Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to honor in the Record the Senior League team of Cartersville, GA, on their victory in the 2007 Senior League World Series.

These fine young men played outstanding baseball through the entire tournament, but in the World Series Championship game, they soared and played like true professionals. In their final game, Chris Huth pitched a complete game one-hitter and Cole Montgomery hit a three-run home run to lead their team to a dominating victory over the defending champion Falcon, Venezuela.

These are special young men: Garison Boston, Ben Bridges, Trey Dickson, Brad Green, Taylor Greene, Tyler Higgins, Chris Huth, Tyler Linn, Levi Mauldin, Colton Montgomery, Cole Payne, Zack Philliber, Hank Stewart, and Tyler Williams. The men have brought great pride to their State, great pride to their parents, and great pride to the great city of Cartersville, GA.

Their manager Eric Stewart and coaches Jeff Payne and Mark Montgomery each deserve strong recognition for guiding these young players to victory.

I am pleased to join Senator Chambliss in acknowledging the great achievement of these young men and to extend my deepest congratulations to the 2007 Senior League World Series Champions, the Senior League team of Cartersville, GA.

Mr. President, I honor two of my constituents on a very special and rare milestone. Later this month, Mary and Bill Kirchner of Atlanta will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.

Mary and Bill were married on September 28, 1957, in Grosse Pointe, MI, bringing together two of that city's longtime families--the Fitzsimons and the Kirchners. The next 50 years took Mary and Bill from Michigan to South Carolina and finally to Georgia, where they have lived since 1988.

Bill was a homebuilder in Michigan and on Hilton Head Island, SC, and later started his own property rental business on the island. Mary started her own successful business on Hilton Head called The Welcome Mat, then switched careers and put her salesmanship to good use selling real estate. When they moved to Atlanta, Mary and Bill decided to try an entirely new business venture by opening an antique consignment shop. Sixteen years later, Now & Again remains a beautiful and popular shop in Buckhead. In fact, my wife Dianne has been a customer. Although they have certainly earned the right to retire, Mary and Bill still run their shop 6 days a week with the help of a great staff.

While their professional lives have been an adventure, Mary and Bill made their biggest life-changing decision early on in their marriage. On a chilly February day in 1964, a nervous Mary and Bill arrived at an adoption agency in Michigan hoping to hear that they would be allowed to adopt a baby. Instead, the agency asked if Mary and Bill would like to go home with 6-month-old twin girls. The shocked couple said yes and forever changed the lives of those twins, Sarah and Joan, for the better.

Their daughter Sarah is now married to Stephen Midas and works as a stay-at-home mom to four children in Chesapeake, VA, and also does some bookkeeping for Mary and Bill's shop. Their daughter Joan and her daughter live in Washington, DC, and Joan has gone from covering politics as an AP reporter in Atlanta to now working for some of those same elected officials she used to cover. I happen to be one of those, and Joan now serves on my staff in Washington. I know Mary and Bill are very proud of both their daughters.

I join with Joan, Sarah, Stephen and their children--Alex, Ben, Anna, Josie and Isabel--in congratulating Mary and Bill Kirchner on reaching their golden anniversary. Their marriage and their commitment to each other is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity. Before I make my speech, I join the two leaders in expressing my joy at the return of Senator Johnson. He has suffered a tragic event, but his grit, his determination, and I think the prayers of the entire Senate have paid off. I am delighted he is returning to this body, with us, at 2:15 p.m. today.

Mr. President, I spent the month of August on our break traveling the State of Georgia and did it for a specific reason. I knew that September 15 would be the report period for Ambassador Crocker and for General Petraeus. I knew it was very important for me as a Senator to go to the people of Georgia and find out what was on their minds.

As I introduced myself in every speech I made, I said: As a Member of the Senate, and with our men and women deployed in harm's way, it is absolutely incumbent upon me, first and foremost, to address the Iraq war, to address my votes, and to hear from the people of Georgia on what they feel.

When I returned to the Senate last night and I was on the floor, I had the occasion to listen to a speech by the Senator from New York, questioning, again, our involvement in Iraq and, even in advance of the Petraeus report, taking a position that whatever it was, it would not be good enough and the United States of America should withdraw. So I thought today I would come to the floor and speak not only my mind but I think the consensus of the people of Georgia regarding where we are now and where we may be in the months ahead.

I visited civic clubs, chambers of commerce, garden clubs, the State chamber of commerce and sat for a meaningful hour with Lucy and Rick Harris, the parents of LT Noah Harris, who died 2 years ago fighting for the United States of America in Iraq. I tried to get every perspective. I even spent half a day with new recruits at Fort Benning at the Third ID on their fourth day of basic training.

Next week is an important week for the United States of America, and the report by General Petraeus is an important report. There are some Members of the Senate who are invested in, whatever it says, staying the course, there are some who are invested in coming home no matter what it says, when, in fact our actions should lie between. We should wait and hear what the general says. We should wait and hear what Ambassador Crocker says. But also it is time for us to start thinking about defining what victory is rather than declaring, as some have done, that we have lost.

We all know there are positive words coming back from Iraq. We know some positive things have happened. But we know it is not done, and we know it is not over. But I think, in defining what victory is, it is important to remember the speech the President of the United States made the day before we all voted to authorize the engagement in Iraq and enforcement of U.N. Resolution 1441.

The President established three precise goals for our involvement in Iraq. No. 1 was to depose Saddam Hussein and find, if they existed, the weapons of mass destruction that every nation in the world thought Saddam Hussein had and U.N. Resolution 1441 delineated; second, to allow the Iraqi people to hold free elections and establish a government of their choosing; and the third goal was to adequately train the Iraqi military so it could successfully defend and protect that fledgling new Government.

On goal No. 1, Saddam Hussein was captured, he was deposed, he was tried by the people of Iraq, and he was executed.

On the weapons of mass destruction, there are those who say we didn't find them. We found all the components. The problem when you find a weapon of mass destruction, when you have a smoking gun, it has already gone off. So sometimes finding the components

is better. We did find Scud missiles buried in the sand between Damascus and Baghdad in Iraq, we found traces of sarin gas, we found mobile biological laboratories dismantled, and we found mass graves where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had been killed. The evidence was there.

Second, in terms of the Government and establishing elections, the Iraqi people in 18 months held three elections, wrote a constitution, and established a government. Goal 2 accomplished.

