Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise for a moment to commend the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Arkansas for their leadership on this amendment and, in particular, for their approach. As a freshman Member of this body, I have looked forward with anticipation to the great debate on the Energy bill. I know that for basically a decade we have been without an energy policy and desperately in need of one.

As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and because of earlier legislation this year, I am critically aware of the climate change concerns and the desires by some to establish absolute standards on carbon. Senator Hagel and Senator Pryor have done precisely the right thing--precisely the thing America has done over and over again to address problems and bring about positive solutions.

As Senator Pryor just outlined, there is no reason for the business and development community of America and the environmental community's interests to be mutually exclusive. In fact, they should be mutually inclusive. Legislation such as this, which promotes incentives to find solutions to greenhouse gases, carbon emissions, develop alternative energy sources and new mechanisms of taking old sources such as coal and making them clean technologies, is absolutely correct.

I rise for one purpose, and that is to talk about a prime example of what Senators Pryor and Hagel are proposing. A number of years ago, the Department of Energy put out competition to ask private sector electric generation companies to bid on doing a demonstration project to see if coal gasification was possible and through its generation electricity could be produced at an economically viable and competitive rate.

In my neighboring State of Alabama, next to my home of Georgia, in Wilsonville, AL, such a project took place in the Southern Company. The Department of Energy began a joint project and invested money and developed technology that today leads to the construction of a plant in Orlando, FL, in conjunction with the Orlando Utility Company, where, through the new technique of coal gasification, electricity will be generated and retailed in that part of middle Florida without the emission of greenhouse gases.

That is what America is all about--positive incentives to do the right thing and to find solutions. This amendment by the Senators from Nebraska and Arkansas will do just that. I rise happily to give it my endorsement and my support.

One final comment. As we talk about the need to protect our environment and ensure that greenhouse gases don't run away from us and that we preserve all that we have, we have to understand that we have to incentivize every part of the energy sector and the energy segment, and as we develop new technologies, we also ought to reuse and reintroduce those great technologies of nuclear and others that have produced clean, efficient, reliable energy without the production either of carbon or the greenhouse gases.

So I commend the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Arkansas on their leadership. I support the Hagel-Pryor amendment.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. President, before I make the remarks, let me reaffirm my commitment and my support for John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

Like every Member of this Senate, I recognize the importance of that appointment. I recognize the concerns many of my constituents in Georgia have had with the United Nations. John Bolton is the right man at the right time for this country to be our ambassador to the United Nations.

(The remarks of Mr. Isakson are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I rise to memorialize in the Record of the Senate the name of a great educator in the State of Georgia. Two weeks ago at the commencement exercises of Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw,

GA, a lady by the name of Dr. Betty Siegel announced at the end of that commencement her retirement as president of Kennesaw State University after 25 years of service.

One might think in listening to that, well, that is a nice accomplishment, but is that so significant? I will talk for a minute about how significant this woman's life and her contributions have been.

Twenty-five years ago there were not many women presidents of any colleges or universities in the United States of America. In fact, Betty Siegel became the first president of a public university in the history of the university system of Georgia. She took the leadership of a small, urban campus, nonresidential, known as Kennesaw State College, with students numbering 4,000, handing out a handful of degrees, most all to computer learners.

As Dr. Siegel announced her retirement 2 weeks ago, she leaves a university with 18,000 students, third only to the University of Georgia and Georgia State University in population in our State, granting multiple degrees and a forerunner in our State in nursing, in education, in family business, in leadership, and in ethics.

Betty Siegel graduated from Wake Forest with an undergraduate degree and went to the University of North Carolina for her master's and doctorate from Florida State. She taught, she became a dean, throughout the southeastern United States. But when she was tapped, it was not only the right person for the time, it was the best decision possible. She broke the glass ceiling for women presidents at universities and colleges in Georgia because now we have many. She was the forerunner.

She built an urban university that was nonresidential and commuter into a combination commuter and residential university of renown and respect all over the United States.

While she did it, she did just a few other things. She got appointed to five corporate boards because of her contribution, her intellect, her knowledge, and her breadth and depth. She became president of a Chamber of Commerce. How many times have you heard of a college president or university president going on to be the president of a local community Chamber of Commerce? This happens to be the second largest Chamber of Commerce in the State of Georgia. But that is how remarkable Betty Siegel is.

