Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has earned a place in Georgia history and, in my opinion, will be unmatched for many years to come. My good friend, Dr. Kirby Godsey, has served as the president of Mercer University since 1979. He is currently the longest serving university president, not only in Mercer history, but in Georgia history as well. He has presided over 250 graduation ceremonies. He will retire on the 30th day of June of this year. Kirby Godsey has achieved so much, I simply don't know where to begin. He is the embodiment of a great educator, a dedicated community leader, public servant, spiritual advisor, problem solver, and the list goes on. His accomplishments are endless. My wife Julianne and I have had the privilege of knowing Dr. Godsey for many years. In fact, my son Bo received his undergraduate and law degrees from Mercer University and Mercer Law School not too long ago. During my years in the Congress, I have always appreciated his expertise and knowledge on the issues that he has discussed with me during his visits to Washington, as well as in Macon, on many complex matters relevant to education and otherwise. Dr. Godsey has been named three times among the top 100 most influential Georgians by Georgia Trend magazine for his commitment to quality education, to economic growth, and to the needs of Georgians. He has received this honor multiple times for good reason, his impact on the State is extensive. During his presidency, Mercer University has become one of the leading and most comprehensive universities of its size in the Nation, with 10 schools and colleges. When Dr. Godsey became president of Mercer in 1979, the enrollment was 3,800, the budget was $21.3 million, and the endowment was $16.5 million. Back then, the university's economic impact on Georgia was more than $21 million. Today, Mercer's enrollment is more than 7,300; the budget is $175 million, and the endowment is close to $200 million, with more than $200 million expected to be received in the near future from planned gifts. But if you ask Kirby Godsey about the legacy that he will leave behind with his upcoming retirement, he won't point to any of those things. To him, it is not about bricks and mortar and money. To Kirby, it is about the students, the graduates of Mercer University who are making the school a proud institution through their professions and service to others--and their contributions to the greater good. To Kirby Godsey, service learning is a key priority. Mercer's reputation for scholastic excellence, rigorous academic programs, innovative teaching, and time-honored values has earned its designation in 2005 as a ``College with a Conscience'' by the Princeton Review and Campus Compact. For 16 consecutive years, Mercer has been recognized as one of the leading universities in the South by U.S. News & World Report. Dr. Kirby Godsey is a workhorse, and I will share a few examples. When Middle Georgia leaders asked him to establish a medical school, he traveled throughout the State, talking with community and State leaders and developing vital partnerships. Accepting only Georgia residents in its doctor of medicine program, Mercer School of Medicine opened in 1982 with a mission to educate more physicians to serve Georgians. Today, Mercer graduates practice in 112 towns and cities and 87 counties in Georgia and handle more than 1.3 million patient visits each year. Instead of developing a separate teaching hospital, Dr. Godsey developed strong partnerships with the Medical Center of Central Georgia in Macon and Memorial Health University Medical Center in Savannah. Those partnerships have enabled Macon and Savannah to become major hubs of health care services in Georgia. He has established a Center for Health & Learning in partnership with Piedmont Healthcare in Atlanta. And with the increasing shortages of pharmacists, nurses, and educators nationwide, Dr. Godsey has worked to ensure that Mercer addresses these critical needs through undergraduate and graduate programs. In the early 1980s, Middle Georgia's economic engine, Robins Air Force Base, struggled to find enough engineers, endangering its continuing operations. So the base commander turned to Dr. Godsey for a solution. In 1985, Mercer opened the school of engineering on the Macon campus and the Mercer Engineering Research Center in Warner Robins. More than 62 percent of Mercer engineering graduates work in Georgia, and the university is the No. 1 provider of engineers to Robins Air Force Base. The Mercer Engineering Research Center that the university established in Warner Robins has exceeded more than $189 million in contract revenue in research. Dr. Godsey happened to be in my office today, and he advised me that he has now secured the full funding for a new engineering building to be located on the Mercer campus in Macon. It is a building we have helped contribute to at the Federal level. He has also gotten State funding. But the overwhelming amount of money needed to construct this facility was contributed by private individuals around our State and around the country. It has been a privilege to work with Dr. Godsey over the years, and we have worked to secure funding for a program that is vital to Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, the Critical Personnel Development Program. The centerpiece of this educational partnership between Robins and Mercer's Macon campus is to provide a state-of-the-art facility for academic training and laboratory research in support of the Logistics Center's mission requirements. In addition, it will create regional economic development opportunities, and we all know how critical that is. I am pleased, as I said, that Mercer University has now secured this vital funding and is finalizing this project. As this project becomes a true reality, we will all be able to recall Dr. Godsey's hard work on this effort. There