Floor Statements

Trent, this is the time, on an occasion like this, where somebody always rises and says: Whatever could be said about this subject has been said, it is just that everybody has not said it yet. But in this case, it is not true. We have only been talking for 2 hours 7 minutes. It would take a lot longer than 2 hours 7 minutes to say all the things that could be said about your distinguished career.

But there are two things I wish to say, the two most powerful words in the English language: Thank you--first, on behalf of the late Paul Coverdell and his lovely wife Nancy.

I will never forget in March of 1993 meeting Paul--as I had for 20 years, as I led the Georgia House and he led the

Georgia Senate--at the International House of Pancakes in Buckhead at 7 a.m., his first time back in Georgia after being sworn in. I had him tell me about the place known as the Senate. All he could talk about was Trent Lott. He said: Johnny, Trent Lott has the two Ls. He can legislate and he can lead.

So on behalf of Paul, whose legislation--the Coverdell Education Act, and many other things--was done here, thank you for what you did for him. I know you always have shared with me how much you appreciate what ``Mikey'' did for you.

But, secondly, Trent, thank you on my behalf. If every one of us in this room stood up and thought about it, we could take a specific incident that in our career has been accomplished that would not have happened were it not for your insight, your leadership, and your commitment.

For me, it was the pension bill last year and the pension of 91,000 Delta employees in Georgia. We got down to the lick log, as they say in Georgia, on the last day, in the last hour before the August recess. Bankruptcy was pending, and it was almost over. Thanks to your tenacity on Finance and your care and your willingness to be able to do what you did, that legislation passed. I got the credit, but the benefit belongs to you.

Thank you for what you have done for all of us.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I certainly do not want to preempt him if he wants to go next. Does the Senator have a preference? If not, I will go ahead, if that is OK.

Mr. President, I rise on a sad occasion for me personally and for my State, but also in some sense a proud time for me to be able to acknowledge the life and times of Thomas B. Murphy.

Last night, at 10 o'clock, in Bremen, GA, in Haralson County, Thomas B. Murphy died from the complications of a stroke that for the last 4 years kept him, at best, semiconscious and in a very difficult state.

But in those previous 79 years of life, he is probably the most remarkable political figure in the history of the State of Georgia. Elected speaker of the house in 1974, he maintained that position until 2002--for 28 years--longer than any speaker of any legislature in the history of the United States of America.

He was the son of a primitive Baptist preacher by weekend and a railroad telegraph man by day. He was a product of the Depression. And he was Irish. He was tough as nails but had a heart of gold. He was a Democrat through and through, and proudly stated his absolute distaste for any Republican.

For 8 years of my 17 years in the Georgia Legislature, I was the Republican leader of the Georgia House. To give you an idea of what a minority is really like, I was 1 of 19 Republicans, and there were 161 Democrats. I understood what being a minority leader was all about.

Tom Murphy was a powerful, forceful leader. But from the day I met him, when I was first elected in 1976, to the last day I held his hand, this past April, by his bed in Bremen, GA, he was always fair, he was always good, and he did what was best for the State.

Tom Murphy did not play golf. He did not play tennis. He raised tomatoes in his garden. His house is a modest brick ranch in Bremen, GA. His trade as a country lawyer was exceeded only by his skill as a politician. He never cared for money. He never cared for fame. He never cared for attention. His favorite day of the year was March 17, St. Patrick's Day, for which he would summarily adjourn the Georgia Legislature so he and his entourage could go to Savannah, GA, and be a part of the second largest St. Patrick's Day parade in America, in Savannah, on St. Patrick's Day.

His second favorite thing was to hold his grandchildren in his lap as he sat on the throne of the speaker of the house of representatives, and let them watch over his presiding of the Georgia House.

But this common, tough, fine man did so much for our State it is almost difficult to describe. We would not have a Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority were it not for Tom Murphy. He delivered the rural vote for the urban city of Atlanta in 1974 to get mass transit and to raise the taxes to do it. If you ever watched the Super Bowl in the Georgia Dome, the Georgia Dome would have never been built were it not for Tom Murphy.

As to the Georgia World Congress Center, there is not a Member of this Senate who has not been there because almost every convention in America goes through there once every couple years. It would never have been built were it not for Tom Murphy. Our rural roads and highways, the Governor's Road Improvement Program, would never have happened were it not for Tom Murphy.

But of all the great legacies and edifices that will be named after him, and have been named after him, his legacy will live on not through buildings and institutions but through people because Tom Murphy cared the most about people. And he cared the most about people who were poor and people who were disadvantaged.

Tom Murphy's legacy is the children who were born in poverty who came out of poverty and became successful because of the programs he put in place as speaker of the house. Tom Murphy's legacy will live on because of those who know, as a foster child or as a child in trouble, it was Tom Murphy who was there to give a hand up, not a handout.