I also mentioned in my remarks earlier that Kennesaw was the leader in leadership and ethics. They are because Betty Siegel found a way, through corporate and private donations, to endow a chair and build a school committed to leadership in ethics, in business, and in public life.

Through her commitment to understand the strength of small business and the fact that it is the heart of American employment, she founded, in our State, at her university, a division of family business, second to none, that today is the resource for families who try to make those transitions from one generation to the next, to make the transition from small business to medium-sized business to large business, or to seek the guidance that is so unique for small family businesses. And Kennesaw State University is that institution.

But I want to tell you something about Dr. Betty Siegel.

Retirement is not quite the appropriate announcement because she has never retired from her commitment in her life to young people and to their education, and she will not now. Because when asked, after her announcement--within minutes--well, what are you going to do? She said: I am going to teach. I am going to work with young people. I am going to try to make their lives better.

After making that announcement, she spent the next week overnight in a dorm with students, asking how she could advise the next president to make the services of Kennesaw State University even better for the students who will enter in the fall of 2005 and go on to 2006.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and it is a privilege to recognize on the Senate floor the contributions of Dr. Betty Siegel to the children of Georgia, her contributions to higher education, the ceiling she broke for women in academics in our State, and, most importantly, all of her continuing capacity to helping and teaching our young people.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise and join Senator Kennedy in introducing the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act.

One of Congress's biggest challenges year in and year out is providing access to affordable quality healthcare for the American people. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senator Kennedy and I have found an opportunity to provide injured Federal workers with a better system of reimbursable healthcare for their workers compensation claims.

Physicians assistants and nurse practitioners are vital contributors to our healthcare system. Together, they provide economical quality medical care to the American people. Unfortunately, however, they are currently not recognized in the current FECA statute. When Federal workers' compensation claims are signed by NPs or PAs, the Federal Government denies these claims. With the introduction of this bill, Senator Kennedy and I want to correct this hurdle to economical medical care.

The need for this straightforward legislation is clear. In some rural area health clinics, NPs and PAs are the only full-time providers of medical care. Likewise, NPs and PAs may be the only healthcare professionals on-site after hours at local clinics.

These professions are regulated by all States and are covered providers within Medicare, Tri-Care, and nearly all private insurance plans. Indeed, many Federal workers already regularly receive medical care from NPs and PAs through their Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. NPs and PAs are also employed by the Federal Government, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Public and Indian Health Services. In fact, most State workers' compensation programs cover NPs and PAs as reimbursable providers.

Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his cooperation in ensuring cost- effective quality medical care is available to injured Federal workers.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise and join Senator Kennedy in introducing the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act.

One of Congress's biggest challenges year in and year out is providing access to affordable quality healthcare for the American people. Today, I am pleased to announce that Senator Kennedy and I have found an opportunity to provide injured Federal workers with a better system of reimbursable healthcare for their workers compensation claims.

Physicians assistants and nurse practitioners are vital contributors to our healthcare system. Together, they provide economical quality medical care to the American people. Unfortunately, however, they are currently not recognized in the current FECA statute. When Federal workers' compensation claims are signed by NPs or PAs, the Federal Government denies these claims. With the introduction of this bill, Senator Kennedy and I want to correct this hurdle to economical medical care.

The need for this straightforward legislation is clear. In some rural area health clinics, NPs and PAs are the only full-time providers of medical care. Likewise, NPs and PAs may be the only healthcare professionals on-site after hours at local clinics.

These professions are regulated by all States and are covered providers within Medicare, Tri-Care, and nearly all private insurance plans. Indeed, many Federal workers already regularly receive medical care from NPs and PAs through their Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. NPs and PAs are also employed by the Federal Government, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Public and Indian Health Services. In fact, most State workers' compensation programs cover NPs and PAs as reimbursable providers.

Again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his cooperation in ensuring cost- effective quality medical care is available to injured Federal workers.

Madam President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania on his remarks. For the moment that he is here, I want him to hear me say something.

I make the remarks I am about to make with a full understanding, were I in the minority party and this another day, I would need to make exactly the same speech and take exactly the same position. You see, I am new here, but I have learned something very quickly. The words you say today will be the words repeated to you tomorrow.

I learned something else. The genie came out of the bottle in the 108th Congress. Whether it was Democrats or Republicans, one day somebody would ultimately have to decide: Was the filibuster intended to be used on advice and consent?

