Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I, too, rise in support of the Hyde-Conyers Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999, and I would ask the Members listening to the debate to focus their attention on the title and see if it lives up to its billing: Reform Act. What are we trying to do; and is it an act in need of reform; and do the measures envisioned in this bill create some reform. I would point the Members' attention to the burden of proof. There is a dramatic change in this bill from existing law, and I believe it justifies the title of reform and is very much a necessary measure in terms of reforming the law. Imagine this: An individual has a piece of property, an innocent owner. At least they want to claim that status. And that individual winds up facing their government after a seizure has occurred through a mere probable cause analysis, and they now have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they are innocent and that the forfeiture should never have occurred. I think that is appalling. I do not believe in America any citizen should have to go into a court and fight the government and prove that they are innocent in terms of their connection to their property. While it may not be depriving them of a liberty interest, it certainly is depriving them of a property interest. This bill, quite rightly, corrects that measure, and it does reform the burden of proof because it places upon the government the duty to prove that the assets seized should be taken and denied to the rightful owner by a clear and convincing evidence standard. The substitute changes the burden, which I think is an acknowledgment that the basic law is very much off base. It is a matter of what standard we would like to place upon the government before people are denied their property. In my opinion, the standard should be more rather than less; that when we are facing the government, they should have a strong burden before they can take our property forever from us. And the clear and convincing evidence standard in civil law, I think, is the appropriate remedy, and the preponderance of evidence standard that the substitute bill has is an inappropriate remedy. The innocent owner defense. Most of us cannot imagine a situation where we find ourselves before a Federal court, losing our property because of someone else's misdeeds, but it happens every day in this country. As my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) indicated, 80 percent of the people affected by this law are never prosecuted. What if an individual owned an asset or were a joint titled owner of a car, and somebody in the family or some friend chooses to engage in criminal activity with that individual's vehicle without their knowledge or without their permission. Under the current law that individual has to go and prove they are innocent before they lose their property. We have talked about changing the burden. Before an individual's property could be taken under what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) have done, they have to make a compelling case that that individual was involved, that that individual had knowledge. And what this law does, Mr. Chairman, is it brings uniformity across the board in civil asset forfeiture statutes under the Federal law, bringing uniformity to the innocent owner defense. In civil forfeiture cases involving illegal gambling activities, there is no such innocent owner defense, and I think that is appalling. So the good thing about this bill, in my opinion, is it brings uniformity and it establishes a standard that makes a lot of common sense; that the government has to prove at the time of the instance in question that an individual did not know of the conduct giving rise to the forfeiture, because if someone does not know of the conduct and was not involved, they should not lose their property because someone intends to violate the law or does violate the law, because that individual has done nothing wrong. Upon learning of the conduct, if a person does all that is reasonably expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property, the law should not allow the taking of a person's property because they acted in a responsible manner. This bill brings uniformity to the law. It is a haphazard catch-as- you-can series of statutes, and now is the time to correct that as we go into the next century. An appointment of counsel. This bill I believe remedies a very big problem. A lot of people are subject to losing their assets under this law, and when it comes time to have their day in court and they are an indigent person or without the means to have counsel, for whatever reasons, they are facing the Government alone. That is no place to be when their property is taken from them by the Government. It is true we normally do not appoint counsels in civil matters because civil matters are usually between two citizens litigating over some property interest. This is different, Mr. Chairman. This is a person fighting the Government for their property. I believe it is only right and fitting that we appoint counsel under those circumstances. I ask my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we close out the debate, I think it is appropriate now to go over some of the arguments and talk about what we conservatives believe about this bill in general. One of the arguments is that local control is better than Washington control. Count me in on that argument. But if my colleagues are going to define local control this way, count me out. Here is what the opposition is saying. The Congress in 1990 authorized airport groups to be able to tax the consumer, and now we are going to let them double that tax 10 years later. But the only way they can do it is to have a Federal Government agency saying no to them. How many people feel good about that? Is that the type of local control we signed up for when we came to Congress; to authorize a tax at the Federal level, to be implemented at the local level with a Federal