Tom Murphy will be honored this Friday in the State capitol, where he will lie in state, and where his funeral will take place--a State capitol where for 28 years, through five Governors, he ruled the State of Georgia--not in the sense of a ruler or a tyrant but in the sense of a proud man whose time and destiny came together in the great State of Georgia. I will mourn his loss for all I learned from him.

I end my remarks by telling you about that day I sat by his bed this past April and held his hand. He could not communicate, but I knew he was awake. I said: Mr. Speaker, I am now in the U.S. Senate. And I just wanted to tell you I am a better man, and I probably got there because of the painful and wise lessons I learned from you.

A tear came in his eye, and he squeezed my hand. I knew, as we communicated first in 1976, we communicated once again. And from the day I knew him in 1976, to the last day I knew him this year, I respected him, I honored him, and I loved him.

Georgia appreciates the service Tom Murphy gave to all her people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Georgia. Secondly, I express my appreciation to Senator Reid for his attempt when this was discovered to allow us a chance to debate the merits of the proposal in division C of section 134 of the Omnibus appropriations act. Unfortunately, that could not be done. Senator Chambliss and I are left with expressing our deep disappointment on the floor of the Senate tonight.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the complete article of a December 18, 2007, front-page article from the Marietta Daily Journal entitled ``Drought Talks to Speed Up.''

I would like to read one sentence from that article: Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, and Alabama's Bob Riley said ``that their staffs will continue to work together to come up with a plan for doling out the region's water by March 15.''

That common goal stated by those three Governors today in Florida puts us within less than 90 days' reach of what has been out of the grasp of the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for 18 years, since 1989. At the last minute, because of a broken process for an Omnibus appropriations bill to contain legislation that directs, potentially limits, or sets the parameters by which the Corps of Engineers might be able to implement control of the waterways is just not right. It is my sincere hope at some time in the future those who might have thought this was a good idea will recognize it is actually contrary to what we in the Senate from the three States have attempted to do when we had a summit in Washington less than 2 months ago with our three Governors and the Secretary of the Interior.

There is no more precious gift than water, no better and more precious resource than water. There also is nothing better in the legislative process than a spirit of cooperation between each of us who shares borders in our States so as to find the right way to solve problems, not have dilatory tactics to postpone or delay problems.

I conclude by expressing my deep disappointment that the Omnibus appropriations bill contains division C, section 134, which has those potentially limiting factors and urge my colleagues to look to the future to find solutions, rather than a way to protract and delay and find confusion.

I yield the floor.

I will be happy to.

Mr. President, I rise to commend the authors of this legislation on what they have done. This is an outstanding piece of work. I spent 33 years of my life in the single family housing business. When I got started in 1967, I cut my teeth selling houses on FHA and VA loans. For all those years--and it has now been 40 years-- the FHA and VA have served the United States of America well.

The first thing the American public needs to understand is the current mortgage crisis in America is not an FHA problem, from a standpoint of poor underwriting or poor loans. FHA does a good job of underwriting, a good job of servicing, a good job of appraising. They have good standards.

The subprime market problem is an irresponsible lending practice in the conventional market, particularly when it comes to the underwriting. However, because that crisis does exist, FHA is going to be looked to as the savior in many cases. As conventional capital restricts and credit is reduced, it is going to be more important than ever for the FHA to be able to meet those demands.

But during the deliberations of this and during the writing of this bill, Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd did some great things the American public needs to understand. They realized one of the problems in the subprime markets was they were starting to make 100 percent loans--interest only--for 3 or 4 years, with a bullet at the end.

This bill specifically ensures that every FHA loan, every FHA loan that is made will have at least a downpayment of 1.5 percent. So there is not going to be any 100 percent lending. You will have some skin in the game.

Statistically, you always know in the housing business when a borrower has to put equity in a house, it is an insurance policy that loan is going to be paid. That is the insurance that ensures FHA they have a very low risk on the taxpayers' money.

Secondly, this recognizes the rising values in America and raises the cap on the amount of an FHA loan that can be made. This is going to allow FHA to meet a lot of demand that is going to be created by failures in the subprime market.

Another point on the subprime market is, FHA loans have not ever been, nor are they now, subprime loans. They are intended to be loans for those entering the housing system of the United States of America.

My dear friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, is going to offer an amendment later on which I will comment on for a second. He and I have had some discussions on it.

There is a section of the bill that deals with what is known as reverse mortgages, and probably most people in here would not know what that is. But basically that means, if you pay for your house and you get in your senior years and you want to draw on the equity and value of that house, then you can take out a mortgage against your house, and instead of making payments every month to pay it off, you receive payments every month up to a percentage of the appraised value of the property.

So for people reaching their latter years or their senior years, who need to be able to supplement their income to exist, they can use the equity in that house to continue to have an income and a cash flow.

FHA can make that loan and insure it. So can the conventional markets. The question the Senator from Oklahoma has is whether the FHA should raise the limit on the number of those loans it makes, which is at $275,000 right now. Talking to FHA, they are at that cap.

