me, that would bother my family. I do not know if it would bother a lot of other people, but it would bother my family. Somebody kills the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and we let the motive of that person decide what to do, my family is out. That is the effect of this statute. The victims and the attitude of the perpetrator decide whether or not the Federal law applies. Let me say what is going to happen throughout America if we pass this legislation as drafted. Criminal defense attorneys, pretty smart guys, pretty smart ladies, I have been one, I do not know if I was smart enough, but if I have somebody come in to my office and this statute exists that allows the Federal Government to engage in prosecution first, and I would argue exclusively because the effect of doing it twice is lost, that there is going to be a rise in hate crimes because the defendant is going to find the Federal niche that allows the case to go into the Federal system where there is no death penalty. That is what is going to happen here. We are going to have people throughout the land manufacturing motives that give the benefit of a Federal statute that prohibits the death penalty because in the State where they live they could get the death penalty, and the chance of prosecuting these cases twice are almost zero from a practical point of view.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GRAHAM. Honestly, I do not know.

Mr. GRAHAM. Reclaiming my time, the existing statute that deals with Federal prosecution of events like going to serve on a jury or going to vote is one thing where there is a clear Federal nexus. What this body needs to know that what has happened in the Senate is that the Federal nexus is nonexistent. It is every event in America now is subject to the Attorney General certifying under prong four that this is somehow a hate crime and the Federal Government preempts. I am not asking that the statutes that exist be repealed that protect Americans at the Federal level from participating in guaranteed constitutional activities. I am saying that this allows the Federal Government, through prong four and through the whole intent of the legislation, to take any event, anywhere, any time, and make it a Federal case and the death penalty is taken off the table. That is not good for this country. One, people are divided. I do not get the benefit of the statute in certain situations; some other person might. We are equally harmed. The State has the ability to take care of this. If it is taken from the State and they are expected to prosecute the person for the death penalty later on, there was no need to take it from the State to begin with.