Feb 01 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint today said they support Edwin ‘Ed’ Foulke of Greenville for the position of Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA.) A Greenville resident, Foulke is an accomplished labor law attorney, who boasts a wealth of knowledge and experience in occupational safety and health related legal issues. He has served with distinction for over fifteen years as a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) and is a natural fit for this important post. Foulke yesterday went before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to answer questions from Senators. “All South Carolinians should be proud that President Bush has selected Ed for this position,” said Graham. “This is a very important job for the American workforce and business community. We need someone with his talents at OSHA to oversee worker safety and ensure the government regulations placed on businesses meet the common-sense test. I support his nomination and know he will serve our nation well in this position.” “Ed Foulke has long served South Carolina, and I'm confident he has the intellect and experience to take the lead at OSHA,” said Senator DeMint. “I have come to know Ed as a man of integrity and principle, traits that will serve our nation well. The conclusion of Ed’s positive nomination hearing is a win for American workers and businesses. I look forward to his confirmation.” A graduate of Loyola University (New Orleans) School of Law, Foulke is currently a partner with Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman practicing out of the firm’s Greenville and Washington offices. He is admitted to practice in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, the District of Columbia, the Fourth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal as well as the United States Supreme Court. In addition to publishing extensively on a number of topics related to employment and labor law, Foulke has guest lectured for several Universities and business organizations. He also holds a LLM Masters in Law from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. #####

Jan 31 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on the death of Coretta Scott King. “All Americans should celebrate a life well-lived. “Mrs. King was a strong voice for economic and social justice. She was a pioneer of the civil rights movement who stood on her own as one of the most effective voices in America expressing equality for all. She was a brave woman who held firm to her beliefs during some of America’s most difficult days. Her courage in standing for the idea of justice for all will be an inspiration for future generations of Americans. “Mrs. King has rightfully earned her place in history as a great American.” #####

Jan 31 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement after Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Graham supported the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The vote today was 58-42 in support of Justice Alito. “It is a great day for the Supreme Court and a great day for the country. “Justice Alito is one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the Senate. He is very much a mainstream conservative and will serve on the Supreme Court with distinction. His conservative judicial philosophy will have an impact on the Court for decades to come. “Justice Alito has fifteen years of judicial experience on the federal bench and has received rave reviews from every corner of the legal community. The American Bar Association rated him unanimously as well-qualified, their highest rating for a position on the Supreme Court. People who work with him, even those who disagree with him, say he is a kind, decent man who is a judge’s judge. “President Bush chose well when he nominated Justice Alito for this important position. I’m very pleased the Senate has now confirmed him to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.” ######

Jan 27 2006

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced the University of South Carolina Research Foundation will receive $150,000 per year over the next three years for research into the development of fuel for the next generation of nuclear reactors. “We must continue to expand our research and development efforts in nuclear energy,” said Graham. “Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that has been safely providing power to South Carolina for decades. I am pleased our state’s research institutions are playing a leading role in the development of next-generation energy technology.” The three-year project is a partnership between the USC and the Savannah River National Lab. This project was one of eight to receive funding under this program out of 160 applicants. The grant was awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. ####

Jan 27 2006

Graham Says Consultation Needed in Restructuring National Guard

Senators to Offer Bipartisan Senate Resolution Seeking Consultation Between Pentagon, Congress and Governors