There is a provision in the bill that calls on CBO to make a study to determine what that cap should be. But in the meantime, we should not be capping the number of loans. So the bill is appropriate to raise the cap, and it is appropriate to call for the study. I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but I do so mainly because I wish to ensure every American senior who has paid for their home, who has it mortgage free, has the opportunity to leverage that home to have income in their later years, safe and secure by the underwriting process of the FHA.

But I conclude with the way I began: This is a great bill for the United States of America. It is not a reaction to bad practices on the part of FHA, but it is a reaction to say that because of our good practices, because of the capital that is available because of FHA, it is important for us to recognize the demand that will come to us as a byproduct of the subprime market.

I commend Senator Crapo, Senator Shelby, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, and all those who have worked on it, and I commend it to my colleagues for a favorable vote.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I have worked closely with the staff of Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici on an issue with regard to CAFE standards the Senate passed in its version but the House rejected.

I thank Senator Inouye and the other members of the Commerce Committee for their work on a corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standard. As you know, the Senate-passed CAFE bill contained a low- volume manufacturer exemption that would have classified low-volume manufacturers as those that have a U.S. market share of less than 0.4 percent and that sell less than about 64,000 cars--at current sales rates. While current law allows large multiline manufacturers to achieve compliance through averaging across various makes and models-- offsetting the performance vehicles with economy cars--it denies some small independent limited-line niche manufacturers the same opportunity. Small limited-line companies that manufacture only three models produce vehicles having superior fuel economy yet pay millions in CAFE noncompliance fines. Other automobile manufacturers avoid penalties through mergers and acquisitions and the ability to offset sports cars with economy cars.

The law on automotive fuel economy standards does not require each passenger automobile to meet the standard, but instead allows manufacturers to meet the standard through a fleet average, permitting manufacturers to produce vehicles with varying levels of fuel economy. The law, 49 U.S.C. 32902, includes a provision allowing low-volume manufacturers of passenger automobiles to petition for alternative fuel economy standards. Should a petition be granted under section 32902(d), the low-volume manufacturer is required to meet the maximum feasible fuel economy standard that the Secretary of Transportation finds that the manufacturer can attain. In the case of a high-performance vehicle, this requirement can lead to greater fuel economy savings than results if a similar vehicle is merely averaged into a larger fleet. At the time the law was enacted, the threshold for petitioning for alternative standards was set at annual worldwide production of 10,000 passenger automobiles, which at that time made some 12 companies eligible.

Today the structure of the U.S. market for passenger automobiles is considerably different than it was in 1975. In particular, because of consolidation in the automobile industry, only three independent manufacturers designing for niche markets remain in the United States market. Most, but not all, niche manufacturers have been acquired by major manufacturers and so are able to avail themselves of both the vastly greater resources and flexibility of fleet averaging of those major manufacturers. Thus, the few remaining niche manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage in meeting fuel economy standards not only in an absolute sense, but compared to other manufacturers of comparable vehicles.

I believe Congress's original intent in enacting the CAFE standards was not to competitively disadvantage small independent manufacturers. However, the fundamental change in the structure of the passenger vehicle marketplace has in fact disadvantaged the remaining low-volume manufacturers without furthering the CAFE goal of increasing fuel economy. I believe that changes in the marketplace have altered what should constitute a low-volume manufacturer, raising serious questions about the reasonableness of the 10,000 threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards. At the same time, I recognize that the threshold must not be so high as to competitively disadvantage major manufacturers.

In order to preserve the original intent of section 32902 to afford relief to low-volume manufacturers, Senator Chambliss and I proposed and the Senate accepted a provision to set a new threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles by setting the threshold as a percentage of the worldwide market rather than an absolute number. This allows for a threshold that will adapt to changes in the marketplace, unlike the current threshold. This is the same as the language proposed by Senator Smith in 2002 and included in the Kerry-McCain amendment to the then-pending CAFE bill.

The provision the Senate passed set the threshold for eligibility as a low-volume manufacturer above the current 10,000 but equivalent to less than \1/2\ percent of the world-wide market.

It is my understanding that although the Senate voted on and passed this provision, the House asked that it be removed because they were concerned that a manufacturer who is covered by this new provision would no longer pay fines as a result of it. It is my understanding that under the terms of section 813 as drafted, the Secretary of Transportation--through NHTSA, we presume--conducts an investigation into the capabilities of any petitioner for consideration under this provision and decides whether or not to authorize an alternative standard that differs from the established CAFE standard, and if so, by how much. In the case of any manufacturer who petitions for an alternative standard, NHTSA may decide not to authorize a different standard or they could set an alternative standard that could still be unachievable in that model year. In either scenario above, a company would pay penalties for noncompliance and would not be relieved from paying penalties by anything in section 813. Obviously the hope would be that NHTSA would set a standard that could be achieved based on our maximum feasible technological capabilities.