is no question, Kirby Godsey has been a strong advocate for his community. Under his leadership, the Mercer Center for Community Development, which promotes stronger community ties by working to socially and economically revitalize neighborhoods around the school, received the Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter Campus-Community Partnership Award in 2002. He has served as chairman of New Town Macon since its beginning in 1996 and has worked hard to revitalize the downtown area in Macon, Georgia. Incidentally, my Middle Georgia Senate office is located there, and I can say without question, the revitalization efforts have been incredible. In 2003, Dr. Godsey was named the Citizen of the Year by the Greater Macon Chamber of Commerce and presented him with its highest honor, the prestigious Meritorious Service Award. He has also been recognized for influencing the quality of education across the Southeast as a leader with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. In 2002, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education recognized him as the Southeast's CEO of the year. It is also fitting that in 2006, the Georgia Legislature honored him at the State capitol for his many accomplishments during his 27-year presidency. Kirby Godsey is an inspirational leader whose dedication to Mercer University has enabled great advancements in our community, our State, and our Nation. He is a good friend and a true hero to the State of Georgia. I ask the Members of the Senate to join me in paying tribute to this great Georgian, this great American, and a great friend of this Member of the Senate--Kirby Godsey.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, I would like to extend a thank you to the Senator from Arizona and to the Senator from Massachusetts. During the debate on this issue a couple of weeks ago, it became pretty obvious that there were some Members in this body who did not want to see the Senate function the way it always has, with respect to legislation, and that is to give all Members of this body the opportunity to debate an issue, to submit amendments, and to ultimately have a vote on those amendments and a vote on the legislation. Were it not for the efforts of Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, we would have been at a deadlock, once again, and those of us who object to this underlying bill would not have had the opportunity to see the Senate work its will. So I do extend a thank you to these Senators for the very professional way in which they handled themselves during the course of the debate a couple of weeks ago, as well as right now. I rise in strong support of Senator Vitter's amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I think this amendment crystalizes the whole debate we are having in the Senate on this bill. It all comes down to the simple question of whether you oppose or you favor amnesty. I think the way Senators vote on this amendment will tell you where they stand on this issue, so I hope the American people will take careful note of how every Senator in this body votes on this amendment. I am in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The way I see it, there are three areas that must be addressed in accomplishing comprehensive reform. The first and foremost is border security. If we do not have operational control of our borders and serious interior worksite enforcement, then there is no point in trying to address the other issues relative to comprehensive reform. The second key component we must address is to have a viable temporary guestworker program for those outside of the country who want to come to this country and work in a job that needs to be filled that cannot, or will not, be filled by an American worker. The third component we must address is the reality of the 11 million, 12 million--whatever the number is--of illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States. I think we can address all three of these issues without providing a new path to citizenship for those who are currently here illegally. There have been a number of alternative approaches mentioned throughout this debate. I had one for agricultural workers, for example, which would have allowed those workers to remain working for a period of 2 years before returning to their home country and have them reenter the United States on a valid and viable guest worker program. This would allow employers to structure their workforce in a way that they can send their illegal workers home and have them return in a manner that does not result in a complete work stoppage on our Nation's farms. My main opposition to amnesty is that it has been tried before and it has been proven that it does not work. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, my main focus in this debate has been on agricultural workers. I firmly believe that an amnesty is not in the best interests of agriculture in the United States. The agricultural amnesty in this bill is so similar to the Special Agricultural Worker Program that was enacted as the mechanism for the 1986 amnesty bill that it is really startling. We have heard many Senators talk about all that illegal aliens have to do in order to adjust their status. However, I don't think many people realize that the requirements are not the same for illegal agricultural workers, under the base bill. For illegal agricultural workers to take advantage of the amnesty in this bill, they must have worked at least 150 hours in agriculture over a 2-year period, ending in December of 2005. Meeting that threshold requirement will allow the illegal worker to obtain a blue card. Once in possession of a blue card--which is a new process, a new card--that currently illegal worker has a choice of two different paths to a green card. In addition to paying back taxes, he can work 100 hours per year for 5 years or work 150 hours per year for 3 years and