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) yesterday introduced a bipartisan resolution supporting the National Guard and requesting the Department of Defense seek input from Congress and governors when deciding future changes to National Guard personnel and calling on the Pentagon to resolve equipment shortages. Graham and Nelson are the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. “At this crucial time in our nation’s history, we are more dependent on the National Guard than ever,” said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). “Now is not the time to diminish the role the reserves play in the American military. I look forward to working with Senator Nelson, who has been a good friend to the National Guard, to ensure our reserve forces are properly structured.” “The members of our National Guard aren’t ‘weekend warriors,’” said Senator Nelson. “They’re indispensable citizen-soldiers, airmen and airwomen who serve their country full-time when needed, and in return, I expect the Department of Defense to fully support the National Guard missions here and around the world.” The National Guard has a unique role in defending the nation. Guard troops have a dual responsibility: to the nation and to their home states. The Department of Defense is proposing cuts in personnel levels for the Guard and the Guard is plagued by significant shortages of critical equipment. The resolution calls for the Department of Defense to: Fully fund the equipment needs of the National Guard; Consult with Congress and the nation’s governors as soon as possible on any proposed changes to the National Guard force structure; Consider the National Guard’s role in homeland defense when considering the National Guard’s force structure; Create budget projections that detail cost savings from any National Guard force structure changes, as well as projected costs in the event large personnel increases are necessary to respond to a homeland defense emergency; Ensure Congress and our nation’s governors that potential personnel cuts will not impact the safety and security of the American people. The resolution arrives as the future of the National Guard is currently being determined by the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Despite and as a result of their significant work, the National Guard continues to experience equipment shortages. Last November, Senators Nelson, Graham and 40 other senators from both political parties sent President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a letter urging them to fully fund the National Guard. The guard is experiencing equipment deficiencies all over the country including shortages of humvees, rough terrain trucks, over-the-road tractors, wreckers, semi-trailers, communication equipment, and weapon mounts for trucks. The resolution is supported by the National Guard Association of the United States. Also, current co-sponsors of the bipartisan resolution include Senators: Ben Nelson (NE), Lindsey Graham (SC), George Allen (VA), Jim Talent (MO), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Thune (SD), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike DeWine (OH), Tim Johnson (SD), Richard Durbin (IL), Robert Menendez (NJ), Mary Landrieu (LA), Bill Nelson (FL), Tom Harkin (IA), Byron Dorgan (ND), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Daniel Akaka (HI), Max Baucus (MT), Hillary Clinton (NY), Herb Kohl (WI), Barbara Mikulski (AK), Evan Bayh (IN), Maria Cantwell (WA), Mark Pryor (AR), Ken Salazar (CO), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Joseph Biden (DE), Kent Conrad (ND), Edward Kennedy (MA), Russell Feingold (WI), Susan Collins (ME), Norm Coleman (MN), and Lamar Alexander (TN). ####

Jan 26 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on the Palestinian elections. “If the election results hold and are considered legitimate, it will be a tremendous setback for the Middle East peace process. The hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people to live in an independent state with dignity and peace will never materialize as long as a terrorist organization is their voice. “The election results amount to a de-facto declaration of war by the Palestinian people against the state of Israel. It’s imperative our nation redouble its commitment to the state of Israel and cautiously evaluate any future assistance to a Palestinian regime governed by terrorists.” #####

Jan 25 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced Clemson University will receive $1.5 million in funding for research into hydrogen as a fuel source. The Clemson grant is part of a larger $119 million package announced today by the Department of Energy. The focus of the funding is to create a “roadmap” aimed at identifying and overcoming the technical and manufacturing challenges associated with the further development of commercially available hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. “I’m pleased with today’s grant announcement from DOE,” said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Graham serves as the co-chair of the Senate Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus. “Clemson University, and other research institutes across South Carolina, will play a prominent role in helping push hydrogen research forward. What Detroit was to the automotive industry, South Carolina can be to hydrogen.” “As a nation we need to become less dependent on foreign oil,” said Graham. “To help us achieve that goal, it’s my hope the next generation of automobiles will not be solely dependent on gasoline as a fuel source. It would be irresponsible if 50 years from now we’re still reliant on Middle Eastern oil to drive our national economy. We need to get away from fossil fuels and start looking at using different sources of energy such as hydrogen to power our automobiles. Today’s grant announcement is another step in the right direction.” Graham noted South Carolina is a leader in hydrogen research. The University of South Carolina is developing hydrogen fuel cells, Clemson is working on hydrogen vehicles and the Savannah River Site is a leading research facility in hydrogen storage and technology. In addition, these groups and others recently united behind the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association which coordinates the state’s efforts to be a leading player in the emerging hydrogen economy. In addition to the grant announcement, DOE today also unveiled the Roadmap on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy. The 80-page document addresses challenges to manufacturing, storage and production of fuel cell technologies and proposes solutions to overcome such challenges, focusing primarily on near commercial technologies. #####