With all due respect to everybody I have heard, it is just incorrect to say that to do away with the filibuster is going to make us a rubberstamp body.

Go ask Clarence Thomas if this place was a rubberstamp body, or Justice Bork. Think about the confirmations, most contentious in the last 20 years. Nobody invoked a filibuster. One of those justices was confirmed. One was not.

There are many responsibilities of the Senate that are designated in the Constitution. Impeachment is one. Whoever heard anybody filibustering an impeachment? Did you? The Constitution says the Senate will conduct that trial, as it says the Senate will advise and consent on treaties--by two-thirds majority. And on justices of the court-- simple. It doesn't say maybe. It doesn't say if you feel like it. It is not even confusing. I have it in my pocket. I read it right before I came over here just to make sure I hadn't missed something because I heard twice today people say this document, the Constitution, doesn't say things that it does say.

I rise also, understanding how important the words are, because the second speech I made in the Senate, the first week of February this year, there was nobody in the Chamber. I've got a bigger crowd with the Senator from Pennsylvania than I had. It was early in the morning. It wasn't much of a gallery. I figured nobody was listening. The distinguished Democratic leader quoted me seven times since I made that speech.

I want to address that quote for a second.

You see, I told the story of being in Baghdad and talking to a Sunni, a Shiite, and a Kurd and asking the Kurd: Well, now that you are in the minority, aren't you scared the Shiites are going to run over you? And he said: Oh, no, we will use filibuster.

I thought that was a great remark. Here was a Kurd from the north of Iraq, in a place that had just won its liberty thanks to the blood, sweat, and tears of the United States of America, and he was reading Adams and Jefferson and studying us.

The next thing I know, the distinguished Mr. Reid from Nevada says I said that to endorse a debate over whether or not the filibuster should be used on the confirmation of a judge.

I don't blame him. But just so the record is set straight, he is quoting a Kurd who read about America, who is in the process of writing their constitution which, I presume when it is finished, will provide for a filibuster over issues but not a filibuster to be used to obstruct the justice of the new democratic nation of Iraq.

I know my time is short. But I want to make some observations. I want to make my remarks in the context of Justice Brown. I know that Mrs. Owen is the current topic of discussion, about which at some point in time we hope there will be a vote, but Janice Rogers Brown is around the corner, and I felt like, after listening to all these debates, nobody is really talking about anybody's qualifications. Have you noticed that?

Even one of the deals that was offered was: tell you what, we will approve any five, you just give us two we are not going to approve.

Does that tell you they care anything about qualifications? Why, if you thought there was an unqualified judge, would you let the other side pick five and not pick two? I don't think qualifications are the issue. I understand that. That is another reason why I say this is not a superfluous argument, were we in the minority and it was still being decided, and had the roles been on the other side. And it is important that we decide it today.

Janice Rogers Brown was born in 1949 in the Deep South. I was born in 1944 in the Deep South.

When Janice Rogers Brown was born, I don't know that her parents ever envisioned that she would be a supreme court justice in the State of California. When I was born, I doubt my parents envisioned that I would be a Senator. However, in 1944, for a male white child born in the South, it was possible to be a Senator. In 1949, in the South, in Alabama or Georgia, it would not have

been possible for a parent to dream that for a female black child.

In my lifetime of studying this body, the most prevalent use of the filibuster was by southerners in the debates over the civil rights laws in the 1960s. The filibuster was used to protract the ultimate passage of those laws. It finally failed. Our country did what was right and those laws were passed.

I would hope that today the filibuster would not be used to deny an up-or-down vote on Janice Rogers Brown because every parent deserves to dream for every child that they will have the chance--not the guarantee--but the chance. These justices who have been nominated by our President deserve an up-or-down vote. No one in here has challenged anybody's right to vote yes or no. But they have challenged the fact that, yes, every one of them deserves a vote, and that is what this debate is all about.

So, as one who is new to this Chamber but understands how important this debate is, I rise to repeat that I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee. Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate. It designates that responsibility to the Senate. I repeat, we are not breaking an old rule, we are addressing an issue that was raised in the last Congress as to where the filibuster would apply. It must be decided, and we must be diligent in our debate, respectful of the differences of opinions but, in the end, understanding of our responsibility as Members of the Senate and those elected to represent those who brought us here.