Goal 3, to adequately train the Iraqi Army so it could defend the people of Iraq and that fledgling government. I think it is very instructive to recognize what has happened in recent days and in past months. Yesterday, the British left Basra, and as they left Basra and their post, who replaced them? Not the American military but the Iraqi military, a clear and distinct sign that the Iraqi military is gaining the ability to defend this fledgling country on their own.

Second, what happened 3 weeks ago. We finally captured and killed the bomber who set off the mosque bombing that set off the sectarian violence about a year and a half ago. Who captured him? Mr. President, 1,000 Iraqi troops with close air support by America, but the ground action was the Iraqis. On the ``clear and hold and secure'' of the surge, we have Americans and Iraqi soldiers embedded, side by side, holding those parts of Baghdad that we have secured, holding them so reconstruction can take place.

We are making positive steps, and we are on the cusp of the third goal being accomplished. We are not there yet, but we are on the cusp of it.

Where are we? We need to listen to what General Petraeus comes back and recommends, and Ambassador Crocker. I will not prejudge what the report will say because I have not seen it yet, but I think we all know there is enough evidence that we are coming close that it is very important we pay attention to the months ahead, which will be the most critical in our engagement in Iraq.

To that end, I want to share a little bit of the advice of a good friend to me, Lucy Harris, in Ellijay, GA. Lucy and I and her husband Rick and her late son Noah's fiancee--he was killed in Iraq--sat with a reporter and photographer from the Washington Post, and they recorded our conversation that particular day for an article they wrote recently. But I want to share with the Members the Senate some of the advice Lucy gave to me. She lost her only son. Her only son was a cheerleader at the University of Georgia on 9/11/2001 who, upon that tragic day, walked up to the military ROTC on campus as a junior and said: I want to join and get a commission.

They said: You can't because you don't have enough time. You have to have 2 years.

He said: I will make up the time.

Finally, the Army reluctantly agreed, and sure enough, in 18 months Noah Harris got his commission in ROTC and became a second lieutenant in the U.S. military. He volunteered because he wanted to confront the evil and terror he saw on that particular day.

He was known as the Beanie Baby soldier in Iraq. He led a platoon in Iraq, and he carried, in one big pocket on his right leg, bullets, and in another big pocket on his left leg he carried Beanie Babies, and he shared them with the Iraqi kids as he would go through securing and patrolling areas of Baghdad. His unit started carrying Beanie Babies and other good things for the Iraqi kids. While defending freedom and hopefully securing that country, he was also winning the minds of those children.

Tragically, he was lost in the explosion of an IED in Iraq. I attended his funeral and saw the outpouring of love from a thousand people in his community. So when Lucy sat down last week in Ellijay, GA, her advice to me was important and her advice to me was what appears on their car's license plate: IDWIC, those letters, because her son, Noah, who e-mailed back and forth with me before his tragic passing, always said: IDWIC--I do what I can. That was his motto. That is why he went to Iraq, to do what he could for freedom and democracy, for peace and to end terror.

That is what his mom Lucy and Rick do today--they do what they can. In their comments to the reporter, when asked what they think about all the debate going on in Washington about Iraq, Lucy said: I think the debate is healthy. I watch it. I think it is important. I think we should all do what we can, but we need to make sure that my son Noah did not die in vain.

To that end, as I approach the votes we will take--I don't know on what, but I know it will be about Iraq--in the months and weeks ahead following the Petraeus report, I will do what I can to give us a chance to finish the job, win the victory the President outlined at the outset 5 years ago on our entering Iraq, and honor and pay tribute to the sacrifice of the 3,700 or more Americans who have given their lives in the effort of the overall war on terror and in particular the securing of Iraq and the opportunity for a fledgling democracy to take hold in the Middle East.

These are difficult times but not nearly as difficult for us as for the men and women who voluntarily go because they believe in our cause. I stand here today in the Senate hoping that all of us will not prejudge what Ambassador Crocker will say, or General Petraeus, nor should we declare defeat when we have victory within reach, nor should we declare victory if it is not there. But we should move forward in order to honor the sacrifice of the men and women who fight for our country voluntarily every day.

For me, I am going to do what I can. I am going to take Lucy Harris and Rick Harris and Ashley's advice. I am going to honor the life of Noah by listening closely to the report, by recognizing why we went in the first place, and see to it we give ourselves a chance to declare the victory that has been so bravely fought for by the men and women of the U.S. military.

I hope we will all have open minds and open hearts and give thanks for the sacrifices taking place and recognize again why we went in the first place and recognize again how close we are to achieving our goals.

I yield the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Chambliss for this opportunity. I am pleased to join him in paying tribute to the Warner Robins Little League. I associate myself with all his remarks.

Dalton Carriker's walk-off home run in extra innings was a thrill. Kendall Scott's great relief pitching was a thrill. But what was the most thrilling thing of all, because I got home in time to watch the end of that game, were the actions of those kids in response to the despair of the Japanese kids. In fact, I want to quote from a news article. A reporter interviewed Kendall Scott, the winning pitcher, after the end of the game when he gazed across the field and saw the Japanese players all on their knees in tears, disappointed in their loss. Kendall Scott said the following:

They don't disrespect, they're very disciplined and they're

some of the nicest kids you'll ever meet in your entire life.

Just seeing them fall down and cry, you just couldn't let

them do that--you gotta pick them up.

Having had two boys who went through Little League, having worked in baseball as a youngster myself, I know one of the goals of Little League is to instill good sportsmanship and teamwork on behalf of players. I commend manager Mickey Lay and coaches Mike Conlon, Tommy Morris, and Mike Smith for the discipline, the teamwork, and the respect they instilled in these young men, because at the height of their victory, zenith of their young careers, they stopped their celebration to console those they had defeated on the field. That shows that Little League and its goals of teaching teamwork and sportsmanship are alive and well, not just in Warner Robins, GA but throughout the United States. I am pleased to join my colleague and commend the Warner Robins Little League on their victory and remind everyone, that is back to back for Georgia. Columbus, GA won last year. Warner Robins won this year. We will try for a trifecta next year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor in the Record the grand opening of the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre.

The Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre is the first major performing arts facility built in metro Atlanta in four decades and upon opening will immediately become the new home of the Atlanta Opera.

A great deal of planning has gone into the development of this state- of-the-art landmark on Atlanta's horizon by great friends and community leaders such as Earl Smith, Travis Duke, Johnny Gresham, Max Bacon, Bill Dunaway, Sam Olens, Robert Voyles, and Michele Swann. Special gratitude also goes to John Williams, a great benefactor and the namesake of this grand 2,750-seat theatre.