Jan 24 2006

WASHINGTON– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement following the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. The vote in committee was 10-8. Senator Graham supported the nominee. “Judge Alito is one of the most historically qualified nominees to ever come before the Senate. He’s very much a mainstream conservative and will serve with distinction on the Supreme Court. I was proud to support his nomination in the Judiciary Committee and look forward to voting for him again on the Senate floor. “Judge Alito has fifteen years of judicial experience on the federal bench and has received rave reviews from every corner of the legal community. The American Bar Association rates him as unanimously well-qualified, their highest rating for a position on the Supreme Court. People who work with him, even those who disagree with him, say he is a kind, decent man who is a judge’s judge. “Chief Justice John Roberts received 50 percent of the Democratic caucus vote and he's one of the most stellar nominees in the history of the country. Judge Alito is one of the most well qualified nominees in 70 years and he'll be lucky to get a handful of Democratic senators. “It’s disappointing to see the Judiciary Committee break straight along party lines. Unfortunately, it appears Democratic Senators are listening to the liberal special interest groups who have spent millions of dollars attacking Judge Alito. What's going on with Judge Alito is not advising and consenting. It's about politics. And that does not bode well for the future of the judiciary.” #####

Jan 19 2006

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) last week traveled to the Detroit Auto Show to meet with manufacturers and discuss South Carolina’s role in producing the next-generation automobile. Graham is a co-chair of the Senate Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus along with Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND). Graham told automotive industry leaders that South Carolina is on the cutting-edge of hydrogen research and hydrogen holds the potential to be the new fuel of the 21st Century. In addition, Graham noted the environmental benefits of hydrogen as a clean source of energy. “What Detroit was to the automotive industry, South Carolina can be to hydrogen,” said Graham. “My message to the CEO’s was that as a nation we need to become less dependent on foreign oil. To help us achieve that goal, it’s my hope the next generation of automobiles will be hybrids not solely dependent on gasoline as a fuel source.” “It would be irresponsible if 50 years from now we’re still reliant on Middle Eastern oil to drive our national economy,” said Graham. “We need to get away from fossil fuels and start looking at using different sources of energy such as hydrogen to power our automobiles.” South Carolina is a national leader in hydrogen research. The University of South Carolina is developing hydrogen fuel cells, Clemson is working on hydrogen vehicles and the Savannah River Site is a leading research facility in hydrogen storage and technology. In addition, these groups and others recently united behind the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association which coordinates the state’s efforts to be a leading player in the emerging hydrogen economy. “All the automobile manufacturers understood the importance of hybrid cars but right now there is no consensus in the industry on how they will develop,” said Graham. “Congress may need to assist this development by offering additional tax incentives and setting attainable standards for manufacturing. The future will be dominated by cars that don’t solely run on gasoline and the sooner we can make progress in that area the better.” #####