get a green card. There is not even a requirement to learn English for agricultural workers to take advantage of the amnesty provision in the base bill. I think the requirements for illegal workers to take advantage of the agricultural amnesty are so low that I fear a repeat of what happened, and failed, in 1986. We should not repeat the mistakes we made before. I am not the only one who feels this way. Several months ago, as we were ramping up toward bringing this bill to the floor, I had the opportunity to speak to 135 brand new American citizens who came from 125 different countries. They were sworn in at the Federal building in Atlanta, GA. After my comments to them and their swearing-in ceremony, I had about two dozen of these 133 individuals come up to me, one at a time, and say: Senator, whatever you do, please don't allow those folks who came into this country illegally to get a pathway to citizenship that is different from the path I had to follow. In some instances, these individuals took 5 years; in some instances 8; in some instances 12. In one instance, 22 years that individual had to work to become a citizen of the United States. For all 133 of those individuals who stood up that morning and raised their right hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it was the proudest day of their lives. You can understand why they do not want somebody who came into this country illegally to get a leg up on people who were in the position that they were in for so many years, trying to earn citizenship. The people I saw at that naturalization ceremony truly did earn their citizenship, and it means something to them, as it should to everybody who becomes an American citizen. It does not seem fair to me to call the process those newly naturalized individuals followed earned citizenship and also call the provision for illegal agricultural workers in this bill earned citizenship. There is a fundamental difference between the two that should be recognized in the rhetoric of this debate. Another problem I have with the agricultural amnesty provision is that it does not remedy the problem with fraud that was prevalent in the 1986 Special Agricultural Worker Program. Under the 1986 program, illegal farm workers who did at least 90 days of farm work during a 12- month period could earn a legal status. The illegal immigrants had to present evidence that they did at least 90 days of farm work, such as pay stubs or a letter from an employer or even fellow workers. Because it was assumed that many unauthorized farm workers were employed by labor contractors, who did not keep accurate records, after a farm worker had presented evidence that he had done qualifying farm work, the burden of proof shifted to the Government to disprove the claimed work. The Government was not prepared for the flood of SAW applicants and had little expertise on typical harvesting seasons. Therefore, an applicant who told a story such as: I climbed a ladder to pick strawberries, had that application denied, while those who said: I picked tomatoes for 92 days in an area with a picking season of only 72 days was able to adjust. Careful analysis of the sample of applications from the 1986 worker program in California, where most applications were filed, suggests that most applicants had not done the qualifying farm work, but over 90 percent were nonetheless approved. The propensity for fraud is not remedied in this bill and compounds bad policy with the ability for unscrupulous actors to take advantage of it. I think the most important lesson to learn from the 1986 program is that providing illegal immigrants who work on the farms of this country does not benefit the agricultural workforce for long. History shows that the vast majority of illegal workers who gain a legal status leave agriculture within 5 years. This means that under proposed agricultural amnesty, those who questionably performed agricultural work in the past will work at least 100 or 150 hours in agriculture per year for the next 3 to 5 years. But after that, particularly in light of the changes made to the H-2A program, I expect us to be in the same situation in agriculture that we are today. It is worth noting that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 created a Commission on Agricultural Workers, an 11-member bipartisan panel comprised of growers, union representatives, academics, civil servants, and clergy, and tasked it with examining the impact the amnesty for special agricultural workers had on the domestic farm labor supply, working conditions, and wages. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Back 6 years after the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, the Commission found that the same problems in the agricultural industry persist; the living and working conditions of farm workers had not improved; wages remained stagnant; increasing numbers of new illegal aliens are arriving to compete for the same small number of jobs, thus reducing the work hours available to each worker and contributing to lower annual earnings; and virtually all workers who hold seasonal agricultural jobs are unemployed at some point during the year. I think the experience of the SAW program should serve as a lesson to the Senate as we grapple with how to handle our current illegal population. I believe the amnesty in this bill is far too similar to the SAW Program in 1986 and will likely have the same result. We know from past experience that agricultural workers do not stay in their agricultural jobs for long, especially when they gain a legal status and have the option to work in less back-breaking occupations. Therefore, the focus on agricultural immigration should be on the H-2A program. This is the program that regardless of what the Senate does with amnesty, will be relied upon by our agricultural employers across the country in the near future. Let me conclude by saying that