Floor Statements

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, Senator Chambliss from Georgia, and his excellent remarks. I stand today shoulder to shoulder with him in endorsing Senator Cornyn in what he has brought forward to the Senate. Notwithstanding one's position on the debate of the last 3 days, I think it is ironic that we spent the last 72 hours debating whether we should give collective bargaining rights to TSA employees after we debated this 5 years ago and decided not to do that and after having spent very little time talking about 9/ 11 and the security of the United States of America.

What Senator Cornyn has done is taken the ideas of Senator Kyl, Senator Grassley, Senator Cornyn, and others and brought forward meaningful amendments that ought to be on a 9/11 bill. I sincerely hope that my colleagues, when the cloture vote comes forward tomorrow, will vote to invoke cloture so we can bring these amendments to the floor and have a meaningful addition to the 9/11 bill.

I wish to talk about three of these amendments for just a second and talk about why they are so important.

No. 1 is on recruiting. It is always good when you can tell a real life story and not just a hypothetical. About a year ago, in my hometown of Atlanta, GA, there was an announcement by the U.S. Secret Service, the CIA, and international intelligence agencies that two young men at Georgia Tech--the Georgia Institute of Technology--had been taken into custody under suspicion of terrorism. As it turns out, both of these two young men, using the library computers at Georgia Tech, were in a terrorist cell that was born in Pakistan, organized in Toronto, and was recruiting in Atlanta, GA.

Now, not because we overlooked it but because nobody ever thought about it, we have never had a statute to punish someone for recruiting terrorism. So right in my own home State of Georgia, right in my own hometown, two 21-year-old students at Georgia Tech were recruited and, fortunately, caught and, fortunately--because of the PATRIOT Act, I might add--intercepted because of the watching and the maintenance of those computers. But this was a terrorist cell, and these individuals were recruited. There is no punishment for recruiting those folks.

Al-Qaida has demonstrated and the 9/11 Commission told us that recruitment is the main source or resource of human beings for suicide bombers, for airplane hijackers, and others who would carry out the acts of al-Qaida. So, first of all, Senator Cornyn bringing this forward is absolutely appropriate.

Secondly, and briefly, Senator Grassley's amendment with regard to the reviewability of the revocation of a visa is included in this package. Paint this picture for a second: All 19 of the hijackers on 9/ 11 got into the United States in a legal way. Most of them had overstayed their visas. But just think for a second. Had they been caught, had they been suspected of a terrorist act when they were about to commit it, and had their visa been revoked, they would have had the right to stay in this country and judicially appeal that revocation, which meant they could have stayed here even after being identified and quite possibly still carried out a terrorist attack.

To let you know how important this amendment is, I have an interesting fact for everybody to take in and digest for just a second. In 1986, when we reformed immigration in this country, we granted amnesty and created a number of legal citizens and legal visas in the United States. We also created a mechanism for judicial review. There are still two cases from the 1986 Immigration Reform Act under judicial review 21 years later. Those individuals still remain in the United States of America.

If we capture somebody for suspected terrorism and, under the disciplines we use, revoke that visa, it only stands to reason that they should not be reviewable and should be returned to the country from which they came.

Otherwise, we would be knowingly and willingly harboring someone we suspect would cause harm to the United States of America and commit a terrorist act.

Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me. I stand in full support of the Cornyn amendment and in a sincere hope that my colleagues will vote for the motion to invoke cloture and pass this very important amendment for the safety and security of the United States of America and its people.

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

Mr. President, today I honor a wonderful Georgian, James Lonnie ``J.L.'' Jerden of Atlanta, as he prepares to celebrate his 70th birthday.

Now, J.L. is no ordinary Georgian. His beautiful daughter Susan is married to my son John, and we share four amazing grandchildren. I am proud to consider him part of my extended family.

J.L. was born on March 19, 1937, in Memphis, TN, where he was one of eight children. In high school, he was salutatorian of his senior class and the statewide president of Beta Club as well as an accomplished athlete on the football and baseball fields. Somehow, he also managed to find time to play bass in a warm-up band for Elvis. He attended Rhodes College where he played football.

Following graduation, J.L. worked for Aetna before joining and becoming a partner in Pritchard and Jerden, one of the largest commercial insurance brokerage houses in Atlanta. J.L. also found time to serve as a Southeastern Conference football official for 7 years in the 1970s and chair the Atlanta Golf Classic. He also was the national president of the Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters Society.

Today, J.L. enjoys spending time with his lovely wife Jane, their three children, and their four grandchildren. He is an active member at Northside Drive Baptist Church, where he serves as a deacon and has chaired a variety of committees throughout the years. He is also a strong supporter of the Atlanta Food Bank and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta.