Jan 11 2006

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Feingold. Senator Graham? GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Alito, maybe we could continue with the Vanguard issue just for a moment. And I know you've been asked every conceivable combination of questions. But Senator Feingold is very sincere about ethics in government. He practices what he preaches and he's been one of the leaders of trying to make this place operate better. And my impression of you is that you're a good model for judges in terms of ethical conduct, based on what everybody says who knows you. I mean, I don't claim to be a close associate of yours, but the ABA has looked at this and said that it did not reflect poorly on you. Three hundred lawyers and judges who know you have said that you're just, really, sort of, what we want in a judge. And maybe that's not enough, but that's a pretty good start. I don't think you could get 300 people to say that about me or some of us. But the question I have -- the criminal prosecutor or lawyer in me has this question to ask -- why would you make a conscious decision not to recuse yourself? Why would Judge Alito sit down in the corner of a room and say, I think I've got a conflict, but I'm just going to let it go and hear the case anyway? I am baffled as to why you would make a conscious decision in this situation not to recuse yourself. Do you have an explanation? ALITO: There's no reason why I would make such a conscious decision. I had nothing whatsoever to gain by participating in this case and nobody has suggested that I did. This case involved some thousands of dollars. Vanguard manages billions of dollars of funds. The idea that the outcome of this case could have some effect on the mutual funds that I hold is beyond preposterous, and I don't understand anybody to have suggested anything like that. GRAHAM: Well, I've been asking myself that question quietly. What is in it for this guy? Why would he bring all this grief upon himself consciously? Is it to intentionally break a promise to the Senate so you'd go through hell for three days? I don't think so. (LAUGHTER) So I'm going to accept you at your word, like the ABA, and I'm going to move on. And I don't know if anybody else will. Now, your days at Princeton. The more I know about Princeton, it's an interesting place. (LAUGHTER) What is an eating society? ALITO: The eating clubs are privately owned facilities that upper classmen join for the purpose of taking their meals. The first two years, when I was there -- the situation is now a bit more diversified as far as eating is concerned -- but when I was there, and traditionally the freshmen and sophomores ate in university dining halls. And then, as juniors and seniors, they had to find other places to eat, and these were private facilities. GRAHAM: What is a selective eating society? ALITO: It's one where you apply to be a member, like a fraternity, and you go through a process that is somewhat similar to that, and they select you if they like you. GRAHAM: Were you a member of a selective eating society? ALITO: No, I was not. GRAHAM: Did people not like you or you just didn't apply? (LAUGHTER) ALITO: I didn't apply. GRAHAM: Well, let me tell you who did apply. Donald Rumsfeld was a member of a selective eating society at Princeton. And that's an interesting comment, I thought. Woodrow Wilson. Jim Leach, good friend of mine over in the House. Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, was a member of a nonselective eating society. Senator Claiborne Pell was a member of nonselective eating societies. And other Princeton alumni who are members of Congress could not verify their participation or lack thereof in eating clubs, including Senator Sarbanes, Bond, Frist and Representative Marshall. And I promise you I'll get to the bottom of that before this is all done. (LAUGHTER) Now, this organization that was mentioned very prominently earlier in the day, did you ever write an article for this organization? ALITO: No, I did not. GRAHAM: OK. And some quotes were shown, from people who did write for this organization, that you disavowed. Do you remember that exchange? ALITO: I disavow them. I deplore them. They represent things that I have always stood against and I can't express too strongly... GRAHAM: If you don't mind the suspicious nature that I have is that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you're disavowing this now because it doesn't look good. And really what I would look at to believe you're not -- and I'm going to be very honest with you -- is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot? ALITO: I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not. GRAHAM: No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it -- but that's a good enough reason, because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. I have got reams of quotes from people who have worked with you, African American judges -- I've lost my quotes. Judge Higginbotham -- I don't know where they're at. But glowing quotes about who you are, the way you've lived your life; law clerks, men and women, black and white, your colleagues who say that Sam Alito, whether I agree with him or not, is a really good man. You know why I believe you when you say that you disavow those quotes? Because the way you have lived your life and the way you and your wife are raising your children. Let me tell you this: Guilt by association is going to drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting. And we're going to go through a bit of this ourselves as congressmen and senators. People are going to take a fact that we got a campaign donation from somebody who's found out to be a little different than we thought they were -- and our political opponent's going to say, Aha, I got you! And we're going to say, Wait a minute. I didn't know that. I didn't take the money for that reason. And you know what? I'm going to believe these senators and congressmen for the most part, because that's the way we do our business. We meet people here every day. We have photos taken with people -- and sometimes you wish you didn't have your photo taken. But that doesn't mean that you're a bad person because of that association. Judge Alito, I am sorry that you've had to go through this. I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this. Now let's talk about another time not so long ago -- and another judge and some of her writings -- and see if the Senate is changing for the better or for the worse. GRAHAM: Justice Ginsburg, who I need to go have a cup of coffee with because I constantly bring her up and I do not dislike the lady; I admire her. But let's put it bluntly, under today's environment, from a conservative's point of view, she would have a very hard time because Justice Ginsburg was the general counsel for the ACLU from 1973 to 1980. And if you want me to tar somebody by their association, I can put up some