Madam President, I see my time is about up. If the Chair will inform me, I believe I have 2 minutes.

I will close by going to a quote I heard earlier today by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who talked about the history of judicial confirmation, and my understanding of history is the same as his. The distinguished Senator said the first two times our Founding Fathers worried about writing the Constitution, they were going to designate the appointment of judges to the Senate. It was only on the third meeting that, at the Constitutional Convention, they determined it be a joint responsibility: Nomination by the President, confirmation by the Senate.

The distinguished Senator is absolutely correct. He described it as a dual responsibility. It would be irresponsible for the Senate to avoid expressing itself in advice and consent on the qualification of any nominee. To do anything other than that which the Constitution designates to us would be to abrogate our responsibility. Our Founding Fathers were right over 200 years ago, and our leader, whom I commend, is right today. I hope when this debate ends, whether through negotiations or a vote, the men and women nominated to the Federal bench of the United States of America will know, not that they are guaranteed a judgeship, but they are guaranteed to know how the Members of the Senate voted on whether or not they would be confirmed.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I commend Senator Domenici for his remarks and for his service and commitment to the Senate and the United States. In some ways--I didn't plan it this way--it is kind of appropriate that he would speak and that I would follow. Senator Domenici has served this country in a long and distinguished career. He has been in this Senate for many years. You can tell by his thoughtful remarks he cares passionately about his traditions and about the responsibilities we have. I care deeply, too, but I am a new guy. I just got here. I didn't hear those speeches he quoted. I have read them, and I have heard a lot of speeches. I come from a little bit of a different perspective.

For a few minutes, I would like to tell you my opinion on the question of judicial confirmations and how I arrived at that. For, you see, although I address you as a Senator at this moment, the foundation of my beliefs is grounded in the preceding 2 years when I was a candidate for the Senate.

Beginning in January of 2002, the 108th Congress convened, and I was an announced candidate for this Senate seat. Shortly into that session, something changed in America--or at least changed here--because the holdup of judges for days counted, like Senator Domenici just recited, began to take place and the filibuster began to be used in a way it had never been used in the United States before.

As a candidate for the Senate, I was asked by members of the media, constituents, and Rotary and Kiwanis clubs: Mr. Isakson, if you were elected, what do you think the Senate ought to do? My answer was instinctively that I think every judge ought to get an up-or-down vote because, the way I understand it, that is the responsibility of the Senate. But as the intensity of the issue grew and as the campaign gained, as campaigns do, and the pressures grew, I did a little studying. I wanted to do my own homework. I didn't have history in the Senate, but I did have a Constitution.

On some of those long nights on the road between campaign stops, I would read about judicial confirmations, the Constitution, the responsibility of the Senate. For a few moments, I want to share, for informational purposes, with the Members here and those who may be watching or listening exactly what the Constitution says about the responsibility of this body.

It is very interesting. If you read the Constitution--I have a few underlined sections here. Everywhere the Constitution requires this body or the House to affirm a position by supermajority vote, it spells it out. A few years ago, we dealt with an impeachment issue, and the Constitution is clear: it takes a two-thirds vote to convict. We have dealt with constitutional amendments on a balanced budget and things of that nature, and the Constitution is quite clear: it takes a two-thirds vote. It is even so clear it says it takes a three-fourths vote of the States to ratify the amendment that it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to propose.

Then let's talk about advice and consent for a second. I want to read directly from the Constitution the provisions about the responsibilities of this Senate in advice and consent.

He [referring to the President] shall have the power by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties

provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.

That is the first part of a compound sentence. It is saying that it is our responsibility to advise and consent on treaties, and it specifically requires two-thirds of us to do so for the treaty to be ratified.

Let me go to the second part of that compound sentence:

And he [the President] shall nominate and, by and with the

advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,

other public ministries and councils, judges of the Supreme

Court. . . .

Et cetera et cetera, with no requirement for a supermajority.

When I was running for the Senate and I was continually asked the question by opponents in the primary and later in the general and by the media: Mr. Isakson, what do you think about this business of judges not getting a vote? And if you are elected, what would you do? I said: It is really kind of simple to me. The Constitution says that it is a Senator's responsibility to advise and consent. The Constitution specifies it every place where it requires a supermajority vote. The Constitution, in the same sentence that it designates the responsibility for us to ratify treaties by a supermajority, confers upon us the responsibility to advise and consent with a majority vote of this body.