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 my dear friend J.L. Jerden as he prepares to celebrate this milestone. He is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, today I honor the 200th Anniversary of Putnam County, GA.

Putnam County was created by an act of the Georgia Assembly on December 10, 1807. It was laid out from Baldwin County and lies in the heart of Georgia's Piedmont region. It was named for one of the most noted patriots of the Revolutionary War, GEN Israel Putnam of Massachusetts.

The city of Eatonton was founded as the seat of Putnam County in 1808 and was incorporated the following year.

Known as the ``Dairy Capital of Georgia,'' Putnam County is also home to

Rock Eagle 4-H Center. The Rock Eagle Mound is 102 feet long and 120 feet wide. It is believed to have been built by Native Americans over 2,000 years ago and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978. Putnam County is also the birthplace of several famous Georgians, including journalist and author Joel Chandler Harris, author Alice Walker, and Chick-fil-a founder and CEO S. Truett Cathy.

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 Putnam County to the State of Georgia. I congratulate this great county on its 200th anniversary.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, back in Georgia, we have a saying. When people are treating the symptoms and never treating the cause, we say they are avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. I wish to talk for a minute about a 6-pound gorilla that is in the United States Capitol. It is called the U.S. Tax Code.

Printed in the 8-point font type, the U.S. Tax Code weighs 6 pounds, but the

burden is equal to that or more of an 800-pound gorilla on the backs of American business and American families. To that end, I am joined by Senators Vitter, Chambliss, Allard, Graham, and others in the introduction of Tax Code simplification legislation to finally address the 800-pound gorilla in the living room and the 6-pound gorilla on the back of every American.

This bill simply calls on the Congress to establish a tax review commission which will be required to report back to the Congress on July 4, 2010. Its job will be to analyze all options for revenue for the United States. Consumption taxes or sales taxes, flat taxes, income taxes, productivity taxes, whatever it might be, wipe the slate clean and say: If we could do it all over again, what would be the best way to finance this great country of ours.

Second, once they have made those determinations, they make the recommendations back to the Congress. Then it is the Congress's responsibility to either adopt the commission's recommendations, much as we do with BRAC, or to reject them and affirmatively ratify the Tax Code of 1986, amended thousands of times, now weighing 6 pounds on the back of every single American.

All of us have different ideas over what is the right way to do things. All of us know the United States of America needs revenue to operate. All of us know that. But since 1986 and the major rewrite of the Tax Code, every year all we have done is decorate it like a Christmas tree, amend it here, lower it there, raise it somewhere else--until it has become an absolute burden.

We all know--I know the Presiding Officer deals with it in his State, as I do--the tremendous upheaval over the alternative minimum tax which passed in the 1960s to address the 169 taxpayers who made over a million dollars who did not pay any taxes. Today, the AMT affects everybody, including a family of four making $50,000 a year, if they own their own home, deduct interest, and itemize their deductions. That is just wrong.

So rather than take individual Senators--I respect every one of us in the Chamber, including, obviously, myself--take our ideas and try to volley them back and forth, why not get a distinguished commission of learned people to sit down for a protracted period of time, analyze what is right for this country, and make recommendations to us?

We solved the political disability in terms of reforming the military when we passed BRAC. Why not take the greatest disability on the American people--and that is the Tax Code--and approach it the same way: have thoughtful people who are knowledgeable and understand the Tax Code as it is make the recommendations on what might make it better? It may be a sales tax or a consumption tax. It may be a flat income tax. It may be a series of fees or other revenue streams. It may be a combination.

But what we need most importantly is simplicity, fairness, equity, and I would submit one other thing--participation by all Americans. Everybody has a stake in this country, and everybody should contribute something. I think if we open up the Tax Code to scrutiny, we give this group 3 solid years to look and make their determination, we get the recommendation back by July 4, and then we debate it in this Congress, then, by the end of 2010, we have two choices: We ratify what we have today, which is the 600-pound gorilla on the back of every American citizen, or we look to a vision for the future and adopt a fair and a simpler and a more equitable tax system for every citizen of the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues to join us on this legislation, help bring about and make it a reality, and, for the first time since 1986, address the cause and not the symptom of the cumbersome nature of the American Tax Code.

Mr. President, back in Georgia, we have a saying. When people are treating the symptoms and never treating the cause, we say they are avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. I wish to talk for a minute about a 6-pound gorilla that is in the United States Capitol. It is called the U.S. Tax Code.