while I do support a lot of the provisions in the underlying bill, there is one basic concept in the underlying bill that is baffling to me; that is, why do we have to connect a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally to meaningful immigration reform? There are a lot of these people--whether it is 11 million or 20 million, whatever the number may be--who came here for the right reason, that reason being to improve the quality of life for themselves and their families. We need to show compassion for those individuals. Does that mean we ought to give them an automatic pass to citizenship that they may, or may not, want? We have no idea how many of these people will actually want to be citizens. Why do we grant that privilege which we cherish so much and those 133 individuals in Atlanta, GA, cherished so much on the day they were sworn in as American citizens? Why don't we simply leave the law on citizenship exactly the way it is today and let people who want to earn it earn it in the way that current law provides? Let us look out for these 11 million or 12 million or whatever the number is. We have methods by which we can deal with those individuals and at the same time accomplish real, meaningful border security, as well as provide our employers in this country with a meaningful, quality supply of workers that they know are here for the right reasons and that they know are here legally. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Isakson amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor. The American people have heard Senators from both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum come down to the floor of the Senate to talk about the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and how it did not solve the problem of illegal immigration. This was the first attempt by Congress to address the issue of illegal immigration in a comprehensive way. The Immigration Reform and Control Act was the product of a number of compromises, the main one being legalizing the illegal population in exchange for stronger enforcement of our immigration laws both at the border and inside the country. However, we all know now that the 1986 legislation, which closely mirrors S. 2611, did not work and, in fact, invited further illegal immigration, resulting in the critical situation we face regarding illegal immigration today. As the Senate considers S. 2611 we are operating under the assumption that there are around 11 million illegal immigrants who will take advantage of an amnesty. But the fact is that we simply do not know how many illegal immigrants are in the U.S. some venture to guess that there are 20 million or more. However, once again we find that many in the Senate are willing to make the same compromise that was made in 1986: legalize an unlimited amount of illegal aliens in exchange for increasing border security, interior enforcement, and worksite enforcement. I personally do not agree with this approach. I do not believe that we should provide illegal immigrants with a new path to citizenship through this bill or any bill. I do not think it is the right way to address the presence of a large number of illegal immigrants. While I do not believe in providing a new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, the Judiciary Committee disagreed. As a result, the Senate is now considering a bill that will provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. If we are willing to travel down the same path that proved not to work before, shouldn't we ask ourselves what didn't work with the 1986 amnesty that will work today? What has changed? I think one of the main problems with the 1986 amnesty bill was that it ended up being one sided--the government adjusted the status of millions of illegal immigrants but the promise of greater border security, interior enforcement, and worksite enforcement never materialized. That is why Senator Isakson's amendment is so critical. It says that we cannot implement any program to grant legal status to an illegal immigrant provided in this bill until the Secretary of Homeland Security certifies in writing to the President and to Congress that the border security measures in this bill are complete and operational. This is a very simple amendment. I do not see how any Senator who is serious about border security and enforcing our immigration laws can disagree with Senator Isakson's amendment. It is that we ensure, before we take the same path we did in 1986, a path I disagree with, that we remedy one of the fatal flaws of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. Disagreeing with this amendment sends the message to the American people that we are more eager to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than we are to secure our borders from further illegal immigration and the smuggling of illegal drugs and weapons. I know that is not the message my constituents in Georgia want to hear. Regardless of where Georgians stand on dealing with the current illegal population, the constant refrain I hear from folks back home is: secure the border. If we do not secure the border and have serious interior and worksite enforcement, then we have accomplished nothing. The American people demand no more and deserve no less. I am proud to cosponsor this critical amendment, which will show the American people that providing an amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is not more important than securing our borders. I urge my colleagues to support the Isakson amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I support the conference report to accompany H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005. I wish to commend Chairman Grassley and the House/Senate conferees for forging an important package to ensure continued economic vitality which was spurred by commonsense tax cuts enacted under the leadership of President George W. Bush. The