The arts are an essential ingredient for the quality of life of a community and the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre will improve the quality of life not just for the community of Cobb but for the entire metropolitan Atlanta region and the Southeastern United States.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the Senate the grand opening of the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre. I congratulate the community on this wonderful new crown jewel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes, and at 6 minutes, if I am still speaking, will the Chair please let me know.

Mr. President, there have been some in the leadership of the majority, a few months ago, who declared the war in Iraq was lost. There have been others who have been invested in two significant debates we have had over withdrawing precipitously without any consideration for the consequences. I have steadfastly supported our effort in the global war on terror and, in particular, our effort in Iraq, cautious to understand we have had difficulties and we have made mistakes. But today I rise to ask those who have, in the past, declared defeat or withdrawal to consider the alternative should America win.

Yesterday, in the New York Times, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon wrote a significant editorial--neither one an advocate, per se, of the war and the surge--that said this is a war we might win. News that comes today from the Christian Science Monitor declares a precipitous decline in the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers and casualties and a tremendous decrease in IEDs.

On Monday night, the people of Iraq in every city, hamlet, and town turned out in the streets, and without a single injury, they celebrated the victory of the Iraqi soccer team in the Asian soccer games.

We must ask the question: What do we say if, in fact, the tide has turned and we are winning? I think there may be some who will try and redescribe what victory is, and for that purpose, I wish to describe and remind everybody of what we already declared victory would be.

When President Bush asked all of us, and I supported going into Iraq to enforce Resolution 1441 of the United Nations with 29 other partners, we declared three goals: One, to find the weapons of mass destruction and to depose Saddam Hussein; two, to allow the Iraqis the chance to hold free elections and write a constitution; and, three, to train the Iraqi military so it was capable of defending the people of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is gone, tried by his people and gone from this planet. Weapons of mass destruction--no smoking gun was found, but all the components were Scud missiles buried in the sand, elements of sarin gas in the Euphrates River, some of the biological mobile laboratories we thought were there were found, and 400,000 bodies in 8 mass graves near Baghdad in Iraq. So that was accomplished.

Second, the Iraqis held three elections, wrote a constitution, and now meet in a parliamentary form of government. It may not be everything we like, but it is their Government and their progress, and America gave them the opportunity to do it.

Now today in Iraq on the ground, Shiites who fought against us have joined with us against al-Qaida. Sunnis who fought against us have joined us in fighting against al-Qaida. In Ramadi, the streets are clear. The people in Baghdad are happy the American soldiers are there and afraid American soldiers may leave precipitously.

We are on the cusp of meeting the third goal. Iraqi troops--it is being recognized now--Iraqi battalions have, in some cases--not all, in some cases--demonstrated the capability of holding the areas Americans have secured. America's soldiers are in the same camps with Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish soldiers of the Iraqi military.

This war is not over, but two-thirds of the goals we established are accomplished, and the third goal is within our reach. When we look in the next 6 weeks toward September 15--and I don't know what General Petraeus is going to say, but I know what the New York Times is saying, I know what the Christian Science Monitor is saying, I know what the Georgia soldiers I talk with or get e-mails from on the ground are saying, I know what the attitude and morale of the American soldiers is and the hopes and aspirations of the American people. Today I ask that as we get ready to break, as we wait for the report on September 15, we need to be prepared for victory, not invested in defeat.

This has been a tough battle. Some of my friends in Georgia have lost their children. They have fought for a dream Americans have fought for since this great Republic was founded, and that is the right to self- determine your future.

I hope the Government of al-Maliki will accomplish some reconciliation. I hope they will accomplish a hydrocarbon deal. I hope debaathification can work. But I hope we would not declare failure when, in fact, we have the opportunity it looks like to succeed. A lot of brave young men and women in America have invested their lives in the chance to win a victory, not for ourselves but for mankind, for civility, for peace, for democracy, and for all the principles upon which this country was founded.

So I hope for those who have been invested in the possibility that we will fail, that they will get equally invested in the probability or possibility that we will succeed and that together, as a Congress, we can reward those who fought so valiantly and see to it that one more democracy is born in the Middle East of this world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared this morning in the Christian Science Monitor and yesterday's article of Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 2392, the Isakson- Chambliss amendment, be called forward.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I ask unanimous consent--I am going to speak briefly--Senator Chambliss be allowed to speak immediately after me.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks that I have been able to hear this morning by Senator Gregg, Senator Sessions, Senator Graham, and others. I rise to bring forward--I cannot bring it forward because they will not let me call it up, but at least talk about amendment 2392 offered by myself and Senator Chambliss from Georgia. To that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record our joint letters--Senator Chambliss and my joint letters-- of June 12 and July 12.

Mr. President, the reason I entered these two letters is they reflect precisely what the amendment does. The amendment offered is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It is the sense of the Senate that expresses the following: This is a team sport. It takes the executive and the legislative branch to get our Nation secured, our homeland security, and in this case, our borders secured. The letters I submitted by Senator Chambliss and myself are letters to the President of the United States--one submitted during the debate on immigration, one submitted 2 weeks following the debate on immigration--asking the President of the United States to send an emergency supplemental to the floor of the House and Senate to fund all of the border security measures we have passed, such as the fence bill, which we authorized last year, and the five key provisions of the immigration bill that were lost that deal with border security. That is Border Patrol agents; the unmanned aerial vehicles and ground positioning radar; it is detention facilities; and, most importantly, most importantly, it is the biometrical secure ID which gives you the redundancy to see to it that we finally stop the forged document business, close the border, remove the attractive nuisance to come to America, and motivate people to go back and come in the right way and the legal way.

Some may say, well, an emergency supplemental is not the way to go. I would submit it is the only way to go. If anybody doesn't think this is an

emergency, I don't know about your phone system, but mine broke down with the volume of calls we had last month. The Senate broke down with the volume of calls and the weight and the complexity of this issue. But, most importantly of all, we broke down because the people of the United States do not have the confidence in this Congress or the President that they will secure the border.

There is no question that this country needs an immigration policy system that works for high skilled, moderately skilled and lower skilled. There is no question that we need to review our entire immigration system. There is no question it needs fixing. But there is equally no question that is never going to take place until the American people feel we have secured the homeland and, in particular, have secured the border to the South with Mexico.

We know what it takes to do it. It is delineated in the bill that was on the floor of the Senate a month ago. We know what it takes to do it. We know how to do it. In fact, in the last year, we developed an entire new system of building fences that has allowed us to accelerate barrier construction along the border. It is being done right now at San Luis, between San Luis and Yuma, AZ. I have been there and seen it. It speeds up the system, and it is foolproof. It gets the redundancy we need in our security system to make it work.