agency saying yes or no? If my colleagues want their fingerprints on this, vote ``no.'' If my colleagues believe taxing people to the tune of $475 million a year by raising it every dollar should be on their watch and they do not care if their fingerprints are on it, vote ``yes.'' But that is not local control. That is bastardizing the concept of local control. This is not a fiscally sound measure. Taking the trust fund off budget is the right thing to do, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). On that he is absolutely right. But to accomplish that good goal, we blow a hole in the budget caps and we spend $21 billion over the next 4 years that has to come from somebody else's pocket, either from the tax cuts or some other part of the government. We conservatives should stick to the budget numbers. And if we want to fix one bad part of the government, we should not create two other bad things in its wake. That is how we wake up with $5.4 trillion of debt. It is a good thing to take it off budget; it is a bad thing to overspend in this area of the government to the tune of $21 billion. And a lousy thing to do in the name of being a conservative is tax people with a new way of taxing them; call it local when it is not and add a $3 tax when they are not administering the tax they created in 1990 in a correct fashion. And does it affect people? Seventy-five percent of the people that get on airplanes have this tax hit them. Four hundred and seventy-five million dollars for every dollar they increase. I do not know what Washington is about any longer in terms of conservative and liberal. But I know this, that they are paying taxes, that the American public, no matter what we call it, whether we call it a trust fund, whether we call it general revenue, it comes out of their pocket. That is the one thing in common. There is one group of people sending us all this money, and we think of a million ways to spend more of it and distance ourselves from it. We busted the budget. We have emptied the trust fund. And we are going to tax people $1.4 billion and say it is somebody else's problem. Stop that. This bill is excessive enough. Do some good for those people working real hard out there and who cannot stand to have any more money taken out of their pocket, and stop bastardizing concepts in the name of doing good.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. Shadegg asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, a quick summary of where we are at, as I understand it and believe it to be, there are a couple of things about the bill that are long overdue. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has quite eloquently pleaded his case that the trust fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, where we collect taxes for aviation purposes, should be taken off budget and should be used for the purposes intended. I think he used the term it was morally wrong to do otherwise. I am not so sure I would go that far but it is certainly not good business practices, and I applaud the gentleman for wanting to do that because we need to stop masking the debt, and these trust funds are in the asset column of the Federal Government in a general way and they should not be. We should not take people's tax money designated for a specific purpose and misappropriate it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is absolutely right for doing that. The problem that I see is that we have done far more than that. We have taken the trust fund that has, I think, an $8 billion surplus this year and projected to be $86 billion by 2008 and we have emptied it out this year or are in the process of emptying it out. Beyond trust fund money, there are general revenue funds, and in 1997 we came up with a balanced budget agreement and we assigned a number to every function of the government that we deal with; and families and businesses do that every day. We gave this area of our Federal Government a number, and unfortunately what we have done is not only have we taken the trust fund off budget and dumped all the money out, the surpluses and otherwise, between now and 2004 the Office of Management and Budget predicts that we will be missing the mark by $21 billion. We will spend $21 billion more than we have allocated in our budget process, and that money has to come from somewhere. My concern is, what if the economy turns down? What happens to the next worthy cause that comes to the floor of this House where a case can be made for deviating from that number? What will happen is that all the gains we have achieved in the last 4 or 5 years will go down the tubes, and we will wake up one day when the economy chills out, and we will set in place spending plans that we just do not have enough money for and we are either going to raise taxes or cut government, and I do not really see much of a desire to cut government in good times or bad. So, unfortunately, the sum of where we are at now is that we have done one good thing and created a very bad thing and we are about to create another bad thing. Part of this bill allows for a doubling of the passenger facility charge that came into being in 1990. Ten years later we are going to double that under this bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and others have made a very good case that maybe it does not work right already so taking the trust fund off budget was a good thing. Spending a lot more money than allocated under the agreement is a horrible thing that is going to catch up with all of us, and to add on top of that doubling a facility charge that we are really not so sure how it works is just unnecessary.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the statements just made, the only thing protecting one and one's wallet is some Federal Government agency going to say no to some local government agency they regulate in terms of taxes. If that makes my colleagues feel good, then vote for this. But the consequence is that they are going to double this tax, and it is going to cost $1.425 billion a year to the consuming public. All of these accounting gimmicks we are talking about up here are inside the Beltway. But there is only one taxpayer no matter what kind of budget one is talking about. It comes out of one wallet, and we are trying to protect people. This bill has spent more than it should, and we are adding a tax on top of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Jackson).