conference report, which has already passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 244 to 185, will help small businesses, farmers, and working American taxpayers. Most significantly, the conference report: Extends for 2 years the capital gains and dividend tax rate reductions; increases the exemption threshold for the alternative minimum tax, meaning that fewer working Americans will be subjected to this hidden and creeping tax increase; increases important expensing for small businesses; eliminates the income limits on conversions to Roth individual retirement accounts; accelerates the application of $20 million capital expenditure limitation on tax-exempt State and local bonds used to finance private business manufacturing or the acquisition of land and equipment by certain farmers. The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal has correctly pointed out that the President's tax cuts and lower rates on dividends and capital gains has resulted in an increase in revenue of $137 billion, 11.2 percent, as reflected in the Treasury's monthly budget report for May. This is more than triple the rate of inflation and is in addition to the $274 billion, or a 14.6 percent increase, in Federal revenues for all of fiscal 2005, which ended September 30. Passage of this measure is essential to continue America's extraordinary economic expansion to benefit all Americans.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue of medical liability reform. Earlier this week, we attempted to bring the issue of medical liability reform to the Senate floor for a debate. Two bills were offered, S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act, and S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, both medical liability reform bills. We had two votes that would have simply allowed us to proceed to a debate on these two bills. Both of these procedural motions failed, and unfortunately we were unable to discuss this very important issue in the United States Senate. The American Medical Association has declared a medical malpractice crisis in 21 States, including my home State of Georgia. Hospitals, physicians, and patients in Georgia and across the Nation are being negatively impacted by rising costs in medical care and medical liability insurance premiums. Many health care providers have left their practices, retired, or moved to another State. As a result, we have seen a reduction in access to health care services and an adverse impact on the health and well-being of the citizens of Georgia. A new medical liability law in Georgia hopefully will help to improve the quality of health care services and assist in lowering the cost of health care liability insurance in my State. I applaud the lawmakers in the State of Georgia who took the time to address this issue on the State level and craft a law that will be beneficial to our physicians and patients. I was disappointed that the Senate was not able to bring this discussion to the floor. Many of my colleagues and I would have enjoyed the opportunity to participate in a healthy debate. While I do not agree with all aspects of the two proposed pieces of legislation, it is vital that we move forward with a discussion if we ever expect to find a solution. Many of the issues that come before the Senate are not easy ones. In order to find compromises, this body must participate in debates. Meaningful medical liability reform, at the Federal level, should help rid our court system of frivolous lawsuits, while addressing those who are seriously injured because of negligence. This reform would have to allow injured victims compensation for economic damages--medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, and loss of wages and future earnings-- as well as reasonable awards for pain and suffering. We need a system that allows patients the right to pursue any cause where injury is the result of negligence; while at the same time, we need a system that provides reasonable protection to hospitals and physicians. Our doctors throughout the country do amazing and heroic things everyday. I commend all of them for the hard work and long hours they put in to help ensure the health and wellness of the citizens in our great Nation. I am disappointed that the Senate could not move forward with a discussion on medical liability reform.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to raise awareness about childhood stroke. Very little is known about the cause, treatment, and prevention of childhood stroke. Only through medical research can effective treatment and prevention strategies for childhood stroke be identified and developed. The earlier that we are able to diagnose and begin treatment for victims of childhood stroke, the better the chances are for recovery and a reoccurrence is less likely to happen. The need for awareness on this issue was brought to my attention by a young man from Norcross, GA, Alan Blinder. In January of 2006, Alan was having a normal day at school, as any sophomore in high school would. As he was sitting in his fourth period Algebra class, the entire left side of his body went numb and he was unable to speak. Alan was escorted to the school nurse and she sent him home. That evening Alan's mother explained her son's situation to a friend who suggested the incident could have been a pediatric stroke. After seeing a physician, Alan learned that he had suffered a transient ischemic attack, or a mini stroke. These attacks can be ominous warning signs for potential future strokes. While Alan was able to receive a diagnosis from a specialist, there are thousands of children, adolescents, and parents who do not know the signs of this life threatening episode that leaves many individuals impaired. Alan was very lucky and I am happy to report that he is doing well. Alan is a smart young man who has a very bright future ahead of him. Each year a stroke occurs in 20 