I am not asking the Senate to do anything I have not asked the President of the United States to do. I think every day we wait is a serious mistake. We know it will take a minimum of 24 months to do the biometric ID, train the number of Border Patrol officers we need to add, build the 30,000 detention cells, put the unmanned aerial vehicles in the sky, and get the ground positioning radar and ground sensor systems in. We know it is going to take 24 months. But it is going to take 24 months from when we finally have the political courage and will to fund the money. The only way to ensure that is for us to join hands with the President, pass a singular bill without any other subject on it, that appropriates the emergency funds necessary to accomplish those things.

It is not complicated, and I do not think it should be controversial. It is my hope when the majority reads this amendment and decides on whatever their posturing would be on this bill, that they understand this is a clear, concise message that a unanimous Senate should send to the President of the United States to see to it that we start that 24- month clock by funding the money and appropriating it and getting the job done. This issue is too critical; it is too important. It is job one and we must do it now.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, June 12, 2007.

President George W. Bush,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: Although the Senate's effort to reform

our nation's immigration laws through the Secure Borders,

Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is

stalled, illegal immigration remains our nation's number one

domestic issue. We therefore believe it is incumbent upon us

and our colleagues to tackle this issue and not leave this

problem for future generations to solve.

As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our

constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is

that they have no trust that the United States Government

will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and

secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the

mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our

immigration laws. Understandably, the lack of credibility the

federal government has on this issue gives merit to the

skepticism of many about future immigration reform.

We believe the way to build greater support for immigration

reform in the United States Senate and among the American

public is to regain the trust in the ability of the federal

government to responsibly administer immigration programs and

enforce immigration laws. There is bipartisan agreement that

we need to secure our borders first, and we believe this

approach will serve as a platform towards addressing the

other issues surrounding immigration reform.

To that end, we believe that you and your administration

could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by

calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the

border and interior security initiatives contained in

legislation currently pending in the Senate, as well as any

outstanding existing authorizations. Such a move would show

your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping

the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It

will also work towards restoring the credibility of the

federal government on this critical issue.

We urge you to carefully consider this request, and thank

you for the opportunity to express the views of the people of

Georgia on this matter.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss,

Senator.

Johnny Isakson,

Senator.

Mr. President, I wish to honor in the Record of the Senate my friend Warren Herron, who is a great Georgian, a great American, and a great citizen of Cobb County.

Warren Herron was the most important positive influence on my decision to enter public life. His active political participation and bipartisan approach is the role model I aspire to emulate to this day. He has given unselfishly of himself to make his community better through his work, his church and the Republican Party.

Warren was the first chairman of the Cobb County Board of Elections and Registration when it was created in 1985. As chairman, a post he held until January 1993, he shaped the organization through the creation of its policies and bylaws. He was known as a guiding force who led his team to a higher level by example, and his contributions can still be seen in the board today.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the floor of the Senate the contributions of Warren Herron to Cobb County and the State of Georgia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators on our side be recognized in the following order: Senator Isakson from Georgia, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, Senator Thune of South Dakota, and Senator Snowe of Maine, alternating with the designees of the other side.

Mr. President, I rise to address the issue before the Senate. I have stayed all night and listened to remarks from my colleagues on both sides. I have tremendous respect for each and every one of them.

I do have some issues, however, with some rhetorical questions that have been asked and not responded to and I think are some voices that have been referred to that have not been really answered that I would like to address in my few minutes.

First of all, the Levin-Reed amendment specifically calls for a withdrawal beginning 120 days from now and completed by the spring of next year. Unconditional, notwithstanding whatever action may be taking place on the ground, what progress may or may not have been made, a precipitous and a final withdrawal.

What I would like to talk about is something that no one has mentioned; that is, the consequences if that actually takes place. I would like to do it in the context of the rhetorical question that was asked by the Senator from New Jersey, who asked the question: How many more lives?

His reference, I know, was to the soldiers in the American and the allied forces in Iraq. But the question is meritorious as a response to the consequences of a Levin-Reed amendment passing.

I joined the Foreign Relations Committee this year, as the Presiding Officer has as well. I noted that he did what I did. He sat through almost all of the hearings we had in January and February on the question of the surge and the question of withdrawal and redeployment. We all heard the same thing. Expert after expert argued over whether the surge would or would not work, or the degree to which it would work.

But no one, no one--from former Secretary Madeline Albright or former Secretary Colin Powell to John Murtha, the representative in the Congress, to Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker, all of whom testified, and 20 others, everyone said the result of a withdrawal or redeployment at that period in January would mean countless untold loss of life in Iraq. And most of them said it would cause a great loss of life in the entire Middle East.

I have had visits from representatives of other Middle Eastern countries who have said: Please do not have a precipitous withdrawal because we will not be able to contain the sectarian violence that will certainly follow.

Now, does that mean we should remain as an occupying peacekeeper? No. But it means if we have objectives and benchmarks for victory, we should give ourselves the chance for that to take place.

In May of this year, we had the debate we are having again today. In May of this year, on the Iraqi supplemental--which was to fund the war in Iraq for our soldiers--we had this debate on whether we should withdraw. We decided not to do it. And that was the right decision. We further decided to put some benchmarks, that we should judge the merits of our progress in part by July 15, and then later on September 15. The President reported 3 days early on July 15 the progress that has been made.

Some has been made, some has not been made. But we all determined that it would be September, and the report of General Petraeus, the man we unanimously put in charge of the battle, as to whether we went forward, proceeded the way we were or changed our strategy.

I do not know what the results of the September 15 report are going to be, but I know I agree with the lady by the name of Lucy Harris. Lucy is the kind of person to whom we ought to all listen. Her son, Noah, 1LT Noah Harris, died in Iraq 2 years ago. He was an e-mail buddy with me during his tour, so I knew a little bit about why he was there and what he believed.

Noah Harris was a young man who, on September 11, 2001, was at the University of Georgia and a cheerleader. The day the incident, terrible incident took place in New York City, Noah Harris went straight to Army ROTC as a junior ROTC, applied for ROTC, studied to become a commissioned officer, solely because of the inspiration he had gotten from seeing that tragedy and knowing that he wanted to represent his country and do something to pursue terrorism.