I also understand the provision was removed because the House was concerned that the alternative standard for low-volume manufacturers is an exemption from meeting CAFE standards. Again, it is my understanding that section 813 is not an exemption because the provision is drafted so that it mirrors current law procedurally in that it authorizes the Secretary of Transportation--again, through NHTSA--to prescribe an alternative fuel economy standard if there is a finding that the petitioning manufacturer's ability to meet the standard prescribed by law is not achievable. Again, there is no provision that allows NHTSA to ``exempt'' a manufacturer. As we read it, the alternative standard must be achieved by the manufacturer in order to achieve compliance and not pay a penalty even if the standard exceeds that which the manufacturer claims it can meet. So in short, there is no exemption from CAFE and the standard established by NHTSA could still result in penalties for noncompliance.

It is also my understanding that the House is not on record as having voted on this provision, and that the House has not passed a CAFE standard this Congress.

Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the exchange between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Texas in a different context. I am sure the theatrics of this morning are entertaining for a few. But for me, they are illustrative of how a broken Congress has real ramifications for the people of the State of Georgia. I hold this seat in the Senate because a majority of Georgians sent me here to vote on their behalf and act on their behalf. But the way in which this session has been managed, the way in which certain pieces of legislation have been managed, the way in which we even are debating this morning in 3 hours of morning business when we should be on the farm bill is causing

pain and suffering to the people I represent. I wish to put meat on those bones.

First, I wish to talk about the veterans bill mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Texas, a bill nobody here really objected to but some objected to and kept it from coming to the floor. It still has not come. It has been objected to this morning. What is the ramification of that on Georgians? The VA hospital in Atlanta, GA, on Claremont Road is a great VA hospital that has been there for years. It has been in terrible need of repair. Three years ago, the Congress authorized and appropriated the money to remodel all the floors of the VA hospital in Atlanta, where today hundreds of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, all the way back to the Korean war, are being attended to. In the last 3 years, three of those floors were redone, but they didn't get the other three done, and they are waiting to be done.

The money, $20.552 million, is in the bank, but the authorization that was passed 3 years ago has expired. As the Chair knows, we don't appropriate without an authorization. We are not supposed to. And if we don't have an authorization, the money is frozen. The ramifications of holding the veterans bill to real Americans, real Georgians, real heroes who served this country in uniform is that those floors set to be remodeled in a hospital for veterans sit there unremodeled. The new equipment, new technology, everything that is in there for veterans is held. The money is in the bank, already appropriated. All we to have do is the authorization. It is in a bill nobody objects to when you talk to them. But continuously it is objected to on the floor of the Senate.

I wish to talk about the ramifications of messaging. There is a new technique we are using now. Instead of sending back a conference report to which a point of order can be raised--I know that is technical jargon--you send a message. You either have to vote up or down. You don't have a chance to amend or to make a point of order. Let's take the Energy bill going back and forth akin to a ping-pong ball. Most recently it came to us as a message, unamendable and no point of order, and we can't debate the dirty little secret that the renewable portfolio standard in the Energy bill benefits certain parts of the United States and is punitive to others. I happen to represent one of those States to which it is punitive. How punitive is it? It is so punitive that by 2020 it will have cost the ratepayers in the State of Georgia to the Southern Company and to the EMCs in our State $8.2 billion. So the tactic being used does not allow me to make that point on the floor or make a point of order or bring it to debate but asks all of us to agree to a proposition that would impose that much damage on the people I represent. That is the ramification of a broken Congress on real people, real Georgians.

I understand the omnibus bill is coming to us as a message as well. There is an amendment in the omnibus bill which is punitive to the State of Georgia. It has been put in outside the process of the committee system and outside the process of debate. I am not going to have a chance to even raise a point of order on that particular amendment. In fact, as the Senator from New Hampshire observed, we didn't pass but one appropriations bill by the time the new fiscal year took place. We have been going back and forth because, instead, we spent most of the year debating 62 separate votes on whether to withdraw our troops from Iraq. In fact, I find it sad that in the 6 months that debate has been going on, the surge has worked by everybody's definition. Progress in Iraq has been of a tremendous advantage. The men and women who have sacrificed and accomplished it and are fighting there today are looking at us playing games with the money to fund the military. It is not only wrong, it is sad. It is time we had an appropriations process that worked in the Senate, not one that is broken.

It is time we looked at ideas such as Senator Domenici's biennial budget, where you appropriate in odd-numbered years and you do oversight in even-numbered years. Wouldn't it be fun to see an even- numbered year election for Congress or President where the debate wasn't on what I was going to appropriate to make you happy but instead the savings I was going to find to make our country run better? Senator Domenici, who is leaving us at the end of next year, has a great proposition. It ought to go. We ought to be appropriating money by the time the fiscal year starts.

The real effect on real Georgians with the process now is that in December of 2007, in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2008, we have Government appropriations policy based on an appropriations bill passed in 2006. The body of knowledge doubles every 7 years. We are still 2 years behind on our appropriations process. Why? Because of the dilatory tactics, because of thematic debates, and all because one side wants to leverage against another, to the detriment of real people.