Printed in the 8-point font type, the U.S. Tax Code weighs 6 pounds, but the

burden is equal to that or more of an 800-pound gorilla on the backs of American business and American families. To that end, I am joined by Senators Vitter, Chambliss, Allard, Graham, and others in the introduction of Tax Code simplification legislation to finally address the 800-pound gorilla in the living room and the 6-pound gorilla on the back of every American.

This bill simply calls on the Congress to establish a tax review commission which will be required to report back to the Congress on July 4, 2010. Its job will be to analyze all options for revenue for the United States. Consumption taxes or sales taxes, flat taxes, income taxes, productivity taxes, whatever it might be, wipe the slate clean and say: If we could do it all over again, what would be the best way to finance this great country of ours.

Second, once they have made those determinations, they make the recommendations back to the Congress. Then it is the Congress's responsibility to either adopt the commission's recommendations, much as we do with BRAC, or to reject them and affirmatively ratify the Tax Code of 1986, amended thousands of times, now weighing 6 pounds on the back of every single American.

All of us have different ideas over what is the right way to do things. All of us know the United States of America needs revenue to operate. All of us know that. But since 1986 and the major rewrite of the Tax Code, every year all we have done is decorate it like a Christmas tree, amend it here, lower it there, raise it somewhere else--until it has become an absolute burden.

We all know--I know the Presiding Officer deals with it in his State, as I do--the tremendous upheaval over the alternative minimum tax which passed in the 1960s to address the 169 taxpayers who made over a million dollars who did not pay any taxes. Today, the AMT affects everybody, including a family of four making $50,000 a year, if they own their own home, deduct interest, and itemize their deductions. That is just wrong.

So rather than take individual Senators--I respect every one of us in the Chamber, including, obviously, myself--take our ideas and try to volley them back and forth, why not get a distinguished commission of learned people to sit down for a protracted period of time, analyze what is right for this country, and make recommendations to us?

We solved the political disability in terms of reforming the military when we passed BRAC. Why not take the greatest disability on the American people--and that is the Tax Code--and approach it the same way: have thoughtful people who are knowledgeable and understand the Tax Code as it is make the recommendations on what might make it better? It may be a sales tax or a consumption tax. It may be a flat income tax. It may be a series of fees or other revenue streams. It may be a combination.

But what we need most importantly is simplicity, fairness, equity, and I would submit one other thing--participation by all Americans. Everybody has a stake in this country, and everybody should contribute something. I think if we open up the Tax Code to scrutiny, we give this group 3 solid years to look and make their determination, we get the recommendation back by July 4, and then we debate it in this Congress, then, by the end of 2010, we have two choices: We ratify what we have today, which is the 600-pound gorilla on the back of every American citizen, or we look to a vision for the future and adopt a fair and a simpler and a more equitable tax system for every citizen of the United States of America.

I urge my colleagues to join us on this legislation, help bring about and make it a reality, and, for the first time since 1986, address the cause and not the symptom of the cumbersome nature of the American Tax Code.

Mr. President, in approximately half an hour we begin proceeding to debate on the 9/11 bill. Saturday a week ago we concluded without resolution a debate on an Iraq resolution. I come to the floor of the Senate this morning to share with my colleagues my thoughts on Iraq and where we are, and to do so in the context of 9/11.

When I collected my thoughts about what I would say this morning, I thought back to a lot of lessons I learned from a great Georgian. In fact, on Saturday of last week, the day we had that debate, it was the 75th birthday of former Senator Zell Bryan Miller of Towns County, GA. I learned a lot from Zell Miller in my lifetime. I learned humility when he beat me for Governor of Georgia in 1990. I learned respect for class in 1996 when he came back and asked me to chair the State Board of Education after he taught me a lesson in humility 6 years earlier. When I read his book, ``Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I Learned in the Marines,'' I learned about commitment.

Also in the final debate I had with Zell Miller in 1990, I learned about how you snatch victory when somebody else thought they had it. In the closing debate, 48 hours before the general election when the cameras went on each of us for our last 60 seconds, Zell Miller's closing remarks were simply this. He said:

You know, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have a race

for governor in 2 days and it's all up to you. But I want you

to remember something. Zell Miller knows one thing. If you

ever walk down a country road and you see a turtle sitting on

a fence post, there is one thing you know for sure. He did

not get there by himself.

In taking that remark, I would remind my colleagues we didn't get to where we are by ourselves. We got here together at least in terms of Iraq. After 9/11 happened, within days, the United States of America changed and the President announced to the Congress we would no longer as a nation have a defense policy based on reaction. We would have a defense policy based on preemption. We learned on 9/11 you can't wait to find the smoking gun in terrorism to react, because if you do, it is too late. In the case of 9/11, there were 3,000 dead citizens of this world because we didn't preempt. The United Nations, 171 countries, voted unanimously in favor of resolution 1441 which authorized or threatened military action against Saddam Hussein if he didn't cooperate with the disclosures and the inspectors that the U.N. was prompting. When the U.N. failed to act and this President, George W. Bush, wanted to act, he came to this Congress and we voted overwhelmingly to support using force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and to go after weapons of mass destruction and to go after those sanctuaries of terrorism.