He went in the Army in 2004, was on the ground in Iraq, became known as the Beanie Baby Soldier because in the one pocket he carried bullets, in the other he carried Beanie Babies. He befriended the Iraqi children.

Noah died tragically. I went to his funeral. I paid respect to his parents. I have listened to Lucy, and I have followed her comments in the 2 years that have passed since his tragic loss.

This week, on July 15, in the Columbus newspaper in Georgia and other newspapers in a syndicated article, Ms. Harris was interviewed regarding the current debate that we are having on the floor of the Senate. I would like to quote two quotes from that article. First quote from Lucy Harris:

``They should just defer to Petraeus,'' Lucy Harris said of

GEN David Petraeus, the commander of forces in Iraq. ``It's a

political game.''

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this entire article.

Then, secondly, at the end of the article, I think a paragraph that all of us should hear: Lucy said the following:

We're talking about boots on the ground, real people. When

I think about my son who could have done anything with his

life, but he fought because he believed in his country and

what we are doing in Iraq. . . . I just don't want it to have

been in vain.

Well, I want to say to Lucy Harris and the parents of every soldier and the loved ones of every soldier who has been deployed, and especially those whose lives have been lost, we don't want them to be in vain, nor do we want them to be deployed in an endless occupation. We have a benchmark going to September 15, a general who had the unanimous support of this body, and operating under a funding mechanism that received an 80-vote margin in May.

Let's end the quibbling at this moment on what we do and give the plan a chance to have its final merits judged and weighed by the man who is on the ground.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I can completely respect the statements everybody made and the opinions of everybody here. But this is a very serious question. And we should vote, and will vote, tomorrow at 11. When we do, I will not vote for cloture because I want to continue the commitment that was made by this body in the middle of May on the funding of the Iraq supplemental, the timetable for reports to come back, and the conditions upon which we would change, a new way forward, if and only if, those benchmarks were not met and progress was not being weighed.

I think we owe it to Lucy Harris. We owe it to the legacy of the sacrifice her son made and the sacrifice made by the countless men and women who are in Iraq and those who have served before them.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, July 15, 2007]

Senators Grapple With Iraq Policy

(By Halimah Abdullah)

For Rick and Lucy Harris and the small town of Ellijay,

Ga., the Iraq war isn't just some policy debate raging on the

floor of the U.S. Senate. It's about the frailty of life and

the power of one young man's sacrifice to spur others into

action.

First Lt. Noah Harris's death two years ago while serving

in Iraq brought the conflict home to that community. Now, the

Iraq war dominates conversations.

``It's the discussion in classes. It's the discussion in

town. Everyone is very interested in what is going on,'' said

Noah's mother, Lucy Harris.

So it's with no small degree of annoyance that the Harris

family has watched the back and forth in the Senate over

changing Iraq war policy.

``They should just defer to Petraeus,'' Lucy Harris said of

Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of forces in Iraq. ``It's

a political game.''

Republicans leaders such as Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss

and Johnny Isakson are in a tough position as they try to

assuage the concerns of people at home, like the Harris

family, while helping the GOP navigate the debate on funding

an increasingly unpopular war backed by a president whose

support is also on the wane.

A recent Gallup poll showed President Bush's approval

rating at 29 percent, and 71 percent of Americans favoring a

proposal to remove almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April

2008. The president's job approval rating in a recent AP-

Ipsos was 33 percent.

As Chambliss and Isakson consider changes to the Iraq war

policy they do so amid a climate of several high ranking

Senate Republican defections, Including that of Sen. Richard

lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee. The departures have included Sen. John

Warner, R-Va., and the moderate-leaning Sen. Olympia Snowe,

R-Maine.

For Republicans, the signs of strain are starting to show.

``It is Important for us to continue to pursue the goals of

the surge, and have a debate not in advance of the facts but

after we know the facts as they stand,'' Isakson said on the

Senate floor Wednesday.

The White House has urged Republican lawmakers to wait

until Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq,

gives a report on the war's progress in September before

voting on any major policy changes.

While most Republican leaders have agreed to do this,

they've also acknowledged that congressional and public

patience for the war effort is growing thin.

``I think what's happening is that we've come to a critical

point,'' Isakson said,

Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst and managing editor

with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, put it bluntly.

``There's just so many bullets for a lame duck president--

especially an unpopular one, that (Republican leaders) can be

expected to take,'' she said.

``Georgia, like most of the South is still more supportive

of the war in Iraq than the rest of the nation,'' said

Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the

University of Georgia and author of the book ``The New

Politics of the Old South.''

The Harris family and the folks in Ellijay could not care

less about the politics behind the war, or how Senate votes

and defections will impact politicians. As a community that

has watched their young people go off to war, they are

intensely interested in seeing just how military leaders will

define victory In Iraq.

``We're talking about boots on the ground, real people,''

Harris said. ``When I think about my son who could have done

anything with his life, but he fought because he believed in

his country. In what we were doing in Iraq . . . I just don't

want it to be in vain.''

That range of emotions surrounding military sacrifice isn't

lost on Chambliss and Isakson.

Recently, Chambliss made sure a measure to provide wounded

soldiers better medical care was included in the defense

authorization bill currently being debated by Senate.

Such efforts are welcome news to Harris, who often speaks

at public events about her son.

``My son's mantra was `I do what I can,' '' she said, her

voice trailing off.

Mr. President, in relation to that unanimous consent, I ask unanimous consent that following the presentation by Senator Carper from Delaware, Senator Hutchison of Texas be the next one recognized on our side.

Mr. President, we have had a tenuous debate, and it is going to go a while. I first commend Senator Levin on this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. Although we have differences on many things, I don't think there is a difference in this Chamber on the provision of services and health care to our wounded warriors as they come home. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have been pleased to work with Senator Akaka and Senator Craig on many of the provisions in this legislation. I thank Senator Carper for allowing me to take a few minutes.

I appreciate the remarks by the Senator from Illinois about what he has done in this bill. As I listened to many of the discussions about the things we need to fix, I think sometimes we forget to remember all the things we are doing well. I wish to talk about two things.

One, I wish to let the men and women of the U.S. Department of Defense medical services and the Veterans' Administration know how much I appreciate what they are trying to do and what they have been trying to do. Let me illustrate that by telling a very brief story.

I go to Walter Reed periodically anytime there is a wounded Georgia veteran there. I also see other veterans, but I make it a point to make sure that the parents or a spouse of every one of those veterans has my phone number and knows they have an advocate in Washington as long as they are at Walter Reed.