Since I have been elected and since I have been on the Senate floor and since I have heard all of the speeches, I have heard all of the adjectives assigned to the process we are debating. I will not get into any of them because they are more marketing than they are substance. But this document is not marketing; this document is substance. It has made the difference in the United States of America and any other country that has ever been formed since the creation of this Earth. While it may not be perfect, it is the best man ever did, and it is specific in what our responsibilities are. In no way does it say ``maybe,'' ``sometimes,'' or ``whatever.''

There is one point made from time to time which I would like to elaborate on and respond to. There are those who say: Well, but the Constitution, when it establishes the House and the Senate, the legislative branch, it says that both shall establish their rules under which they operate. Therefore, we are just using a rule to prohibit an up-or-down vote on the judges. Well, if you carry that argument to the logical extreme, what if we passed a rule that the Senate could pass by a majority vote the ratification of treaties? Could we contravene the Constitution? I think not, because the Constitution is specific. It is as specific in our responsibility for two-thirds to ratify treaties as it is specific in our responsibility for us to advise and consent on judges. I don't believe we could invalidate, through a rule, that responsibility any more than you can extrapolate that because we have a rule that includes a filibuster, that it applies to a constitutional responsibility and can invalidate our very requirement. It is just not really logical. That is not Republican or Democrat, it is not a marketing phrase or marketing phrase; it is real simple.

When I was sworn into the House of Representatives almost 7 years ago now, I was elected in a special election, and, unusual in the House of Representatives, when you are elected in a special election, you get to make a speech when you are sworn in.

I never worked harder on a speech in all my life because I knew I was going to be the only guy out of 435 down there, and I had 1 minute to say something intelligent. I struggled with what the right thing to do was.

Finally, I went back to my dad, who is not with us anymore, and he went

back to a quote he used to tell me as a young man. He loved Mark Twain. When we had one of those difficult decisions to make, he would always say: Son, remember what Mark Twain said. When confronted with a difficult decision, do what's right. You will surprise a few; you will amaze the rest.

A decision that is pretty simple has become very complex for this Senate. In the end, we should peel back the arguments and look back to the foundation under which all of us operate, and that is our Constitution. The question is simple and our responsibility is clear, and every judge nominated by this President, or any President, deserves an up-or-down vote one way or another. It is the responsibility of the Senate. It is the direction of the Constitution.

I yield the floor.

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 for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, as the Senate is aware, I proposed an amendment identified as No. 429, which is still pending in the Senate. That amendment is verbatim the amendment that came out of the House of Representatives with regard to the REAL ID and came to us on the supplemental appropriations emergency bill.

I am about to ask unanimous consent to withdraw that amendment. Prior to doing so, I want to be clear for the record I believe the House position on the REAL ID, the 9/11 Commission position, which is where that came from, and the security of our borders is truly an emergency situation and an appropriate place for that amendment to be on the emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I respect those who had differences, and I respect those who have withdrawn amendments to this bill. Because of that, and because we are reaching a conclusion, I will respectfully ask unanimous consent my amendment be withdrawn with the express understanding that I sincerely hope the conferees and the conference committee, before this bill finally comes to rest, will have agreed that position is correct; that REAL ID will have been included, and they will have addressed the security of our borders and the identification of those entering the United States of America.

I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 429 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Rockefeller to introduce the Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005. This bill seeks to eliminate the threat that airline employees are facing to their earned pensions as a result of funding laws that make pension funding schedule volatile and unpredictable. The Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005 would allow their employers to make the required pension payments in a more predictable and manageable way. This common sense, industry specific approach is supported by airline employees and their employers.

We are giving airlines the ability to fund their pension obligations to their employees on a more manageable and stabilized 25-year schedule using stable long-term assumptions. It is analogous to refinancing a short-term adjustable rate mortgage to a more predictable long-term fixed rate mortgage. It protects the interests of the American taxpayer by capping the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation's liabilities at current levels, and ensures that a uniform evenhanded policy is taken with respect to the entire industry. Finally, this must be a joint decision made by the airline and its employees.

We are establishing a payment schedule for unfunded liabilities that is both affordable and practical, while properly protecting the interests of airline employees, airlines, and the American taxpayer. I commend Senator Rockefeller for joining me in introducing this important legislation, and look forward to its passage so that we can provide stability to airline employees with regards to the funding of their earned pensions.