One would think, in listening to the debate in the Senate in the last few weeks, that some people have bad memories. They forgot about those votes. They forgot about the fact that George Bush didn't get there by himself. He got there with us. Now, are we disappointed in some of the things that have happened? Yes. Do we want to change some things? Yes. Do we differ? Yes, and the Senate is the place we differ. But while we differ, we should not discourage our troops. We should not discourage the people who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world in terms of our resolve.

So I would suggest as we go to the debate on the 9/11 bill, we consider it as a wonderful opportunity to make a simple statement, a statement that while we may differ, there is one thing we don't differ on: We don't differ on the fact that we will give our troops the support and the finances and everything they need to carry out the mission to which they are assigned. That is precisely what Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire wanted to do in his resolution that never could come to the floor in that 2 weeks of debate on the Iraq resolution that failed to get enough votes to get a final vote. It is time, with a bill as relevant as this 9/11, which is the genesis of all we deal with today, that we send that clear message. While we may differ on some policies, we do not differ on the financial support and the absolute commitment to our men and women in harm's way.

I wish to put one other thing into perspective. As much bad news as we always talk about, a lot of good things happen. While some people may differ with the President's commitment to a surge in Iraq, even in the anticipation of that surge, there are some good things that have happened. Moqtada al-Sadr left Sadr City. He saw what was coming. Prime Minister al-Maliki already called for--and there are now talks about it--a regional conference on Iraq, including all the neighbors in the region--something many in here have called for, and I support, including getting the Iranians and Syrians into dialog.

Last week, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a hydrocarbon bill, oil revenue sharing with the people and provinces of Iraq. That is soon to go to that assembly. Think of something; the people of Iraq are on the doorstep of having equity for the very first time in their history.

There are also disappointing things that have happened. Yes, we wish we were home with a victory already. But we have accomplished a lot, and we are this close to accomplishing the ultimate goal, which is a peaceful democracy in Iraq, terrorism without a sanctuary, and a statement that people are more important than power and dictators and terror.

The United States is the country that has, in history, led and today needs to lead as well. I encourage our colleagues, as we get into this 9/11 debate, let's not forget about the debate we had on Iraq. We ought to send a clear message of support to our troops, understanding that we may differ on the policy. It should be clear and precise that this Congress and this country will see to it that our men and women have the finances and resources to carry out the orders to which they are responsible and they take on without any reservation.

I began my remarks by acknowledging my friend, Zell Miller, and his 75th birthday and all of the lessons I have learned from him. He preceded me in this Senate, and I extend to him a belated birthday wish today in this speech. I also want us to be reminded of Zell Miller's many speeches on the U.S. Marine Corps, service to our country, patriotism, and commitment. Zell Miller knew as a soldier, he knew as the Governor of a State commanding the National Guard, and as a member of the Senate that while there may be political differences on the end result, there should be no difference in the support for the men and women who defend us and fight for freedom every day.

As this debate unfolds, it is my hope we will have the opportunity to bring the Gregg amendment to the floor and vote to send a clear message to our men and women in harm's way that we support them, the funding will be there, and we will stay with them as they pursue the cause on behalf of peace, liberty, freedom, and democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 574. I will vote in opposition to moving forward on that resolution because I don't believe it offers me the opportunity to express what I believe this body should be doing on the war on terror and the war in Iraq and for our men and women in harm's way. I want to take a minute to explain as well as I can why I believe so strongly and so passionately in that regard.

Ironically, 30 minutes before I came to the Chamber, I got a press release from the Department of Defense announcing that deployment of over 1,000 members of the 3rd ID stationed at Fort Stewart, GA has been accelerated from June to March of 2007. Those soldiers will shortly be leaving our great State on their way to be deployed in Baghdad, specifically as a part of the President's mission to secure and hold and to build.