One of my visits to Walter Reed just happened to be on the Monday following the breakout of the story about building 19 or 18, the building that was in bad shape. That was a national story and reflected poorly on Walter Reed and on us.

When I got there, I first went to visit Corporal Pearson, a Georgian, actually from my home county, who had been wounded. I gave him my phone number, and asked for his father's phone number. I left from there to go to see Building 18. I went over there and saw the condition Building 18 was in, and I, too, knew we could do much better.

On the way to my office at Russell, I called from my car on my cell phone to the corporal's father and left a message for him to call me back. He called me that night. I told him how much I appreciated his son's service, and I wanted him to know, while he and his wife were in Georgia and his son was at Walter Reed, they could use me as a family member, if they would, to give them any assistance he might need at the hospital.

He thanked me for that. He said: Senator Isakson, just do one thing for me. I have been watching all this on the news about that building, and I am sorry about that, but if anybody asks you, tell them my son has been in Walter Reed for 10 days, and my wife and I were with him every day until yesterday, and I have never seen anybody receive finer care.

I pass that on not to in any way mask those places where we do have difficulties and need improvement--many of them recognized in this particular amendment--but as we talk about things we want to make better, we cannot forget that day in and day out the loyal American service men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces medical corps at Walter Reed and in the VA who are doing a phenomenal, lifesaving job, a better job than has ever been done in the history of warfare. I want to put in that compliment and pat on the back for them.

Secondly, with regard to the wounded warrior amendment, this addresses so many things we have learned from the trauma of the types of wounds that are coming from the type of warfare we are fighting in Iraq. We are saving so many more of our wounded warriors on the battlefield, but because of that we

have many more who need long-time care, long-time attention, and specific attention. This wounded warrior amendment goes a long way toward doing that.

I particularly compliment the authors of the amendment, and all of us on the Veterans Committee, on the new referral system that is put in here for the diagnosis of PTSD, and how that has been greatly improved in the number of people who can actually make that referral back to Veterans Affairs or the Veterans' Administration or back to DOD, if they are still on active duty.

I also want to brag for a second about General Shoomaker at Walter Reed. One of the things we talk about--and Senator Durbin's remarks addressed this--is the difficulty we have been having with the handoff of health care from leaving DOD to going to the VA. That has been a problem, and we have a record number of people who are being handed off once their service is over, while they still have treatment necessary, from DOD to VA.

General Shoomaker was at Fort Gordon in Georgia prior to coming to Walter Reed, when he was asked to come in and straighten out the difficulties Walter Reed had. While at Fort Gordon, General Schoomaker had been the real catalyst for what is said in the military to be the best seamless transfer of wounded warriors from DOD to the Veterans Administration.

Today, now, for those who are coming home with amputations, who are in need of long-term therapy, long-term treatment, long-term care, who go from active duty, are severed honorably, to go into veterans status, they have created a seamless transfer in that rehab at Augusta, which is recognized as second to none. I know the recommendations in this amendment which will be adopted by this body will go a long way toward improving the systems by which those transfers take place.

I am pleased to rise to thank those in our military and the care they give, and know there are areas where we can do better. I commend Senator Levin and the many cosponsors of this particular amendment for all the work and time that has gone into it.

As we have a very tenuous and difficult debate, it is important for the American people to know every Member of this Congress appreciates the care that is given by our military doctors and our military medical personnel and understands we can do better. As we deal with the trauma that comes from the type of conflict we are now in, this wounded warriors amendment will see to it that the care, the referral, the diagnosis, the treatment, and the transfer are better now than they have ever been before.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I relish this opportunity. We have before us in the Senate this week, and probably next week, Department of Defense reauthorization, a reauthorization that is critically important because our men and women are deployed around the world carrying out critical missions.

The Department of Defense reauthorization does some interesting and some good things: an across-the-board 3.5-percent increase in the pay for our men and women in the Armed Forces; an increase in our manning document for the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army to increase our authorized levels; an important increase in funding and capital for those bases and those States and those communities affected by the most recent BRAC, which it is critically important to see to it, as we reposition our military domestically, that those communities that are affected have the capital and the resources to improve their infrastructure to meet that pressure. Equally important is legislation included that was introduced by Senator Chambliss of Georgia, cosponsored by myself, to accelerate retirement benefits for Guardsmen and Reservists deployed in combat, to let their deployments, as they increase, accelerate the time in which they become eligible for their retirement. These are all great benefits.

Unfortunately, we have no debate on the benefits, nor the need. We continue to debate a question that was on the floor most of the month of May when we did the Iraq emergency supplemental, a debate that is scheduled following the report of General Petraeus in September. But for a reason not sure to me, except political, we debate today something we have already debated once before and will debate again in 60 days and that is the issue of whether we do a precipitous, dangerous, scheduled withdrawal from the overall battle in Iraq today.

I wish to address the Levin-Reed amendment from two perspectives. First is the role of Iraq and its battle in the overall global war on terror, and secondly, the consequences of a scheduled, timed, precipitous withdrawal from that battle. First of all, in terms of beginning to withdraw in 120 days and being out by April, you send the clear signal to those we are in combat with today, which is al-Qaida and the insurgencies in Iraq--the enemies of freedom and liberty around the world--you have scheduled the fact that we, in fact, are leaving. You have offered them the opportunity, which they will seize, to declare victory. In the end, the danger to America and the free world is far greater following that than it is carrying out the tough battle we have today.

I am reluctant to quote anything Osama bin Laden would ever say, but in one of his speeches following the declared fatwah against freedom in the West and America, he said simply: People will follow the strong horse. That is exactly what they will do if we retreat. We may, in fact, have to change our strategy. We may, in fact, reposition ourselves, but we owe it to ourselves to do it when our generals have reported back on their scheduled time. We do it on our timetable and not as a retreat but as a strategy change. We did it earlier this year and are now in the early stages of its implementation.

From a historical perspective, I wish to remind all of us what happened in the last 50 years of the last century. Two great Presidents, one a Republican and one a Democrat, both were confronted with difficult times that threatened America and democracy as we know it: John Kennedy, when the Soviet Union put missiles on the Cuban island and, secondly, when the Iranians took our people as hostages, communism was flourishing and Ronald Reagan was elected and had the will and the courage to confront both. The results of the Cuban Missile Crisis were we did not blink. President Kennedy blockaded the island of Cuba, Khrushchev threatened, but he blinked and they withdrew and missiles are not 90 miles off our shore today. In the case of Iran, and their taking our hostages, and in the case of the Soviet Union, President Reagan stood before the world and said: ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' Then he had the intestinal fortitude, through the appropriations, to build up our military and the proposal of a mutually shared defense of the United States of America and the free world to finally get the Soviet Union to back away from communism, back down from the Cold War, and today we have a much safer world.