Lastly, I wish to talk about the real damage of a broken Congress on the appointment process. In today's Executive Calendar, there is a list of any number of appointees to any number of positions in the Government--judicial appointees, Department of Homeland Security appointees, Tennessee Valley Authority appointees, hazardous and chemical waste oversight board appointees. All those appointees have come out of committee; some of them from the committee I am on, Environment and Public Works. They have testified before the committee. They have been subjected to questions. They have been thoroughly vetted, and they have been voted out of committee; in the case of EPW, voted out unanimously.

Last Thursday, there was a move to pass this list, still on the calendar, by unanimous consent. Remember, all these appointees have gone through the committee process. They have been vetted. They have been voted on. They have testified. They have subjected themselves to all the questions we could possibly ask. Yet there was an objection last week. So what is the pain and suffering to the American people? In those four States where judges were asked to be approved, they continue to have a backlog of criminal cases, a backlog of critical cases.

To me and the Members of this body who represent areas that are served by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Congress finally fixed the TVA 2 years ago, got it under new management, into a good system, ran it like a business, appointed a significant board, and now it is time to reappoint three of those members or reappoint two and add one new one from Georgia, I might add. What happens? Somebody says: I object. We are objecting to the American people's business, are objecting to the progress of what this Government was set up to do.

The broken Congress of 2008 has real consequences, not for me but for the people of my State. I will stay until Christmas or New Year's and repeat what I have said until somebody throws the light switch and understands the games we are playing don't affect us; they affect the people who sent us. In the case of the four examples I have given, they affect them negatively.

To that point, I would like to make two unanimous consent requests. The first one is going to be with regard to the TVA board. I wish to repeat one thing I said. They all were approved unanimously. Two of them are reappointments. They are all fine people. TVA has reduced its debt under new management. Congress worked hard to pass this 2 years ago. It is time to have these people seated and working.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 404, 405, and 406; these are three nominations to be members of the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I ask consent that these pending nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I finally ask consent that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations to the judiciary: No. 373, John Tinder to the U.S. Circuit Court for the 7th Circuit;

No. 392, Amul Thapar, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; No. 395, Joseph Laplante, to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Hampshire; and No. 396, Thomas Schroeder, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of North Carolina.

I ask consent that these pending nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that the Senate then resume legislative session.

I understand the Senator from Washington is acting on behalf of her leader. I respect that. But the point I have tried to make in my speech I want to end with. These are seven individuals, four of whom in the judiciary in four States could be processing criminal cases, taking appeals, making the justice system of the United States work. We all know the backlog in the courts. The Presiding Officer is a distinguished attorney. I have heard him talk about that very question. Then the three that were objected to on the Tennessee Valley Authority were approved unanimously. All we are saying to one of the biggest providers of electrical energy in the United States of America that was reformed by this Senate less than 18 months ago is: You are not important enough for us to approve what has already been passed by unanimous consent in committee.

I submit that a broken Congress has real consequences. This Congress is broken, and the consequences are negative on the people of my State of Georgia and the people of the United States.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague, Senator Chambliss.

Mr. President, I have great respect for Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. But I have respect for a lot of other people. One of them was my predecessor, a guy by the name of Zell Miller. From doing a little research about the 2002 farm bill, Zell stood on this floor and spoke. He made a statement I think is worth repeating. He said: This amendment says to those of us in the South one thing--hold on, little catfish, while we gut you.

It should not go without notice the two sponsors of this are from the Midwest. Everybody on the floor talking right now is from the greater Southeast. This is a punitive amendment to a bill they contend on the one hand doesn't constitute reform, but it is probably the most remarkable reform in farm policy in the United States in the history of the Senate. We are moving in the right direction, but we are moving there without destroying family farms. We are moving there without playing favorites in agriculture.

Supporters of this amendment say these payments go to the few and to the big. I couldn't disagree more. This amendment punishes the farmer and his family who depend solely on the farm for their livelihood. Why should we take the greatest, most abundant food supply in the world and try to mess it up. That is exactly what this amendment would do. Don't let these big numbers fool you. These farmers each year take risks equal or greater than those of their brethren in any other business. In fact, just alone, the equipment a farmer buys today in most cases exceeds the cost of the home that most other Americans buy.

Some argue it is wrong for these payments to go to a small number of big farms. But it is these very farms that are producing the vast majority of our agricultural products. We should be supporting those who are fueling the economic engine of our country. Why should anyone want to punish family farmers who have made very large investments in order to become competitive in an international marketplace? Why are we going to hurt farmers who are trying to provide a decent living for their families in the face of tremendous challenges and soaring costs of production? They do not deserve this kind of treatment. With much of our Nation's farmland in a drought and input costs at record highs, why should anyone want to limit assistance during this time, at a time when our farmers need our help and need it most?

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Let's unify America in our ag policy, not have sectional differences, certainly not have sectional penalties. Let's not allow one part of the country to be gutted to the benefit of another.

I yield the floor.