I can't be certain of this, but I imagine some of those soldiers are probably watching television today in Hinesville, GA. They might even be watching C-SPAN. They might even hear these remarks. So I make them in the belief and with the hope that they are listening, as well as those soldiers in Baghdad and Balad and Tallil who are watching their monitors in the mess hall or the command post, as well as those who are our enemies, those who would do us harm, those who are the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

It is not right to send a mixed message in a nonbinding resolution while our men and women are deploying in defense of this country and at the order of the President, our Commander in Chief. The result of that is to send a message of doubt to our men and women and a message of hope to our enemy. We can have our differences--and anybody who watches the debate on this floor knows, we certainly have our differences--but there should be no difference or equivocation in the support of our men and women in harm's way and our men and women now on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For a minute I want to talk about how deeply I believe in our options, because we only have two. The first is an opportunity for success. That is what the President has chosen. This surge, criticized by some, is even a part of the Hamilton-Baker report where they addressed a potential surge in their report. The President, after listening to many of us and to his commanders and, certainly to General Petraeus, has decided to deploy these troops to go into Baghdad, to go into Anbar, to secure it; and then, with the help of the Iraqi soldiers, to hold; and then, with the help of USAID, the State Department, and the world community, to build and to have a platform and a foundation upon which political reconciliation will take place. Every one of us knows that, ultimately, reconciliation will make the difference in whether our hopes and dreams for the Iraqi people and the hopes and dreams they have for themselves will, in fact, take place.

I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I sat through 28 hours of testimony from countless experts, one after another. Most of them had mixed feelings on the surge. Some were unalterably opposed. Some said it may work. Some said it would work. They had differences of opinion, as we do. But in 28 hours of testimony, from expert after expert, from Madeleine Albright to Henry Kissinger, from think tank after think tank, from Jack Murtha and Newt Gingrich--Newt a former Speaker of the House; Jack certainly outspoken on this issue in the House--every one of them agreed on one fact: A redeployment of our troops or a withdrawal would lead, at the very least, to thousands of deaths and more likely the slaughter of tens of thousands and maybe even millions of people in Iraq and possibly beyond in the Middle East.

Withdrawing, repositioning, turning our back is a recipe for disaster. And the world knows how important our success is. I spent last weekend in Munich, Germany, at the World Security Conference, where Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister spoke. We met with Chancellor Merkel of Germany and representatives from Bulgaria, Estonia, and Japan. Do you know what is so eye opening to me? With rare exception, each one expressed their appreciation for what the United States of America and our allies are doing, and their hope and prayer is we will succeed. They know what we know: We are in the ultimate war between good and evil. Iraq is but a battle in the war on terror that will move to other places. If we ever give comfort or hope to our enemy that we may turn and come home, leave the battlefield, leave them to their own volition, then we know it is the beginning of the end for the peaceful societies and the democracies of this world.

Chancellor Merkel of Germany--a country where popular opinion is very much against the war--announced her commitment of more Tornadoes to be deployed to Afghanistan. We have 46,000 troops there--23,000 Americans and 23,000 from countries around the world--pursuing to keep that fledgling democracy secure as the Taliban makes one last effort.

The enthusiasm of the world is in support of the United States and our men and women in harm's way. I think that enthusiasm should take place on the Senate floor in the United States of America as well. My vote tomorrow of ``no'' on the motion to proceed will not be a desire to cut off debate. It will, in fact, be a desire to elevate the debate. I think every side that is represented on this Senate floor ought to be a side that is spoken. I personally prefer the Gregg amendment and do not prefer and would not vote for the resolution

of the Senator from Nevada, which is the same resolution now being debated on the floor of the Senate. I think I ought to have an opportunity to express to the thousand members of 3rd ID leaving to go to Iraq, to the men and women in Iraq who are listening, and to the constituents I have in the State, regardless of which side of the issue they are on--the Senate deserves a right to debate all of the valid points of the questions that confront us in Iraq.

I know earlier in a speech given on the floor the content was primarily a recitation of the names of those who have died in uniform in Iraq from the United States of America. I don't take the position I take lightly, nor do I not think for a moment about the sacrifice that has already been made by men and women from my State--from PFC Diego Rincon, the first Georgian to lose his life fighting in Iraq--Diego, by the way, was not a United States citizen when he died, and we gave him citizenship posthumously because of the commitment he made to this country--to LT Noah Harris, from Elijay, GA, who was a cheerleader at the University of Georgia on 9/11. He was so moved by what happened that he jumped into ROTC in his junior year and pursued a commission in the United States Army, received it, and went to Iraq. He died fighting for what he believed this country was all about: to stand up to the agents of terror and those who would use it to pursue their cause. Also, there was SGT Mike Stokely, a brave American who died in pursuit of freedom and peace in Iraq, and the hundreds of other Georgians who have been wounded or sacrificed their lives. They should not die in vain. They went for the reason that they believed volunteers are important to them and their country. They volunteered and made that commitment knowingly and willingly. They deserve the chance to pursue this effort for success in Baghdad and Anbar with enthusiasm from our Senate and our Government. From me, they have that.