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Rockefeller to introduce the Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005. This bill seeks to eliminate the threat that airline employees are facing to their earned pensions as a result of funding laws that make pension funding schedule volatile and unpredictable. The Employee Pension Preservation Act of 2005 would allow their employers to make the required pension payments in a more predictable and manageable way. This common sense, industry specific approach is supported by airline employees and their employers.

We are giving airlines the ability to fund their pension obligations to their employees on a more manageable and stabilized 25-year schedule using stable long-term assumptions. It is analogous to refinancing a short-term adjustable rate mortgage to a more predictable long-term fixed rate mortgage. It protects the interests of the American taxpayer by capping the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation's liabilities at current levels, and ensures that a uniform evenhanded policy is taken with respect to the entire industry. Finally, this must be a joint decision made by the airline and its employees.

We are establishing a payment schedule for unfunded liabilities that is both affordable and practical, while properly protecting the interests of airline employees, airlines, and the American taxpayer. I commend Senator Rockefeller for joining me in introducing this important legislation, and look forward to its passage so that we can provide stability to airline employees with regards to the funding of their earned pensions.

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

I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the amendment, and I ask that we call up amendment No. 429.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, given the pending time prior to the vote we will have in a few minutes, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, as we are in the midst of this important debate on the war supplemental, immigration, and other pressing issues, all over America things are happening that don't always make it to this floor.

This week in my State and in my home city, where I was born, Atlanta, GA, there will be a retirement. Mr. Mark Fitzgerald will retire from his years of service with the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Atlanta, an association he has built to become one of the largest in the United States of America. He will be honored. There will be testimonials. There will be gifts. But the greatest gift is the service he and his association have given to the economy of our State, for the betterment of our State, and in the entrepreneurship and freedom that we all love in this great country of ours.

So I want to pause this moment and let the Record of the Senate reflect that this week, as we debate the issues of the day, all over America there are those who have given their lives in service to their country through the free enterprise system.

Today and this week, in Georgia, one Mark Fitzgerald is one who will be honored. I commend him for his service, his commitment, and his citizenship in this great country and in our home State.

I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me a few moments to speak about this issue.

If we read the preamble to this proposed amendment, it says it is a sense of the Senate that the Congress of the United States should not delay the appropriation to our men and women in harm's way by having a debate over immigration policy. It could just as easily say it is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should not delay a comprehensive immigration reform debate which is the reason we have the problem today.

I have a great respect for the Senator from Texas. I understand why this amendment has been put together because, as the Senator has said, there are a lot of us who have been trying for 3 or 4 days to figure out a way to bring about a meaningful debate on comprehensive immigration reform. I am taking this opportunity because I want to make points not on behalf of the Senator from Georgia but on behalf of the 9 million people in Georgia I represent.

Those points are as follows: REAL ID is not an immigration issue. It is a national security issue. By the time we get to the end of this debate and the conference, it should be a part of this package.

No. 2, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from California and the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Texas and the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Pennsylvania. I wouldn't disregard for a second the amount of work that has gone into the comprehensive immigration laws of this country, trying to bring about fundamental change. However, as of this date, in the 3 and a half plus years since 9/11, the Congress has done little to address some major issues. For a second, I would like to address them.

As I do, I want you to know I am a second-generation Swedish American. Because of this great country, my grandfather emigrated in 1903 in the potato famine. My father was born in 1916. My grandfather wasn't naturalized until 1926. Because of this Constitution, I am in the Senate today. I respect the legal immigration process. I also despise those who tend to judge books by covers and categorize people by their ethnicity or their look or say: They are an illegal alien. We have delayed so long in dealing with securing our borders, enforcing legal immigration and seeing to it there are consequences to bad behavior, the American people have lost confidence in the government to actually do what the Constitution expects us to do.

Think about a few things for a second. We have talked about agriculture. We are spending money enforcing the adverse effect wage rate on the onion farms of south Georgia. We are spending money enforcing a law that actually would induce a farmer to think about hiring undocumented workers rather than documented workers because it is going to cost him $2, $3, or $4 an hour more to hire the documented worker, and we don't have the enforcement people to enforce our borders. How in the world can we justify trying to enforce that which induces the wrong thing to happen?