As a Bears fan, I will be happy to relinquish the time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, last week the Middle East observed a historic anniversary, in fact, a historic anniversary for all of mankind, for the 29th of November was the 60th anniversary of the U.N. resolution partitioning the State of Israel and providing a homeland for the Israeli people. I had the opportunity to be in Israel while that celebration was taking place. Another event took place in Annapolis, MD, the home State of the Presiding Officer, last Tuesday, the 28th of November, when 18 Arab Nations, the Palestinian Authority, and Prime Minister Olmert of Israel met in Annapolis, to try to begin the process for the roadmap for peace in the Middle East. I think all of us are encouraged, happy, and rewarded that the result of that conference was an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to try, over the next 12 months, to reach an agreement by the end of 2008, which will in fact bring about peace in the Middle East.

All of us have great hope, but all of us have great wonder how we get from the agreement to try to actually having that happen. Since I had the occasion to be in Israel, I thought I would share for a second the fact that, as complex as the Middle East is, as challenging as the issues are that face the nation of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, there are some simple steps upon which we can build to possibly get to a true roadmap to a lasting peace in the Middle East.

There is no question, from having gone there, that the first step is security. The State of Israel deserves the security to live in peace and without intimidation and without threat. Not long ago, Israel took its settlements out of Gaza, moved those settlements out of Gaza to its perimeter. Within months, Hamas took over as the leading authority in Gaza, a Palestinian area, and instead of securing it for themselves began a method of intimidation and threat and terror against the people of Israel. Last Saturday, I stood on the last Israeli outpost overlooking Gaza, talking to an Israeli man and Israeli woman who lived in the settlement outside of Gaza, as a rocket went off and was fired into that very settlement, a practice that every day continues to take place, to intimidate, to threaten, and to terrorize.

As long as elements of terror such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon continue to disrupt, we will never be able to reach a platform upon which we can have a roadmap to peace. But security could possibly take place. I want to commend the Palestinian Authority on its initial steps in the West Bank, one village at a time, to attempt to bring about peace and security on that side of Israel and in that area of the dilemma.

I met with the Foreign Minister, Riyad Maliki, of the Palestinian Authority, who passionately convinced me that he and his leadership are interested in seeing to it that they deliver on that security, because they understand that without security there can never be any peace, without peace there can never be a Palestinian State.

This President, George Bush, whom I commend for bringing about the Annapolis conference, was very courageous 6 years ago when as President of the United States he declared he would support a homeland and security for the Palestinian people, right after the Palestinians and the people of the Middle East accepted and acknowledged Israel's right to exist and respected its state.

I believe the desire is in the Palestinian people to have their homeland. I believe the will is there to see to it that is accomplished. But as long as terror, through the elements of Hamas and Hezbollah, continue to threaten and intimidate the people of Israel, it will never happen.

So the first step, following that agreement at Annapolis, is for the Palestinian Authority to secure Gaza and to secure the West Bank. But you do not go to the Middle East, as I have four times in the last 5 years, and not realize in the end it is also all about Iran.

As long as there are state sponsors of terrorism, whether it be Hezbollah or Hamas or whether it be infiltration of terrorists or IEDs into Iraq, you can never truly have peace and security.

But this President deserves great credit for setting up the conference at Annapolis. Condoleezza Rice deserves great credit for five times traveling to the Middle East, from one Arab state to the other, encouraging those states to attend. It should not go unnoticed by anybody, us in America and Ahmadinejad in Iran, that when finally pressed, the 18 Arab states all came to Annapolis because, in the end, they all want peace. But in the absence of security and the presence of terror it cannot happen.

I commend our President for bringing about the conference in Annapolis. I commend the people of Israel for making the first step in Gaza and acknowledge their concern now that that first step has only been rewarded with acts of terror against their own people and encourage the Palestinian Authority to continue to work in the West Bank, and later in Gaza, to root out terrorism, bring about security, so the State of Palestine and the State of Israel can live in harmony. And for us in the free world, one of the biggest threats to our security is lessened because people are living together in peace and not in terror and not in fear.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge the great ally we have in Israel, the resilience of their people, to that young man and woman I met on the hill overlooking Gaza, who daily meet the threats of rockets coming from terrorists, and let them know that we in America are with them, and one day peace and security can become a reality if we begin to get the security in

the areas of the West Bank and in Gaza.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Ranking Member Enzi for his kind remarks and his tremendous dedication and commitment to bringing this conference report to the floor. I particularly want to thank Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, who is a consummate legislator by anybody's definition and a very committed individual in the development of our youth and the betterment of education.

As Senator Enzi said, about a decade ago I served as chairman of the State Board of Education in the administration of my predecessor in this seat who was then Governor Zell Miller. Those were the years that the breakthrough brain research came forward and illustrated conclusively that there is a direct correlation between early childhood development and the potential development of a person as an adult. We worked very hard together in Georgia to improve the plight of all Georgians and did everything we could to develop new programs. One of them that we developed was none other than the 4-year-old prekindergarten program which now is available to every child in Georgia. It is a program that builds on the fact that the earlier you can begin instruction, the earlier you can improve the environment and the atmosphere in which a child is exposed, the better that child is going to do.