When we read a list of those who lost their lives, we have to remember how long the list is of those who live today because our men and women in the Armed Forces, in wars past and in war today, fight for security and peace and fight for us to live.

We saw on 9/11 the manifest horror tyranny and terror can bring, and we will see it again if we lose our resolve to pursue it wherever it takes us--Afghanistan, Iraq, or places yet known to us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, with the confidence and pride in the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and my willingness to fully support an opportunity for success rather than a recipe for disaster.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 79, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chambliss and I, from Georgia, be recognized for a few minutes to pay tribute to Representative Norwood.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for bringing this resolution

forward in a very timely fashion. We learned during the lunch hour today that Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia passed away, a victim of cancer.

Charlie had been fighting valiantly that disease for over 3 years, having a lung transplant, and, unfortunately--after the transplant's success for a year and Charlie doing well--cancer occurred in one lung and then transferred to his liver.

His wife Gloria has been an absolutely wonderful human being, seeing to it that Charlie continued to do his work in the House of Representatives, even though suffering greatly from the effects of the cancer that reoccurred.

Charlie Norwood was elected in 1994 and was a classmate and fellow representative with many of us here--Senator Coburn, Senator Graham, Senator Lincoln, Senator Chambliss, and myself.

On behalf of all of us who have had the chance to serve with Charlie Norwood, we today pay tribute to his life, the great accomplishments he made on behalf of his district, and his untiring effort to bring about quality, affordable health care within the reach of every single American.

He will be remembered for many things: his tenacity, his great sense of humor, his commitment to his district, and to his people. But from a political standpoint and a service standpoint, he will be remembered for Norwood-Dingell, the legislation that laid the groundwork for reforms in health care that even go on at this day.

So as a Member of the Senate from Georgia, as a personal friend of Charlie Norwood and his beautiful wife Gloria, and as one who is so thankful for the contributions he made to my State, to me as an individual, and to this body, I pay tribute to Charlie Norwood, pass on the sympathy and the condolences of my family to his wife Gloria and his many friends.

And again, I repeat my thanks to Senator McConnell and Senator Reid for their timely recognition of the passing of Charlie Norwood.

It is my pleasure now to, with unanimous consent, recognize Senator Chambliss from Georgia.

Madam President, I rise to wholeheartedly endorse an amendment filed today prior to the 2:30 deadline, authored by Senator Chambliss and coauthored by myself. The amendment relates to SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, and a crisis that exists right now, this minute, in 17 States in the United States of America.

As the occupant of the chair knows, SCHIP is a program where our most needy children are able to get health insurance. It is a 71-percent Federal Medicaid match. But unlike Medicaid, it is not an entitlement; it is an appropriated amount annually that is derived by a formula as the States get their benefit. What has happened this year is that a number of States, with a number of children eligible for the program, have run out of their Federal match and it is capitated.

Also, a number of States have a significant surplus. What Senator Chambliss has proposed, and what I am advocating, is an amendment we want to propose to the CR which would take that amount of surplus SCHIP money in States with more than 200 percent of their estimated need-- take that amount above 200 percent and put it into a pool and reallocate it to those States that are falling short, so that through this fiscal year every child in America who has been promised children's health insurance can in fact get it.

It doesn't penalize any State that has a surplus because that is money they have not and will not use. It doesn't benefit any State who has abused the system. It is just that we have a number of States that have grown rapidly in their numbers. In Georgia alone, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we added 43,000 children immediately into our State's population, most all of whom remain today.

I know the CR amendment tree has been filled as of now. The distinguished majority leader has filled the tree, so there will be no room for amendments to the continuing resolution. I intend to vote tomorrow for cloture to allow us to complete this resolution and continue appropriations for this year. I hope the distinguished majority leader will think about the value of saving the SCHIP program this year.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that was distributed by the majority leader and the Speaker, written to the President of the United States, on February 2.

Madam President, they made my case better than I make it in this letter. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid say we must fix the SCHIP program and suggested that the President add that to the emergency supplemental on Iraq, which we are going to take up in April.

The problem with that is, my State of Georgia runs out of SCHIP money at the end of this month--maybe, at the latest, at the end of March. We are having to cut off new enrollees now and will soon send out the notices to 273,000 children. There will be no money for the remainder of the year after March to meet the obligations of SCHIP. That will take place in States around the country, North, South, East and West.

Think about it. If you have enough money here and everybody who had that money allocated has used all they need, and you don't have enough money over here, it is a simple accounting measurement to fix that in this interim time. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have already committed, and Senators Rockefeller and Reid--all of us on both sides have all said we have to fix the formula; we will get to it toward the end of the year. But we can fix it in the interim to see to it that no child with health care under SCHIP loses that before we make the permanent fix.