We have seen our health facilities, our educational facilities--I chaired the Georgia Board of Education. I

spent more time providing Spanish-speaking teachers for our State, and bilingual programs, which I am proud of. I want to educate every one of them. I helped write No Child Left Behind. But as the flood and the flow continues and the suspicion continues that we fail in Washington to recognize the crisis we have in this country, a crisis that is causing some of our citizens to take actions that worry me deeply, it is my responsibility on the floor of this Senate to represent the people of the State of Georgia.

I respect the Senator from Texas and this amendment. I understand why it is here. If we get about the business of a feeding frenzy, of taking some of the points I have mentioned and the Senator from Idaho has, we may delay, but somehow, some way we need to send the American people the clear signal we get it. We are going to have comprehensive reform. We are going to have a comprehensive debate, and it is going to be sooner rather than later.

I will disagree, I am sure, as will others with me, on where we need to go. But disagreeing on how we get there and getting there are two different things. We no longer have the luxury. Our States, our school systems, our hospitals, our farmworkers, and our people no longer have the luxury or the patience for us to delay any longer.

In my State of Georgia, there is an old saying: If you want to get the mud out of the stream, get the hog out of the spring. Procrastination on dealing with the delicate and difficult issues of comprehensive immigration reform have muddied the water in America and will do great harm if we don't hurry up and take the 8, 3, 4, and 6 years of work that has been done in committees and move forward with comprehensive reform.

I believe the Senator from Texas is trying to use this as a foundation for that to happen. I understand the Senator from Idaho's frustration which I have shared. I hope if my remarks contribute anything, it will be to send a message: Regardless of whether we agree on the specifics, let us no longer delay in dealing with the single largest domestic issue to the people of the United States and that is comprehensive immigration reform and rewarding legal immigration and getting our arms around illegal immigration.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, throughout the week of April 10, 2005, The Weather Channel, based in Atlanta, GA, will air a special series, entitled Heroes of the Storm, honoring the Americans who performed the most exciting rescues depicted in the network's acclaimed series Storm Stories. Featured in the tribute will be 28 heroes from 15 States and the District of Columbia. These heroes, like all who risk their lives for others, deserve our Nation's admiration, recognition and thanks. I ask unamious consent that the following list of heroes be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, at this precise minute and this precise hour in Jacksonville, FL, countless friends and admirers are gathering to pay tribute to Tillie Fowler. It is only fitting and proper that in this Chamber this Congress do the same.

For me personally, it is more than just the loss of a colleague. I served with Tillie's dad, Culver Kidd, a State senator in Georgia for years when I served in the legislature--colorful and distinguished, a leading citizen. Her brother Rusty is a warm and trusted friend. Her daughter Tillie worked for me the first 4 years I served in the House of Representatives. I honor, admire, and respect her loving husband Buck who, together with Tillie, has meant so much to me personally in my career.

I know the bible teaches us in the book and chapter of Ecclesiastes that there is a time for everything, a time to live and a time to die. But there are some times that it is so difficult to accept, the loss of one so vibrant and so important, not only to their community but to their country. Such is the case with Tillie Fowler.

I know that her family, gathered today at this moment in Jacksonville, FL, would want us in the Senate and in this Congress, in this building today, to pay tribute to the legacy of Tillie Fowler: an accomplished attorney, a loving wife, a devoted mother, a committed servant of the people she represented, an honored Member of the United States House of representatives, a lady who became the highest elected woman in leadership in the Congress of the United States at the time she ascended to the position of vice chairman of the Republican conference in the majority of the House, respected by both sides of the aisle as the most formidable and knowledgeable member of the Armed Services Committee in the House, one who had the temperament and the ability to calm the waves of partisanship and point to the direction that we all knew we should go, and one that would also stop to help, regardless of the need of an individual.

In fact, on Tuesday of this week, just one day after she was stricken, I was to have had an appointment in my office in the Russell office building with Tillie Fowler. Obviously, because of her illness, she could not come. But the person she was going to introduce me to could. Only a Tillie Fowler would have sent to me the new director of the largest public and charitable hospital in Georgia and the largest trauma center in our State because she was spending part of her time trying to see to it that those that help others got help themselves.

It was an honor for me to serve in the House with Tillie Fowler. It is a privilege for me to stand here today in the Senate and pay tribute to our colleague. On behalf of all the Members of

this Senate, we extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to her husband Buck, her daughter Elizabeth, her daughter Tillie, and all of her extended family.