The enemy we face today in the terrorists is no less a threat; they are greater. The policy change our President made in 2001, 9 days after the attack on 9/11, to change it from a reaction to a preemption was precisely right, and the global war on terror and its central battle in Iraq which has been declared so by al-Qaida is, in fact, a necessary preemption in terms of terrorism.

The second point is the consequences of withdrawing precipitously and on a posted schedule. No. 1, before the Foreign Relations Committee, every expert from a Democrat to a Republican, Colin Powell to Madeleine Albright; every institute, every think tank, every foreign Middle Eastern expert said the following: We don't know if the surge will work or what its success will be, but we will tell you this: if the United States withdraws, there will be an outright civil war in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands may die and, quite frankly, millions could, in an uncontrolled, difficult time. If there is one place in the world where that type of turmoil threatens the security of all freedom and all mankind, it is the Middle East. Withdrawal in that case is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Secondly, when the Mujahedin and terrorists ran the Russians out of Afghanistan, they created a safe haven for terror from which the ultimate 9/11 attack came at America 20 years later. We should not think for a minute that if we leave Iraq, left to the insurgency and the terrorists, the same would not happen. But it wouldn't be 20 years before the attack came against America; it might be a matter of months. It is important for us to continue to pursue the goals of the surge, give the President the chance to make the report this Thursday, General Petraeus the chance to make the report this September, and then have a debate; not in advance of the facts but after we know the facts as they stand. This is too important. This is too important for America.

September 15 is an important date for us to judge the success of our brave men and women who are carrying out the surge today. To declare a retreat today on a timed, precipitous schedule is wrong for America, it is wrong for our effort in the war on terror, and it strikes a dagger in the heart of our new found policy of preemption.

So I appreciate the time the Senate has afforded me this morning. In closing, I ask unanimous consent that a column on this very issue written by Tony Blankley and appearing around the United States today, being syndicated, be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is my understanding that at some point in time in the near future we will have a bill brought to the floor known as the Employee Free Choice Act. I thought this morning I would take a few minutes to discuss the Employee Free Choice Act, what I think it means, why I think it is here, but why we are where we are today in America in terms of labor and management relations.

At the beginning of the last century, the Industrial Revolution began in full force. As a byproduct of it, America went to a manufacturing society, a creative society. Business flourished--textiles, automobile production, manufacturing of all types.

Out of that came huge employment opportunities. Out of it came large companies, and out of it, unfortunately, came abuse of workers. In the 1920s it became obvious something had to be done. In 1935, this Congress and the President then signed the Wagner Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board, and for 72 years since then, our country has flourished under the rules and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, and addressing the rights of workers.

It also created the opportunity for workers to join together, to unionize, to collectively bargain, and to negotiate. It has served America well. What has happened over those 72 years is the creation of a plethora of worker benefit programs backed by the U.S. Government. Prior to 1935, there was little if any federal worker protection laws. Out of that grew the demand for organization and ultimately unions, and out of that came the Wagner Act. Since then have come the following: OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the National Labor Relations Board; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; a new minimum wage, recently raised on the signature of the President here; the adverse effect wage rate, to protect those who come to this country and work as immigrants, to ensure they are not taken advantage of; workers compensation, a universal plan to make sure that workers in high-risk jobs have compensation for injuries they incur in the workplace; not to mention the Mine Safety & Health Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and literally hundreds of agencies in the American Government today, created since 1935, for the protection of workers. Those all came about because workers deserved that protection in terms of their health, their safety, their compensation, and other benefits that arise.

Now, why did those laws come to pass? They came to pass because the union movement began to organize businesses and got management's attention, and management responded, and where it did not, the Government responded.

Now, how did the union system work under the Wagner Act? It was very simple. It said: If 30 percent of the employees of a company decide they want to sign off on a card saying they want a vote as to whether that company should unionize, they get the chance to have that vote, that vote, as sought by labor, and as was demanded in fact by the organizers, a secret ballot. It was a secret ballot because, in large measure, workers did not trust management. They thought company ownership would intimidate a worker, threaten a worker, try and prohibit them from making their own free choice, so they insisted on the secret ballot, just as our Founding Fathers did, and just as we today protect the secret ballot for those who vote for or against us, and for or against amendments to our Constitution or any referendum that comes before them.

So the secret ballot allowed brave people to vote, in privacy, as to whether they wanted to be organized. If they were organized, if they voted 50 percent plus one to organize, they could form a union. If they formed that union, they then had the right to collectively bargain, use the strength of their numbers with management, negotiate contracts to protect themselves and their interests, and bargain for benefits.

That is not a bad system. It is a neutral system. It is a fair system. When you got the 30-percent signatures, you then had a neutral system where management had the opportunity to tell you all the reasons why they were going to be better and you did not need to organize; and labor had all the opportunity they needed to tell you why not to believe that and that you needed to organize.

Out of that came a vote, a private vote, a secret ballot vote. If 50 percent plus one voted for it, the union got to organize.

Now, what does the Employee Free Choice Act say? It says: Well, you are no longer going to have the opportunity of avoiding intimidation because we are going to take away the secret ballot. We are going to say: If union leaders decide they want to come in and organize a company that is not unionized, they can get 50 percent plus one to sign off on a card chit and you have a union. There is no vote. There is just the card sign-off, but it is not signed off in secret. You no longer have the neutrality to have the opportunity of management getting the chance to make its case. You have a negative environment of worker against company and, worst of all, as I read the legislation, as I understand it, it would then say: The first contract with the company is not negotiated, it is written by Federal mediators.

Give me a break. We are going from a system that has improved America to the safest, most productive, most opportunistic country in the world, where we have no child labor, we have minimum wages, we have hourly standards, we have worker protections, we have overtime, we have comp time, we have OSHA, we have regulatory commissions of every type to ensure, and we have good union management relationships in most places in this country.

Why is this before us? It is before us because there has been a decline in union membership. It is before us because the problems that gave way to the union movement have been solved in large measure, and we have responded with the laws necessary to

protect people and their rights regardless of age or sex or disability. We have done that.

But the union movement has not changed with the times. There are exceptions. There are many great relationships today. One of them is SMACNA, the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association. I happen to know a little bit about these folks because of my work in development and construction. They have a partnership with their union. It is not an adversarial relationship. They have taken advantage of the Wagner Act.