It is critical for us, if we want to turn around the trend in terms of dropouts in this country, to see to it that we enhance and enrich the lives of every single student who is going to go to our public schools.

Mr. President, it is conclusive that the environment in which a child lives in their early years--that to which they are exposed, their nutrition, the total environment--is directly a correlation to their ability to learn. The Head Start Program is designed to get to those children most in need for quality support, for uplift, for a greater self-esteem, and for a leg up, a chance to get to go to a 4-year-old prekindergarten program or to a kindergarten program ready to learn.

USA Today ran an article about a week ago talking about America's dropout factories, and it enumerated schools in almost every State, with dropout rates of 40, 50, 60 percent. If you looked at the facts around those articles and those schools, you would find a common denominator: Those schools' children came from the least of backgrounds, with the least support, and from the poorest of environments. We have an obligation to ourselves and, as Senator Alexander said, America's future to see to it that every American child arrives at kindergarten or first grade ready to learn. The advancement of programs such as Head Start will make that happen.

I commend Senators Alexander, Enzi, and Kennedy, Congressmen Miller and McKeon, and all those who worked on this important legislation. I urge every Member to cast a favorable vote in favor of a better atmosphere for our young children to grow up in, better exposure to those things that help them go to school ready to learn, and turn around the paradigm on dropouts in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to rise and speak on the Water Resources Development Act, and I wish to, first of all, thank Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe of the EPW Committee for all the work they have done on the WRDA--Water Resources Development Act--and I wish to particularly thank my colleague, Max Baucus, as he is chairman, and I am the ranking member of the subcommittee overseeing the Corps of Engineers and the Water Resources Development Act. I voted for it on the floor, and today, when the vote comes to override the veto of the President, I am going to vote to override the veto. I wish to enter into the record today, specifically and candidly and briefly, exactly the reasons why.

No. 1, the Water Resources Development Act is an authorization, not appropriations. To characterize it as overspending is not correct because it is the appropriations bill where we do that.

No. 2, authorizations set priorities, priorities upon which the Appropriations Committee makes decisions based on the money it has and on where best to spend the resources we have.

No. 3, as for the size of the authorization, everyone should know that up until the year 2000, this Senate, and the House on the other end of this building, biannually passed Water Resources Development Act reauthorizations. We have gone 7 years without prioritizing the Corps of Engineers and the water resources of this country.

Think about what has happened in those 7 years--Rita and Katrina in particular; from my standpoint, in my State of Georgia, a category 4, 100-year drought threatening the drinking water of millions and millions of Georgians, North Carolinians, Tennesseans, and Alabamans. In this bill is money for the North Metro Planning District of Georgia, a consolidation of all the governments in the region, to coordinate water resource development so we can better deal with retention, saving water as it flows downstream so we can have drinking water assurances and we can have backup that allows us to assure our citizens when another 100-year drought, category 4 drought comes, that we will have done the planning necessary to deal with it, which right now has not been done. For this bill to be vetoed is to say no to an imminent priority in my State and for tens of millions of people in the Southeast.

So while I have complete respect for the President of the United States, and I commend him on so many things and don't like to vote against him, he is wrong to veto this bill. I will be proud to vote to override that veto because I wish to prioritize infrastructure for our country on a timely basis; I wish to give the appropriators the indications of what we, as a Congress, think are the most needed programs to be appropriated; I wish to deal with the ramifications and the disaster of Katrina and Rita, to see that it doesn't happen again; I want the Everglades project to go forward; and I want my State and my people to have the drinking water and the water resources necessary.

For us to delay or for us to deny would be wrong. We will have fights on the appropriations bills over how much money to spend. We should never have a fight on our responsibility to prioritize the needs of our States or the needs of our citizens. I commend Chairman Boxer, I commend Senator Inhofe and Senator Baucus for their hard work, and I will join with them in voting to override the veto and set the priorities for the citizens of my State and for the United States in the years to come on their water resources.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Chambliss of Georgia in paying tribute to Ed and Mary Ettel, my neighbors, as a matter of fact, in East Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia. I live about a mile and a half from their home, and my son and daughter-in-law attend Mount Bethel United Methodist Church, where they are active members, a great church with a great minister, Randy Mickler, who does such a good job inspiring his congregation to do so many good things.

Ed and Mary do a tremendous service to our men and women in harm's way. I add my praise of them to the praise of Senator Chambliss. I thank them for the example they set and the blessing they are to our soldiers.

I too want to talk for a second about Iraq, about the war in Iraq, and refresh some memories. Twice this year on the floor of this Senate, once before Memorial Day and once before the August break, we had heated 1-week-long debates of whether the United States of America should declare that we have lost and should leave Iraq. In fact, earlier this year, one Member of this body actually declared the war was lost. Well, as Senator Chambliss has acknowledged, things have turned in Iraq. And they have turned because of the sacrifice of our young men and women fighting in harm's way. They have turned because of the determination of a President who understands the threat of terrorism around the world, and the agents of terror, and those who would harbor terrorists. Iraq is turning. We cannot declare victory in the sense of a declaration of it being lost was declared earlier this year, but we can declare and acknowledge that progress has been made and the country has accomplished a number of the enumerated goals we set out to accomplish when we went into Iraq.

