Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, the two motions to instruct were filed last night. I have always intended to do the one I am talking about now. I had a colleague ask that they preserve the right to approach it from a different angle. That is up to them, but that is why I did it.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Massachusetts believe there is a problem throughout the country that people based on the sexual orientation and who are hurt in a violent confrontation that people are letting the prosecution go because of the sexual orientation?

Mr. GRAHAM. They did.

Mr. GRAHAM. How many cases?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Reclaiming my time, the statute has a mechanism to create Federal jurisdiction, the current statute, that requires a Federal nexus. The amendment has a four prong test and the final prong of that test is that Federal interest in hate crime eradication, according to the Attorney General, is insufficiently served by a State prosecution, which means there really is nothing more than the opinion of the Attorney General determining whether or not there is State or Federal jurisdiction. This is the expansion that I am talking about, not that people are prosecuted based on the motive; that it is being expanded to an area where there is no Federal nexus required and this would allow the Federal Government, based on this four prong test, to take any case and every case. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, to get the statute to kick into effect, all you need is an Attorney General willing to do it. There is no Federal nexus in the traditional sense of what has been the law of this land since its inception. Number two, to get this statute to kick into effect, you are treating Americans differently who may have suffered the same harm. The example I gave at Columbine, three dead kids, three different reasons in the mind of the perpetrator; one gets the statute, the other does not. That is not going to make this a better country. Mr. Speaker, the State court systems have proven themselves to rise to the occasion in horrendous events of recent time. The Wyoming case, the person who was brutally murdered because of sexual orientation, those persons are serving life in jail. It was done by the people of Wyoming. Wyoming is a better place for having taken care of that problem and risen to the occasion. The recent case of the African American being dragged to his death in Texas, two of the three perpetrators are on death row, where they should be. This statute would not allow that to happen if they were tried in Federal Court, and there would not have been a second prosecution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we can talk about this or you can read the law yourself. Here is what I am saying, unequivocally: this proposal in the Senate does not expand the list of categories from which a hate crime can be prosecuted to include sexual orientation and disability. It fundamentally changes and does away with the Federal nexus that exists in the existing statute to give the Attorney General of the United States, whoever that person might be, at whatever time in our history, the ability to reach out and take over a case based on the attitude and the motivations of the perpetrator and the class or category of the victim. One thing is going to flow from this: because you cannot get the death penalty, there are people going to be manufacturing reasons, believe it or not, if you have ever been in criminal law, there are people who are mean and clever, and I have defended some and prosecuted a lot, who are going to say, well, this is a hate crime; this is a Federal hate crime. And they want to go to Federal Court because there is no death penalty, and it will be a headline. There will be a tremendous amount of political pressure to grab this case, and to show you how much I care as the Attorney General, I am going to take this heinous situation and I am going to do it, because I want to get the political benefit and I am going to be the person in the headline. And America loses, because the Texas case, the Wyoming case, and the whole 21st century, I really believe, is going to be about people finally being held accountable for what they do. When you go into the Columbine High School situation, you have got three grieving parents. We do not need to carve out one law against the other two. We need to come together as a people and punish to the full extent of the law those that want to harm human beings, end of story, and not create a Federal legislation that undermines the ultimate punishment, the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One thing will happen when this is over. There will not be hate between us. We will come together, and we will work together where we can, and we will disagree when we have to. I want to clear up the Record the best I can and explain what my motion does what I think is very needed. One, there is no objective evidence that the Committee on the Judiciary or anyone else, as we see, that the States are ignoring violent assaults based on people's race, sex, gender, national origin, religion or disability. There is no State, there is no repeated pattern of where one gets to pound on a particular group and nobody does anything about it. That is a fallacy. Let me tell my colleagues about the legal consequences of what we are about to do in my opinion, and my colleagues need to read the statute themselves. This allows the Federal Attorney General, unlike the current statute, it is not merely including sexual orientation and disability in a list of existing Federal hate crime legislation. It is changing fundamentally the way that the legislation operates to allow the Attorney General, whoever he or she might be, to reach out and preempt a State lawsuit. There are definitely two sovereigns in play; but legally speaking, if the Attorney General, motivated by headlines or a disgust for the death penalty or whatever political reasons may exist in an emotional, high profile case, can stop that prosecution and do it in Federal court, leaving the State to have to clean up the mess later. And the expense goes through the roof and the likelihood of that happening is zero. It allows too much authority in the hands of the Attorney General with no Federal nexus like all the other Federal statutes have. It does a terrible thing. It divides us based on the motivation of a perpetrator and the class of the victim, and the Columbine situation is the perfect situation, unfortunately, to talk about this. Disturbed, mean, hateful people who hated life, focused on jocks, focused on somebody who was African American, focused on a girl praying, killed them all. They deserve to be prosecuted by the people in the community where it happened, and the Federal Government has no reason to get involved unless one can show throughout the land that people such as that get away with it, and they do not. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues, as someone was involved in the criminal law before I came to Congress, that if we create this system, if we create this dynamic, we are going to have a lot of mischievous behavior out there where people are manufacturing hate crimes because it is a better deal if they can get in the Federal system, because they will not face the death penalty, as the men who are in Texas are facing the death penalty for dragging the African American gentleman to his death. Please, look at what we are doing here today. Do not divide America. Stand up for the 14th amendment the way it was written for all of us, and make sure the Federal Government, because of headline-grabbing Attorney Generals in the future, regardless of party, cannot come and destroy our communities' abilities to heal their wounds and to deal with their bad actors and to create justice the way it sees fit in its backyard. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson.) Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4205. The motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4205 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 1068 of the Senate amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4205. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Graham moves to instruct conferees on the part of the House that the conferees on the part of the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill H.R. 4205 be instructed not to agree to revisions which, (1) fail to recognize that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all persons equal protection under the law; and, (2) deny equal protection under the law by conditioning prosecution of certain offenses on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim; and (3) preclude a person convicted of murder from being sentenced to death.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will try to do this in 2 minutes, but I do not know if I will make it. We are here to talk about something that is probably worth more than 2 minutes to spend on, and that is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman himself. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act. This important legislation extends and improves the Even Start Family Literacy Program and the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, better known as Reading is Fundamental. Mr. Speaker, there is no one that deserves more credit for bringing the attention to the problem of illiteracy in this country than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and author of the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Since his election to the House of Representatives almost 26 years ago, and, yes, it has been that long, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has fought to ensure that every child and adult has the literacy skills they need to succeed in school and the workplace and in their local communities. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) has worked diligently to improve the quality of adult education programs. Through his efforts, those with the lowest levels of literacy have been able to overcome obstacles, obtain gainful employment, and share in the opportunities of this great Nation. In 1991, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was the driving force behind the enactment of the National Literacy Act which established the National Institute for Literacy. The Institute coordinates literacy efforts among the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and Labor. In addition, the National Institute for Literacy works with States as well as local providers to provide them with the latest information on quality adult education and family literacy programs. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has also pioneered legislation to change the way children are taught to read. Through the development and enactment of the Reading Excellence Act of 1988, the gentleman from Pennsylvania helped ensure that teachers are taught to teach reading using instructional programs based on scientifically based reading research. This has marked a major change in the way reading is taught in schools. Instead of fly-by-night fad programs, this legislation helps ensure our Nation's children are receiving the best possible reading instruction. However, the greatest contribution to combatting illiteracy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) was the enactment of the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Back in 1988, at a time when Republicans were the minority party in the House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) successfully pursued the enactment of this legislation. Based on his experiences as an educator, he strongly believed that illiteracy can most successfully be eliminated by working with families. He knew that, unless we first empowered parents with poor reading skills to be their child's first and most important teacher, that their ability to help their children succeed in school would be greatly diminished. Mr. Speaker, family illiteracy programs such as Even Start are one of the most effective methods of breaking the cycle of illiteracy in families, and we have the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to thank. I am, therefore, immensely pleased that the committee has included in H.R. 3222 my amendment to renaming the program the ``William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program.'' I am sure families and family literacy providers throughout the United States join me in thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for all of his contributions to combatting illiteracy in this country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for all of his contributions to creating a literate society. I also urge support of H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together Act.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to honor Anderson County, South Carolina, a recipient of the 2000 All- America City Award, a distinction that recognizes communities whose citizens work together to identify and tackle community-wide challenges and achieve uncommon results. This award recognizes communities where true American spirit is hard at work, where safety and quality of life are priorities. The community of Anderson County exemplifies all of these characteristics. The All-America City Award program was founded in 1949, and is one of our country's oldest and most respected community recognition award programs. Only ten communities in the United States are chosen each year for this prestigious award. Anderson County is one of those communities, and has done much to improve the lives of the people who reside there. Some examples of how the citizens of Anderson County work together to better their community are through the Hanna-Westside Extension Campus, the Anderson Sports and Entertainment Center, the Alliance for a Healthy Future campaign, Anderson Area YMCA, the Anderson Free Clinic, the Westside Community Center, Partners for a Healthy Community and AnMed Healthy Futures Trust. These organizations have all made dramatic and innovative improvements in the lives of the people of Anderson County. In particular, Anderson County's Hanna-Westside Extension Campus was created to improve the learning environment and education at an inner- city high school. This initiative transformed the high school into a career and technology center where students learn to be successful in the work place. The Alliance for a Healthy Future campaign also worked to raise $12 million for six organizations and helped build the state's first residential home for the terminally ill, transformed an abandoned elementary school into a community center, expanded medical services for the poor and made a new YMCA complex a reality. Anderson County is one of only two communities from the Southeast to win this prestigious award this year. The recipients of this award are the communities that represent the ``backbone of America'', and are great examples of success. Anderson County, as well as the other winning communities, shows how citizens, government, businesses and nonprofit organizations can join together to address their local issues and achieve unparalleled results. The community of Anderson County has made an invaluable contribution to development in the state of South Carolina and the United States as a whole. I am proud to honor Anderson's achievement as a 2000 All- America City and wish them continued success and prosperity.