I commend Senator Chambliss, who is on the floor, on his leadership and this amendment. I ask the majority leader to give close thought to this issue that was referenced in his own letter of February 2. If there was one amendment that could go on the continuing resolution and would receive unanimous support in the Congress and in the Senate, it is the amendment authored by Senator Chambliss and cosponsored by myself. I ask the leadership to seriously consider allowing an opening on the amendment tree so that amendment can be passed and adopted, and children in Georgia and around the country will end up having the health care that they have been promised and that they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I honor two wonderful Georgians, Joe and Dee Sports of Conyers, as they celebrate 50 years of marriage.

Joe and Dee both grew up in south Georgia. Joe is a native of Douglas in Coffee County, and the former Dee Plymell hails from Thomasville. They are blessed with one daughter, Susan, and two grandsons, Ali Joseph and Amir Elias.

Joe has worn many hats over the years in Georgia and Washington including political leader, newspaper and television reporter, congressional aide and public affairs consultant. He was executive director of the Democratic Party of Georgia during the administrations of 2 Governors and served as a congressional aide to U.S. Senator David Gambrell as well as four Georgia congressmen. He began his governmental affairs firm, Joe Sports & Associates, over 25 years ago. He also edits Georgia Beat, Georgia's oldest political newsletter.

Dee is retired from the Georgia Secretary of State's office after many years of distinguished service. She now enjoys helping to raise her grandsons, who live close by with their mom.

On February 24, Joe and Dee will gather together with their family and friends to celebrate this truly momentous occasion. Although I cannot be there in person, it is a privilege to stand in this Senate and honor this tremendous milestone that embodies the profound love and commitment they have for one another. Their marriage is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, I pause for a moment to pay tribute and welcome Rev. Henry Holley, our Chaplain of the day. It is a special occasion for me because this is personal. I have known Henry Holley for 30 years, his beautiful wife Betty and his daughter Debbie, who are with us today. I have known him in many ways. I would like the Senate to know, first of all, that this is a U.S. marine. For 22 years, he served the United States of America in the Marine Corps and retired in 1966, upon which time he joined the Billy Graham organization and for the last 40 years has traveled 12 million miles to countries around the world. He leads now the Graham evangelical organization throughout the Pacific rim. His reach is so important that it is countless millions of people. One evening in

1990, in Hong Kong, Dr. Henry Holley and Dr. Graham preached the Gospel to more than 100,000 people in Asia.

But he has a special reach. He has a reach around the corner and around the world. Just about any Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in Marietta, GA, at the Caribou Coffeehouse, which has been renamed the Caribou Cathedral, Henry holds court with countless individuals in our community, celebrating the joy of our life and the belief of his faith. And this Friday or Saturday he takes off again on his third trip, third trip to Korea and to China--this year. He will travel, before this year is out, probably a quarter of a million miles to countries around the world. He probably knows more leaders of business and politics, of Government and of religion than any single individual in the United States of America.

It is an honor and a privilege for me to introduce him to the Senate, but it is a greater privilege to know him as a friend, a pastor, and a mentor.

Mr. President, I ask to be able to address the Senate as if in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

At the outset, let me say as a rookie in the Senate, I add and echo everything that was said about Senator Cochran. He is truly one to whom all of us who are new to this body should subscribe and hope in time we could equal his accomplishment.

I rise for a moment to ask all Members of the Senate to join me in expressing their concern, their hopes, and their prayers for Congressman Charlie Norwood. Congressman Norwood, of Georgia, yesterday notified the House and the Senate that he would be returning to his home in Augusta.

A little over 2 years ago, Charlie had a lung transplant to try to correct a degenerative disease which he had had with him throughout his life. That transplant was successful and he returned to the House of Representatives and, as he always did, he represented the State of Georgia with courage, with dignity, and with tenacity.

Unfortunately, last year, cancer occurred in the lung and successfully was removed by surgery. But it has reappeared now in his liver. Charlie is fighting for his life.

His lovely wife Gloria is in Augusta with him, and his countless thousands of friends are there. But in this business that we go through in this Senate, there is always a time that all of us should reflect on the blessings we have, and that is the blessing of life. I pray now that the good Lord will look after Charlie and give him as much of that life as He possibly can.

I think it is also appropriate that we reflect a minute on how important his service in the Congress has been. We all know that domestically health care, affordability of health insurance, doctor- patient relationship is probably the singular thing the American people look to us to help solve. Charlie Norwood and his cosponsorship of Norwood-Dingell laid a platform for which one day many of those problems will be solved. He has fought tenaciously for better health care, for better patient-doctor relationships, and a better relationship between the Federal Government and the providers of lifesaving health care around the country.