We must preserve a system that protects workers. Ours is a neutral system, a level playing field for those who wished to be organized and those who wished for organization not to take place. They have a level platform.

I don't know why it is coming to the floor. I don't know why it is not going through the committee system. I don't know why it is going to be a quick 1-day vote, which is my understanding of the way it will be.

I will stake my claim on 72 years of success under the Wagner Act, under the right to protect and continue to protect the secret ballot, and of my desire to see to it that we honor those things we have created in response to the bad things that happened in the early part of the 20th century. Why change a good thing? Yes, we have a decline now in the union movement. Buy why do you all of a sudden create a situation of intimidation, an unbalanced situation, an uneven playing field, all for the sake of trying to save a movement that won't save itself?

I submit there is today, has been in the past, and will be in the future a viable place for the collective bargaining of workers and for unions but not if it is an unlevel playing field, not if the company and management don't have the same equal rights as do those workers, and not, most importantly, if those workers don't have protection of the secret ballot.

As I understand it, the vast majority, over 70 percent of union members, like the secret ballot. Over 70 percent of Republicans and Democrats--far more than that--like the secret ballot and think card check is crazy. To date, the only thing I have seen endorsing card check in print was the 2005 Communist Party convention in the United States which endorsed card check and the Employee Free Choice Act. Give me a break. This is one time where we ought to ratify what is right with America, ratify the success we have had in the past, honor the ills we corrected, honor the employees who make America work, continue to see to it that the employees do have a free choice, a private choice, a secret ballot, and continue to work in the greatest country on the face of this Earth with the greatest worker protection of any nation in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank both distinguished Senators from New Mexico.

I rise for a few minutes to talk about this bill and the renewable portfolio standards and the effects on my State of Georgia.

I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I did not hear them all, but I heard the narrow stovepipe versus the broad approach, and that is one of the things I want to talk about because we have a diverse country with many assets that regionally are very different. If we are going to have renewable portfolio standards that call on us to find renewable energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we have to exploit and promote all those sources, not narrow those sources.

I also wish to quote from our prayer this morning from Pastor Sturdivant. Pastor Sturdivant called on all of us during this process of legislation, prayed for us to have patience. I do think we all need to have patience when dealing with this bill because I wish to tell my colleagues what the effect of the renewable portfolio standards are on the State of Georgia. We don't have the wind to meet the standards; we don't have it. The tax that would in turn be imposed on these utilities, all regulated, thus ultimately paid by the taxpayer, would be the following: On electric membership cooperatives it would be a half a billion dollars between now and 2020, and on Southern Company, it would be $7.6 billion.

Now, I know the bill attempts to exempt electric membership cooperatives, but when you analyze the bill, 7 of Georgia's 42 cooperatives would be included. Those 7 cooperatives produce 50 percent of all the energy generated by cooperative services in Georgia. So, therefore, because of the way it is worded in its current form, and as I understand the Bingaman amendment, 10 States, mine being one of them, would be in a position of not being able to meet the standard because of nothing beyond their control and would have an imposition of taxation that ultimately goes to our ratepayers, both to either the Southern Company or the electric membership cooperatives who are not exempt, to the tune of almost a total cumulatively of $8 billion.

Now, one of the things this bill talks about at its outset: It says this is to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy sources. I wish to talk for a minute about a clean, renewable, alternative energy source that we know exists, that we are currently utilizing, and that for some reason, we continue to stay away from reenergizing, and that is nuclear energy. We had great testimony by Vice President Gore before the EPW Committee earlier this year, and each of us on the committee got to ask the distinguished Vice President a question--or more questions--5 minutes' worth of questions. When it came to be my time, I asked the Vice President, accepting that every factor in the global warming argument is correct, how can we not seek to reenergize the nuclear energy in this country to help meet that demand of lessening carbon, having renewable sources of energy that are safe, efficient, and inexpensive? That is the question I pose today: How do we look toward meeting the challenges of removing or lessening our dependence on foreign petroleum, and yet not get back in the business of building nuclear powerplants? It is something I think is essential for us to do, and an energy bill that does not include it as a renewable source of energy is missing the boat.

My State of Georgia has nuclear powerplants. When I was in the State legislature, we were building plans for them. The Southern Company wants to get licensing to put another reactor on Vogle to expand its capacity. In talking about nuclear energy, most of the fears that resulted in the 1970s, although well-founded because of Chernobyl, have, in fact, proven American technology to be superior. The Three Mile Island accident that happened in the 1970s was a tragic accident, but it proved the redundant fail-safe mechanism of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards in the building of nuclear powerplants. That was technology of the 1970s and late 1960s. Today we have the knowledge we have gained from over 30 more years of the use, development, and understanding of nuclear power.

Today, we power our nuclear aircraft carriers, such as the Eisenhower returning from the Persian Gulf, on nuclear energy. In Georgia, the Trident submarines, where our sailors, at close quarters for months on end under the sea, live comfortably and with a nuclear reactor. Why is it, when we have petroleum prices running through the roof, when we want to sequester carbon and reduce its input, do we still look the other way on a source of energy that is reliable, that is safe, that is inexpensive, and that now we know its byproducts are recyclable for further use? This brings me to a second point.

Four Senators in this body, the two Senators from South Carolina and the two Senators from Georgia, along with the Governors of both of those States and the mayors and city councils of the City of Aiken, SC, and Augusta, GA, have gone to the Department of Energy and said: Why not take the Savannah River plant, which for years manufactured the warheads for our nuclear weapons, and turn it into a mock facility to recycle spent nuclear material back into productive energy-generating nuclear material. So you have two States volunteering to recycle. You have a process that allows it to become renewable. You have a Federal investment already at a site that has been used for years. These are the types of creative things we need to do as we pursue reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Nuclear energy will not do it all. Wind cannot do it all. Solar cannot do it all. Hydro cannot do it all, and biomass cannot do it all. But collectively, together, operating as a team, incentivizing by the laws we pass, we have a chance to do exactly what the title of this bill portends.

I wish to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee yesterday afternoon, Senator Alexander, who so eloquently expressed the punitive nature of the RPS standards in the Bingaman proposal as far as his State of Tennessee and my State of Georgia. I also associate myself with what Senator Craig from Idaho said. If we are going to seek alternatives, let's seek them all. Let's seek safety. Let's encourage them through tax policy, and let's reduce our dependence, but let's not make the reduction approach so narrow we penalize some and reward others.

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