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has quite a legacy. In response to the gentleman that just spoke, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), I am the first person in my family to ever graduate college, I do not have a fortune. I admire the fact that he wants to construct life for his children a certain way, but this gentleman is making decisions for millions of Americans, let him make his own decision. What I would like to have is a decision made up here that empowers people that if they want to give money to the church instead of the government they can. We collect less than 2 percent from the death tax in this country, and to get that 2 percent here is what you lose: You lose family farms in my district in droves because people are land rich on paper and cash poor. You lose the small business that cannot go to the next generation to get less than 2 percent to monkey with the money up here. Philanthropy is lost. The human spirit is suppressed. Most people want a legacy. They want to give something back, a library, a hospital wing, a donation to their church. This is a form of socialism that must go. Let us start a new century with a Tax Code that brings out the best in the American people not the worst. To get 2 percent of the money, we have to ruin a lot of families and that is unnecessary. I say congratulations to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Pickens Middle School in Pickens, South Carolina. This school has been recently named a 1999- 2000 school year ``Blue Ribbon School'' by Secretary of Education, Richard Riley. Since its inception in 1982, more than 3,800 of the most successful and challenging schools in the country have been honored by inclusion in the Blue Ribbons Schools Program. The schools chosen for this program fulfill stringent, research-based criteria for overall academic excellence. To be eligible to be a Blue Ribbon School, schools are judged in all areas of academics, instruction, professional development, and school curriculum. In addition, honored schools exhibit exceptional levels of community and parental involvement, high student achievement levels and rigorous safety and discipline programs within their schools. Pickens Middle School was one of only four schools in South Carolina honored with this prestigious award this year. In fact, they were one of an elite 198 schools nationwide chosen for this honor for the 1999- 2000 school year. Pickens Middle School is an outstanding example of effective public school and is well deserving of this national award. Their parents, students, teachers, administrators, and school officials should all be proud for achieving this special honor. This school is a strong example of excellence in academics in the 3rd District of South Carolina and should serve as a model for schools across the country. I am proud to have this blue ribbon school in my district of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I hope my fellow colleagues will join me in congratulating Pickens Middle schools for their commitment to educational excellence.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I honor T. L. Hanna High School in Anderson, SC. This school has been recently named a 1999-2000 school year ``Blue Ribbon School'' by Secretary of Education, Richard Riley. Since its inception in 1982, more than 3,800 of the most successful and challenging schools in the country have been honored by inclusion in the Blue Ribbons Schools Program. The schools chosen for this program must fulfill stringent, research-based criteria for overall academics, excellence. To be eligible to be a Blue Ribbon School, schools are judged in all areas of academics, instruction, professional development, and school curriculum. In addition, honored schools exhibit exceptional levels of community and parental involvement, high student achievement levels and rigorous safety and discipline programs within their schools. T. L. Hanna High School was one of only four schools in South Carolina honored with this prestigious award this year. In fact, they were one of an elite 198 schools nationwide chosen for this honor for the 1999-2000 school year. T. L. Hanna High School is an outstanding example of effective public school and is well deserving of this national award. Their parents, students, teachers, administrators, and school officials should all be proud for achieving this special honor. This school is a strong example of excellence in academics in the 3rd District of South Carolina and should serve as a model for schools across the country. I am proud to have this blue ribbon school in my district of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I hope my fellow colleagues will join me in congratulating T. L. Hanna High School for their commitment to educational excellence.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when the students in Tiananmen Square looked to America, they saw the Statue of Liberty. When we look to China, we see dollar signs. I think their vision is better than ours. I have heard some statements by proponents that I disagree with. China gives up everything in this deal? Not true. They become enriched. This regime becomes more powerful, flush with cash. If you have capitalism and Communists existing in China, it is the political death warrant of the Chinese Communist regime? I disagree. When people take to the streets, they will bring out tanks bought with this money. The ultimate question was, is this about being friend or foe with China? One of the first speakers said this will determine whether or not we are friends or foes. The Communist Chinese will never be our friends. How can somebody be your friend when the government punishes somebody for having one child too many they say is enough, three times your annual salary if you have more than one child? You can never be America's friends when you murder people under government authority. You can never be America's friends when you cheat on agreements signed. For the last 20 years, they have cheated on every textile agreement signed with the United States. These people are not our friends. They are the enemy of every freedom-loving person in the world.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 15, 2000. Hon. Lindsey O. Graham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Lindsey: I appreciate your interest in resolving the issue of compensating Department of Energy (DOE) workers for damage done to their health due to exposure to radiation and other substances during their employment at DOE weapons production facilities during the Cold War. It is my understanding that Congressman Whitfield, Congressman Wamp, Congressman Kanjorski, Congressman Strickland and others have introduced legislation to compensate these workers for their injuries. I'm also aware that the Department of Energy has proposed legislation to address the problem. These bills have been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims for consideration. I hope to work with you and other members to address the need to compensate workers at DOE weapons production facilities whose health has suffered as a result of their employment. Furthermore, I expect to hold a hearing on this subject in the coming months. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.