At this moment, while a champion of health care is in dire straits himself, I hope all Members will join me and pray that his recovery will be fast and swift and that God puts His blessed hand on his shoulder.

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

Madam President, I rise for a few moments to address the subjects that have been discussed for the last 30 minutes. First of all, I rise in particular to lend my support to Senator McConnell who has seen to it that the Senate is able to fully express itself on the issues before us in Iraq. No one should be confused about this debate. There are many opinions here, and every one of them deserves the right to be expressed.

Secondly, I rise in support of the President's plan, and I am going to explain why in just a second. First, however, the Senator from New York made a statement a minute ago that I want to open my remarks with.

The Senator from New York said not many people are paying attention to what we debate on the floor of the Senate, that they are too busy working in their daily lives. That may very well be right, but I want to tell you who is listening to every word. First, it is the men and women in our Armed Forces, their families, and their loved ones. All you have to do is go to Iraq, where I have been many times, go to any mess hall or almost any command post, and CNN and Fox are streaming constantly. Our men and women watch what we say, so what we say on this floor is important. The resolutions we send, binding or not, should not send mixed signals.

There is another audience that listens to what we say, and they are our enemies. They listen as well. Those networks are their intelligence agencies. The messages we send should not be a message which relays a lack of confidence to our troops or to our Commander in Chief.

I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have spent 20 of the last 28 hours of committee meetings listening to experts from a variety of resources, and two things became quite clear. There were varying opinions on whether a surge would work. Some thought it would conclusively; many thought it would not. Most gave it varying degrees of potential success. Without exception, however, everyone I heard testify, when asked the question: What would be the ramifications of withdrawal or redeployment, everyone, in one degree or another, said there would be tens of thousands of lives lost, and possibly millions, and the sectarian violence that we are trying to quell now could spread through the region.

The way I see it, we have two choices right now at this stage of the game. Choice one is an opportunity for success. Choice two is a recipe for disaster. I choose the opportunity for success. I think the message we ought to send to our troops is that we support them, we wish them Godspeed, and we pray for their success.

A second message we need to send, which this debate has very helpfully done, is a message to al-Malaki and the assembly in Iraq and the people of Iraq that we came to their country with three objectives, two of which we have secured. One objective was to seek out the weapons of mass destruction the entire world believed were there. Second was to allow a constitution to be written and a free election to be held. Both of those things have been accomplished.

The last most elusive goal that we had was to secure the nation and train the Iraqi military so it could carry on that security and let that fledgling democracy go forward. That third goal, which has been elusive, has gotten closer. The President's strategy to send additional troops to Anbar and to Baghdad requires the absolute cooperation of the Iraqis and the commitment of their military to assist side by side. If they blink and look the other way, they will have failed themselves. If we blink and we look the other way, we will have failed not only them but we will have failed the people of our country.

Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq that we are now in is not the war we entered, but it is the war we are in, and those are the words of our President. Regardless of where mistakes may have been made, those of us, and I am one of those, who voted to support this when we went into Iraq did not vote for failure. I hope and I pray that our soldiers will be successful, that al-Malaki and the Iraqi military will come through and perform, and I am going to do everything I can to give them that support because I choose an opportunity for success over a recipe for failure.

With regard to the mistakes that have been made, I want to be crystal clear because there are some awfully selective memories on the floor of the Senate. I remember what I believed when I voted to go into Iraq. I remember what the National Intelligence Estimate said. And I remember the horror of 9/11 and the fear of weapons of mass destruction. We voted to do what every other member of the United Nations voted on in Resolution 1441, and that was to seek out what the world thought was there. While we didn't find the smoking gun, we found a lot of the components and a lot of the evidence. We found the 400,000 bodies in mass graves and the tyranny of a horrible dictator in Saddam Hussein. We accomplished our goal of deposing him and allowing the Iraqis to determine a free democratic society.

In the critical days of this battle, it is time for us to stand forward and stand strong and give this opportunity for success that the President has proposed a chance to succeed, rather than subscribe to a recipe of failure. These are trying times, and I respect the opinions of every Member of this body expressed on this floor, but remember who our audiences are and how important it is that the message that we send not be mixed, not be one of a political message but be a message of commitment and resolve.

I will support the President not out of partisanship, not out of blind loyalty, but I will support the President because the evidence submitted in all of the hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee told me we have two choices: We can choose an opportunity to succeed or we can subscribe to a recipe for failure. I choose success, and I pray God's blessings on our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Madam President, I yield the floor.