In fact, if everyone will recall the President's speech 4 days before we went into Iraq, he established three goals for this country going into Iraq. No. 1 was to depose Saddam Hussein, and to find those weapons of mass destruction or their components that U.N. Resolution 1441 declared were there; second, to allow the Iraqi people to hold free elections and to write a constitution of their own, and establish a government of their determination; third was to train the Iraqi military to a capability of defending that new fledgling government.

Saddam Hussein has been deposed, was tried by a jury of his peers under Iraqi law. There are those who say we found no weapons of mass destruction, but they overlooked all of the components that we found, Scud missiles buried in the sand between Damascus and Baghdad, elements of sarin gas, 4 of the 7 mobile biological labs, 400,000 bodies in mass graves; all the signs, the telltale signs of the horror and the terror of mass destruction.

Goal No. 2, the Iraqis held free elections in 14 months, wrote a constitution, established the government. Mission accomplished there.

And then, No. 3, to train the Iraqi military sufficiently to sustain peace

for that fledgling government. We are not there yet, but we are moving so much closer. It should be noted that a few weeks ago, when all the press noted the British had left Basra and what a disappointment that was, nobody took note of the fact that it was the Iraqi army that replaced them, not the American army, not coalition forces but the Iraqi army, trained and capable of doing it.

Of the al-Qaida operatives who have been captured or killed in the last 6 weeks, the majority of them have been operations of Iraqi soldiers, not American soldiers. The fact is, goal No. 3, training an adequate and sufficient military to protect the fledgling government, is not at hand, but it is getting closer.

So it is time today, on the week before the Veterans Day holiday, and Veterans Day in this country, to pay tribute to the men and women who have sacrificed for this country, for freedom, and for the fight in the war on terrorism.

I carry with me a dogtag. This dogtag is SGT Mike Stokely's. Sergeant Stokely was killed in Iraq in September of 2005. I met his dad shortly after he had lost his son and, in fact, had lunch with his dad 3 weeks ago in Fayetteville, GA. I wanted to pay tribute to Mike and Noah Harris, another soldier from Georgia whose parents I have spent so much time with, and reflect for a moment on what they always tell me every time I see them. They said: Make sure you tell people that my son did not fight and die in vain, but what he sacrificed for is a country that seeks to end terror, end the threat of terror, and promote democracy around the world.

Well, to Bob Stokely, Mike's dad, to Lisa Harris, Noah's mom, I say: They did not die in vain. The evidence in Iraq across the board is proving that their hard work and their sacrifice has made a difference. If we can stay the course, support our troops, finish the training of the Iraqi military, the American forces can leave in large amount and leave the Iraqis to protect that free, self-determined government of their own.

It is time we acknowledge the success of our men and women in the U.S. military. It is time for us to say thank you for what they have done, and to look to the day that their effort makes us as Americans and the world a safer and a better place. Yes, the Iraq news is good. The war is not over. The progress is great, we need to stay the course, and finish the deal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I honor in the Record of the Senate Jack Spalding Schroder, Jr. of Atlanta, who is a great Georgian and a great American. I honor Jack upon his retirement from Alston & Bird and for his work on behalf of the Georgia Hospital Association.

For nearly 32 years, Jack has served as lead legal counsel for the Georgia Hospital Association as an employee of Alston & Bird and its predecessor. He has served alongside three different association presidents, beginning with Seldon Brown in 1975, and he has authored numerous articles on hospitals and healthcare. He helped pave the way in the 1980s for public, not-for-profit hospitals to transfer leadership to not-for-profit governing boards that reduced political pressures and enhanced fundraising abilities. His efforts culminated in a major judicial victory at the Georgia Supreme Court.

Jack helped craft Georgia's first-ever Certificate of Need law, a law designed to control rising health care costs and preserve access to hospital services for all Georgians. In the past 10 years, while political pressures have forced other states to abandon Certificate of Need, Jack has been instrumental in helping Georgia preserve its successful Certificate of Need program.

Jack also helped shape important pieces of indigent care-related legislation that were designed to preserve access to care for hundreds of thousands of indigent patients while strengthening Georgia's local, community hospitals.

In addition to his role as lead legal counsel for the Georgia Hospital Association, Jack has served as president of the Georgia Academy of Health Care Attorneys as well as on the boards of a number of prominent health care law groups such as the Atlanta Bar Association and the American Health Lawyers Association.

Jack has served as a tireless advocate for enhancing Georgia hospitals' ability to provide quality, cost-effective health care services to every Georgia resident. He and his wife Karen have earned the many happy years of retirement ahead of them.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the U.S. Senate the contributions of Jack Schroder to the health care industry, to the Georgia Hospital Association and to the State of Georgia.