out of every 100,000 newborns. Almost 3 out of every 106,000 children experience a stroke before the day they are born. Of these children who experience a stroke, 12 percent will lose their lives as a result. Over half of the children who have a pediatric stroke will have serious, long-term neurological disabilities, including seizures, speech and vision problems, and learning disabilities. The result of a pediatric stroke may require ongoing physical therapy and surgeries for years and into their young adulthood. The permanent health concerns and treatments resulting from childhood stroke can result in a heavy financial and emotional burden on both the child and the family. It is my hope that greater awareness of the symptoms of childhood stroke, I introduce legislation to designate May 6, 2006, as Childhood Stroke Awareness Day. I urge the people of the United States to support efforts, programs, services, and advocacy of the American Heart Association to enhance public awareness of childhood stroke.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an individual who is a native of my State and probably is not well known to Members of this body. He was involved in an industry for which all of us have a great appreciation. The name of the gentleman is Phil Walden. About 40-plus years ago, when I was at the University of Georgia, I had a college roommate who was responsible for booking bands for a number of fraternities, sororities, and whatnot at the University of Georgia. He came into contact with a man named Phil Walden. I got to know Phil through my roommate Mike Brody. Phil Walden was an unusual individual. After graduating from Mercy University in 1962 in Macon, GA, he became a full-time professional promoter of bands. During his college days, he teamed up with an individual from Macon, GA, who became a superstar. That superstar's name was Otis Redding. Phil Walden found Otis Redding at a nightclub in Macon, GA, and made him a rich and famous person in the music industry. Otis Redding was the heart and soul of soul music for a number of years. Unfortunately, Otis Redding died in a plane crash in 1967, and a lot of Phil Walden's hopes and dreams died with him. But Phil Walden didn't stop with just rhythm and blues bands. About the time that Otis Redding's plane went down, Phil Walden founded Capricorn Records and found another band in Macon, GA, called the Allman Brothers. He then promoted the Allman Brothers into superstar status, and the Allman Brothers became the heart and soul of southern rock and roll music. Phil Walden hit hard times when heavy rock and roll hit hard times. Unfortunately, Duane Allman was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1971. Another star member of the band, Barry Oakley, was killed shortly thereafter. The Allman Brothers hit on hard times, and so did Phil Walden. He had problems with abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, like so many folks in the music industry. Phil Walden hit a low point in his life, but Phil Walden rebounded from that, just like the music industry he knew and loved so well. He moved to Nashville and stayed for a time in Nashville. While he was in Nashville, he discovered another band in Athens, GA, called Widespread Panic. They are a little beyond my generation, but my son has been to a number of Widespread Panic concerts around the Southeast, and I venture to say that the children of a lot of our Members likewise, if you mention Widespread Panic to them, their eyes light up. Phil Walden was the kind of man who had the ability to bounce back, and he did so. He was an icon in his industry. He represented, I noticed in looking at the various obituaries, a number of folks, frankly, I did not know he represented in all the years I knew Phil. Here are several of the bands and acts Phil Walden either managed at Capricorn Records or promoted otherwise: I mentioned Otis Redding and the Allman Brothers, Percy Sledge, Boz Skaggs, the Charlie Daniels Band, the Marshall Tucker Band, Wet Willie, Kenny Chesney, 311, Cake, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Hank Williams, Jr., Billy Joe Shaver, and Stillwater. Phil Walden hit on hard medical times also in recent years. Last Sunday, Phil lost his battle with cancer and, unfortunately, passed away. He had a burial last Thursday in Macon, GA, at Rose Hill Cemetery, where he was laid to rest in the same cemetery as Duane Allman and Barry Oakley. Phil Walden was truly an unusual person in the music industry. In the 1960s, he took a Black man in Otis Redding, brought him to a White university, White universities all across the Southeast, without any major incidents whatsoever, and that was significantly unusual. As Peter Conlin, a promoter and longtime friend of Phil Walden, said: If you look at a white guy from the south in the '60s trying to promote a black singer, that was a brave thing to do. And it truly was. Phil Walden did it with class, he did it with style, and he did it with success. Phil Walden then took the Allman Brothers and did it with style, did it with class, did it with success. He was a true dream story, a true story of the American dream in the music industry. He is someone the music industry is going to miss. Phil certainly lived an interesting life, and his wife Peggy, who stood by his side for so many years, deserves a lot of credit for the success Phil had, both in the music industry as well as in bringing his life back together. We are all going to miss Phil Walden. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask that a member of my staff, Mr. Justin Golshir, be granted the privileges of the floor during the consideration of this amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this bill that we are debating today will appropriate somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism. This money is important to ensure that our military has the resources necessary to win this war and continue to be the best equipped, best trained, and best led military in the world. However, there is another side to this war on terrorism that doesn't deal with money. It deals with something more important than money, and that is people. We are sending our young men and women overseas to faraway places to fight and win this war. These men and women are the most important part of this war--more important than any tank, any humvee, any airplane, or any ship that we will buy with the money that we will appropriate through the bill that we are debating today. I have been to visit our young men and women fighting in Iraq on four different occasions. I have gone on these trips with the intention of seeing firsthand what is happening in the theater and to say thank you to the men and women, with their boots on the ground, with the hope of encouraging our servicemembers who are on the front lines in this global war on terrorism. But as all of us who have gone to visit our soldiers overseas find, we are the ones who wind up being encouraged and inspired by them. We are encouraged by their professionalism, their maturity, their commitment, and their courage to do the job that our country has asked them to do. However, we all know that some of these brave men and women do not return. Some of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have given their lives in this global war on terrorism. These men and women are, in the fullest sense of the words, fallen heroes who have given the greatest sacrifice possible so that we in this country, as well as the Iraqi people, the Afghan people, and people in less fortunate parts of the world than the United States, can live in a world that is safe and free from terror. SGT Paul Saylor was one of these heroes. Sergeant Saylor was from Bremen, Georgia, and was a member of the Georgia National Guard's 48th Brigade, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Armor Regiment, serving in Iraq last summer. Sergeant Saylor's humvee was part of a six-vehicle convoy and ran off the road into a canal early on the morning of August 15, 2005, near Mahmudiyah, Iraq, and Sergeant Saylor drowned along with two of his fellow soldiers. Due to several factors, Sergeant Saylor's body reached an advanced state of decomposition before it was returned to the United States, and the Saylor family was unable to view Sergeant Saylor's remains at his funeral. I think we can all understand the extent to which this added to the grief of the Saylor family and can sympathize with them and any other family in this situation and commit ourselves to doing our absolute best to ensure that this does not happen again. The process and policies related to how we treat the remains of our fallen heroes and how we communicate and interact with their survivors deserves the absolute highest priority that we can give. It is extremely unfortunate that survivors are ever unable to view the remains of their family members and, therefore, unable to say their final goodbye and obtain the sense of closure that we all know is so important in these situations. It is also the case that on occasion, survivors have been given incomplete or inaccurate information relative to what happened to their family members and how their remains were handled after they died. This is also extremely unfortunate and adds grief to an already grieving family. The amendment that Senator Isakson and I have proposed calls on the Department of Defense to improve their current policy related to mortuary affairs, how the remains of servicemembers are handled, and how the military communicates with survivors relative to their deceased family members. This amendment will ensure that we are doing absolutely everything we can to ensure the remains of our fallen heroes receive the respect and care they deserve, and that their family receives the best treatment, as well as the most timely, accurate information possible. Specifically, this amendment calls on the Department of Defense to improve policies related to refrigeration of remains in theater, the specific time standards for movement of remains, as well as examine the feasibility of forward locating autopsy and embalming operations from the continental United States to theater, and modify any other factors that could possibly shorten the time line for returning soldiers in a nondecomposed state. This amendment also calls on the Department to improve their policies for communicating with family members to ensure family members are briefed by fully qualified Department of Defense personnel, that any partial or unverified information that families are provided is identified as such, and ensures that the Department provides updates to the family whenever new information becomes available. Mr. President, the unimaginable grief and sorrow that a family experiences when their soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice should not be made even more distressing by not allowing the family an opportunity to say their final goodbye. I strongly commend the Saylor family for their courage and strength in sharing their family's experience and their comments relative to this process with us so that we in the U.S. Congress can work to ensure that other military families do not have to go through the same thing. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Amendment No. 3714

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Menendez amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 3702.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the Senator from Washington.