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this amendment is designed to correct a, I think, flaw in the Bankruptcy Code regarding student loans. Under our current Bankruptcy Code, a Federal- guaranteed student loan is a nondischargeable loan. As many students graduate from college with a student debt, they are starting their lives, and we have protected the Federal-guaranteed student loans from discharge from bankruptcy because I think that is just a common-sense approach to a problem that existed in the past. In addition, nonprofit lending organizations are also protected under the Bankruptcy Code, that their student loans are nondischargeable. There is a growing industry in the private sector. There is a $1.25 billion loan volume for where private lenders who will loan money to students for their college expenses as the federally guaranteed program does not in every occasion meet the needs of the student, and we are trying to give the private lender the same protection under bankruptcy that the federally guaranteed loan program has and nonprofit organizations have. We are trying to make sure they are available loans, loans are available to students to meet their financial needs, and this would have a beneficial effect, make sure that the loan volume necessary to take care of college expenses are available for students, and I would appreciate the cooperation from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) on this amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, that modification is at the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there seems to be a consensus building along two lines: timing and trust. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, took to the microphone and says that he agrees with the idea that this body, this Nation, should debate whether or not we send ground troops. It is a matter of timing. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that just spoke said that the President has given us his word. That is a matter of trust. I do not have the confidence he does to trust this President without having an engagement in this debate now. I want more rather than less debate on this issue. I want it sooner rather than later, because I see three big problems for ground troops. The coalition will not hang together; the political stomach is not there for a ground war. The dominance in the air that we have militarily will be lost, and the Russian instability that will come from a U.S.-led NATO invasion would start the Cold War all over again, potentially. If anybody criticizes this bill on drafting, then they have to look this operation in the face and see if they can find any flaws with it. This bill is properly drafted. Now is the time to speak. More rather than less, sooner rather than later, before we get a lot of people killed for no good reason.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. There has been a lot of humor passed about between both sides of the aisle. That is good. We ought to be able to debate things and have a smile on our face. There are a lot of people not smiling today because they are having to pay taxes. This is the worst day in the world to be a Democrat because they have to come up here and tell everybody this Tax Code is a little bit off, and we would fix it if we could get on with fixing it. Somebody said, ``This is a show about nothing.'' Well, they have got to remember this: Their show got cancelled. The tax-and-spend show got cancelled by the American people. If they all do not get with the program, they you are never going to get back on TV. People are tired of 1,000 reasons not to be responsible up here. There will be 10,000 reasons offered today why we cannot put some discipline in Congress to tax the American people. States have done this amendment. Those States that have passed the tax limitation amendment requiring a two-thirds vote have taken less of the people's money. The day we pass this amendment up here is the day we take less of the American people's money. But there will never be a better issue to define the parties than this issue. Four years in a row we have had a vote on this. Every year, we have got a majority. But our friends on the left are never going to let go of the ability to take one's money easily until the American people get more involved in this debate. But the day we lose control of this House, if that ever happens, one thing is for sure, we will never have this amendment talked about ever again. There will never be another proposal as long as the other side is in charge to limit the ability of the Federal Government to take one's money in some reasonable way. That is what this debate is about. That is what the next century is about. Every year we need to have this debate. Every year we are going to get more votes than we did the year before because they are running out of excuses of how to grow the government and explain the Tax Code in some understandable way. I regret we are denying the Democratic Party the ability to fix the Tax Code for a few hours, but it is great to have this debate. When this debate is over, I welcome their efforts to help us simplify the Tax Code. I am sorry we took a day out of their efforts to change the Tax Code.