pretty wild cases from my point of view where she was involved. But you know what? I respect her because her job as an attorney for the ACLU is to represent the most unpopular causes. And as far as I can tell during her time with the ACLU, she was honest, she was ethical and she fought for the most unpopular causes. And, for that, I respect her. But you've put some things down on an application about your view of the law in Roe v. Wade and it's taking an unbelievable effort on your part, I think, to convince people that, when I was a lawyer, I did this, when I applied for a job, I was doing this, and as a judge, I will do this. Here is what Justice Ginsburg said in an article she wrote titled, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relationship to Roe v. Wade. The conflict, however, is not simply one between a fetus' interest and a woman's interest narrowly conceived, nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman's body for a span of nine months. Also, in the balance is a woman's autonomous charge of her full life's course, her ability to stand in relation to men, society and to stay as an independent, self-sustaining equal citizen. She wrote further, As long as the government paid for childbirth, the argument proceeded public funding could not be denied for abortion, often a safer and always a far-less expensive course short and long term. By paying for childbirth but not abortion, the government increased spending and intruded upon or steered a choice Roe had ranked as a woman's fundamental right. The public funding of abortion decisions denying a requirement of public funding appear incongruous following so soon after the intrepid 1973 ruling. The court did not adequately explain why the fundamental choice, principle and trimester approach, embraced in Roe did not bar the sovereign at least at the pre-viability stage of pregnancy from taking sides and being required to provide funding for the abortions of poor women. If that writing doesn't suggest an allegiance to Roe, that writing doesn't suggest from her point of view as the author of that article not only is Roe an important constitutional right, that government ought to pay for abortions in certain circumstances. GRAHAM: If she were here today and a Democratic president had nominated her and we take on the role that our colleagues are playing against you, not only would she not have gotten 96 votes, I think she would have been in for a very rough experience. And what's changed? Justice Ginsburg openly expressed a legal theory about Roe v. Wade. My question to you: If I am arguing a case that would alter Roe v. Wade, would I have the ability because of her prior writings to ask her to recuse herself based on those writings alone? ALITO: I don't think you would, Senator. I think it is established that prior writings of a member of the judiciary do not require the recusal of that member of the judiciary. GRAHAM: I think you're absolutely right, Judge. And let me tell you what she said at the hearing when it was her time to sit where you're sitting. You ask me about my thinking on equal protection versus individual autonomy. My answer is that both are implicated. The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision that she must make for herself. When government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices. A sentiment I think our pro-choice colleagues share, a sentiment that I disagree with because I think the decision does affect humanity, and that's the unborn child. I don't question her religion. I don't question her patriotism. She gave an answer that was very honest and was very direct. And pro-life Republicans and pro-life Democrats never thought about disqualifying her. She didn't go through what you went through. Pro-life Republicans and pro-life Democrats set her comment aside and judged her based on her whole record and believed she was worthy to sit on the Supreme Court and she got 96 votes. And what you've said in your writings about the other side of the issue pales in comparison to what she said before she came to this body. I don't know how many votes you're going to get. You're going to get confirmed. And it's not going to be 96. Judge Roberts got 78, and I'm afraid to say that you're probably going to get less. To my colleagues, I know abortion is important. It's important to me. It's important to you. I know it's an important, central concept in our jurisprudence. But we can't build a judiciary around that one issue. GRAHAM: We can't make judges pledge allegiance to one case. We can't expect them to do things that would destroy their independence. You can vote yes; you can vote no; you can use any reason you would like. I just beg my colleagues: Let's don't go down a road that the country can't sustain and the judiciary will not be able to tolerate. People set aside her writings, set aside her candid statement and gave her the benefit of the doubt that she would apply the law when her time came. She replaced Justice White. We knew that that vote was going to change. I don't think any Republican had any doubt that, if there was a Roe v. Wade issue, she would vote differently than Justice White. But you never know. The one thing I can tell the public about you and John Roberts is that you're first round NFL draft picks, but I don't know what you're going to do 10 or 20 years from now because I think you are men of great integrity. And I may be very well disappointed in some of your legal reasoning, but I'll never be disappointed in you if you do your job as you see fit. The last thing I'm going to read -- do you know Cathy Fleming? ALITO: I do. She was an attorney and supervisor in the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey. GRAHAM: Did you ask her to write a letter on your behalf? ALITO: I did not, no. GRAHAM: Judge Alito did not ask me to write this letter. I volunteered. (LAUGHTER) I'm glad you said that, by the way. (LAUGHTER) I'm a lifelong Democrat. I am the president-elect of a national women's bar association. I chaired the corporate integrity and the white collar crime group at a national law firm. I do not speak on behalf of either my law firm or the women's bar association. I speak for myself only. But, by providing my credentials as an outspoken women's rights advocate and liberal-minded criminal defense attorney, I hope you will appreciate the significance of my unqualified and enthusiastic recommendation of Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. Sam possesses the best qualities for judges. He's thoughtful; he's brilliant; he's measured; he's serious; and he's conscious of the awesome responsibilities imposed by his position. I cannot think of better qualities for a Supreme Court justice. It is my fervent hope that politics will not prevent this extraordinary, capable candidate from serving as associate justice on the United States Supreme Court. GRAHAM: I share her hope. Thank you. I yield back my time.