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I call to your attention the outstanding public service of one of our nation's finest military attorneys and a dear personal friend of mine, Colonel Richard F. Rothenburg the Chief Judge of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. On May 1, 1999, Colonel Rothenburg will retire after 30 years of especially distinguished service. Colonel Rothenburg was born in Washington, DC. After graduating from Catonsville High School, Maryland, he received a bachelor of science degree in business administration from the University of Maryland in 1964, and his bachelor of law (LLB) degree in 1967 from the University of Maryland School of Law. The Chief Judge received his commission in 1964 through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps Program. After completing his legal studies, Colonel Rothenburg entered active duty in 1967. Colonel Rothenburg was first assigned to Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. In 1969, Colonel Rothenburg was assigned to Headquarters 7th Air Force, Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Republic of Vietnam. In addition to serving as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, Colonel Rothenburg sat as a military trial judge on 27 courts-martial during his tour in Vietnam. Colonel Rothenburg is the only officer still on active duty to have served as an Air Force judge advocate in Vietnam. Colonel Rothenburg's other early assignments included positions as Assistant Staff Judge Advocate at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and Staff Judge Advocate at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. Colonel Rothenburg attended Air Command and Staff College between 1978 and 1979, then took the reins as Staff Judge Advocate at Langley Air force Base, Virginia; then the home of Tactical Air Command. Colonel Rothenburg was next selected to serve as a military judge for all air bases in Europe, where he presided at more than 150 felony trials. Colonel Rothenburg returned from Europe in 1986 to serve as the Air Force Tactical Fighter Weapons Center Staff Judge Advocate at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. Then, from 1988 to 1992, he served as the 15th Air Force Staff Judge Advocate at March Air Force Base, California. In 1992, Colonel Rothenburg was selected to serve as the Director of the United States Air Force Judiciary in Washington, DC. As Director, Colonel Rothenburg oversaw a 3.5 million dollar budget and 350 people directly involved in the Air Force's worldwide military justice system. Based on his vast experience in military justice and impeccable judicial temperament, Colonel Rothenburg was selected in 1997 to serve as the Chief Judge of the nine-member Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. He was sworn in as Chief Judge on April 2, 1997. In the face of a blistering docket average of 600 appellate opinions per year and an undermanned Court, Chief Judge Rothenburg led the Court to its lowest backlog of cases awaiting review in a decade. At the same time, Chief Judge Rothenburg guided the Court into the uncharted waters of electronic pleading at the federal appellate level. Chief Judge Rothenburg's influence on the shape of military appellate law and practice will endure well into the next century. Colonel Rothenburg's military awards and decorations include the Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with five oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with palm leaf. Colonel Rothenburg is a member of the bar in Maryland and the District of Columbia. He is married to the former Linda Lee Gossard of Hagerstown, Maryland. They have two children: Richard and Anne. I ask that you join me, his colleagues, and Colonel Rothenburg's many friends in saluting this distinguished officer's three decades of service to the United States of America. I know our Nation, his wife Linda, and their children are extremely proud of his accomplishments.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of thank-yous to go around: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and all the people who forged this bipartisan bill. There is a wave of bipartisanship sweeping the Congress for our military. It is long overdue. It is something to be proud of. It is something to congratulate each other over. The President is going to sign the bill. This is what the American people want, addressing real needs and real threats. It is a real threat to this country. Other speakers have spoken of threats in terms of terrorist activity. They are real, too. We need to do more. We have cut our military by 40 percent in personnel and equipment. We need to do more to counter those threats. But this is a real threat. Another threat is having quality men and women manning these systems. We have done a lot to deter people from staying in the military. We can come together in pay and benefits in a bipartisan fashion to make sure that not only we have a missile defense system but we have the quality people that we need to maintain these systems in the next century. That is the challenge for this Congress. Let us rise to the occasion. I hope there is more of this over time where we come together to make sure America is strong.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding men and women, past and present, active and reserve, of the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department on the occasion of the Department's 50th Anniversary. General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the second Chief of Staff of the Air Force, officially created the Judge Advocate General's Department Order #7 on January 25, 1949. The First Air Force Judge Advocate General, Major General Reginald C. Harmon, was promoted to major general directly from the rank of colonel. Following Major General Harmon, 12 other Judge Advocates General have served, including Major General Bryan G. Hawley who retired recently, and the newly installed incumbent Major General William A. Moorman. The JAG Department has a rich and colorful history. Before the Air Force was formed, there were special Air JAGs for the Army Air Corps. JAGs and paralegals have been at commanders' sides in every operation since the department was formed, including Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to combat theaters, JAGs have been critical components of forces conducting humanitarian, peacekeeping, and contingency operations in far-off places like Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, and Rwanda. Often, much of the JAG's work is carried on behind the scenes, negotiating with foreign leaders, making arrangements for proper services, and ensuring agreements are in the place to service members abroad. As important and even less conspicuous are the paralegals and other legal staff that support these operations. Perhaps the single most important role JAGs perform is in assisting commanders to administer a fair and equitable system of military justice. General Washington recognized, as did Caesar and Alexander before him, that discipline distinguishes an armed force from a mob. History has shown that discipline, enforced by an even-handed and credible system of justice, is an essential element of an effective fighting force. That system of justice must be mobile, be able to react to unique military offenses, and be administered by those who understand the environment in which it functions. Air Force JAGs have preserved such a system for Air Force members, whether stationed at home or at remote sites worldwide. Mothers and fathers throughout America have entrusted their sons and daughters to Air Force commanders, knowing that they will be treated fairly and justly. Air Force Judge Advocates have made significant contributions to the practice of law throughout the military. Air Force JAGs were instrumental in establishing the requirement to inform an accused of his rights well before the Supreme Court directed Miranda warnings be read. The Air Force was the first service to institute an independent defense counsel program, ensuring accused military members received zealous representation, without even the appearance of command influence. Air Force JAGs have also participated in some of the most influential cases in military history on topics ranging from military jurisdiction over off-base offenses, to the use of polygraph results in court and drug analysis. In addition, as the Air Force has adapted to ever changing environments, JAGs have led the way by resolving the complex legal issues that have accompanied these changes. To meet these challenges, the JAG Department has grown from 442 officers to a force of over 4,680 personnel, including JAGs, civilian attorneys, enlisted members, civilian support staff, and Reserve and National Guard personnel. The JAG Department has also expanded its expertise into other critical legal specialties such as aviation, civil, claims, environmental, ethics, international, labor, legal assistance, medical, operations, procurement, space, and tax law. As the Air Force faces the challenges of the 21st Century, the JAG Department will be there to help commanders maintain the world's greatest Air Force, committed to going anywhere in the world, anytime. I am honored to rise in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department and express the heartfelt thanks of the people of the United States for a job well done to all who serve or who have served in the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Department.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. If we believe this operation is equal to what was going on in Kuwait, we should vote ``yes''. If we see it to be different, then we ought to ask what are the differences. I think it is dramatically different. Our country is about to commit 4,000 young men and women into a sovereign nation, in a region in that nation where 90 percent of the inhabitants of Kosovo are Albanian, who are trying to become independent. We are about to get ourselves in the middle of a Civil War. This is not fighting Saddam Hussein, this is interjecting 4,000 Americans into a faraway place where heartache is normal, where tyranny has existed before, and will exist after. How do we come home? You are asking the Congress to have a one-way ticket to a region of the world that is not going to lead to a world war. It is going to be a place where they will eventually figure out they can live together, with our help, but our help should not include 4,000 young Americans standing in the middle of people with a lot of hot temper. This makes no sense. Piling this on top of Bosnia is unbelievably expensive. This is different than Bosnia, this is different than Kuwait. The American public does not understand what we are doing or why. And all the big names in international politics to me have not justified why we are there and how we are going to get out. Secretary Kissinger says this is more like Vietnam than it is Kuwait. I hope he is wrong, but I believe he is right. How many more young men and women are going to go in faraway places to get in the middle of civil wars where there is a dubious reason to be there to start with and no way home? I hope none of them come home hurt or maimed. Vote ``no.'' Stand up for America.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 99, the Federal Aviation Administration Short-Term Extension, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, this long and difficult process for all of us in the House is almost to a conclusion. Twenty-five years ago a Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee with a minority of Republicans reported articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. Why? Nixon cheated. He cheated the electoral system by concealing efforts of a political break-in. And his people thought the other side deserved to be cheated. They thought his enemies deserved to be mistreated. Ladies and gentlemen, they were wrong. Today Republicans, with a small handful of Democrats, will vote to impeach President Clinton. Why? Because we believe he committed crimes resulting in cheating our legal system. We believe he lied under oath numerous times, that he tampered with evidence, that he conspired to present false testimony to a court of law. We believe he assaulted our legal system in every way. Let it be said that any President who cheats our institutions shall be impeached.