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Burr, Senator Coburn be recognized, then Senator Menendez, and then I be recognized for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator from New Jersey how long does he anticipate speaking on his amendment?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today with a little bit of sadness in my voice, but also with a lot of happiness about an occasion that is going to be taking place in about 30 minutes at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA, where I had hoped to be today, but, unfortunately, the business of the Senate required us to stay here. Today at 2 o'clock there will be a dedication of the Paul Coverdell Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences at the University of Georgia in Athens. This building is going to be named for a man who was not only a close friend of mine, but he was a close political ally. He is a man who served in the Georgia Legislature for almost two decades and served in the U.S. Senate for 8 years, from 1992 to 2000, when, unfortunately, he died much too early as a result of a very sudden illness that he developed. Paul Coverdell was a man of great vision, one of the hardest working individuals I have ever known in my life, and a man who truly believed in what was best for his country. He was a man who served, not just in the Senate in Washington, but he also was a director of the Peace Corps under President George Herbert Walker Bush. Today, President Bush and Mrs. Bush are in Athens to be the keynote speakers at the dedication of this building. Paul Coverdell was a man who really took the Peace Corps to a different level. I was very pleased, along with a number of other Members of this body--particularly his close friend, Phil Gramm, the former Senator from Texas--and a number of other individuals who attended the dedication ceremony at the Old Executive Office Building in 2001, when President George W. Bush announced that we were naming the headquarters of the Peace Corps the Paul D. Coverdell Peace Corps Headquarters Building. Paul had a great vision for biomedical science as well as research, so I think it is only fitting that today the building in Athens at the University of Georgia be named for him. Were it not for the hard work and the vision of another Member of this Senate, Senator Zell Miller, who succeeded Senator Coverdell, that probably would not have happened. While it is sad to think of the fact that Paul is no longer with us, for him to be remembered as he is being remembered today, once again, on the campus of the University of Georgia, which is my alma mater, gives me a great feeling about carrying on the life, the vision, and the hope that Paul Coverdell had for our country. His wife Nancy was very active in Paul's political life. She continues to be a very vivacious lady today. She happens to serve as the chairman of my military academy appointment committee, and does she ever do a terrific job. She is a great lady in and of herself, but Paul Coverdell was a special person. He rose very rapidly in the leadership of the Senate after his election. He became the secretary of the conference and served his conference well. He served not only his Republican colleagues well, but he was an individual who, on virtually every occasion when he worked on an issue, reached across the aisle to Members on the Democratic side to make sure they were included in the process, and that his ideas and his visions for a greater America would always be shared and there would be cooperation with the folks on both sides of the aisle. Today I stand with a little bit of a heavy heart but with a wonderful remembrance of a great friend, a man with whom I spent so much time, talking about not only politics. During the 8 years I served in the House, Paul was here in the Senate for most of those years. We had occasion to talk by telephone at least once a week. We made it a point to visit about things that were happening both in our State as well as here in Washington. He is a man with whom I also had the opportunity to talk about life and about how to not only set examples, as Paul did--and I have always subscribed to but have never reached the level that Paul did--but he is a man who also just gave you a great feeling about the direction in which our country was headed. When I had the opportunity to talk with Nancy Coverdell this morning, I expressed my significant disappointment in not being there today but, thank goodness, she being a wife of a former Member of the Senate, understood that our life up here is not controlled by our wishes and desires but oftentimes by people on both sides of the aisle. I am really pleased that we are once again honoring the name and the memory of Paul Coverdell with the dedication of this building on the campus of the University of Georgia today. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Judiciary substitute bill mandates that the minimum wage that must be paid to workers admitted under the H-2A program shall be the greater of: the applicable state minimum wage, the prevailing wage, or the adverse effect wage rate, often referred to as the AEWR. In almost every case in every State, the AEWR is significantly higher than the local prevailing wage. Interestingly enough, the U.S. Department of Labor does not determine this AEWR. AEWR wages are based solely on a U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agriculture Statistics Service quarterly survey--a survey that has been published by the Department of Agriculture for decades; a survey that was never intended for the purpose for which the Department of Labor utilizes the collected data. The AEWR reflects the average wage for disparate field and livestock work over a multistate area. Packing house work--an occupation filled by a large number of H2-A workers--is not surveyed. The NASS survey result is the average of all agricultural wages, including the wages that are paid to workers whose higher production levels entitle them to additional incentives or piecework pay. The U.S. Department of Labor then uses this average wage without regard for differences in occupations, skills and seasonality by turning that average into a minimum guaranteed wage for purposes of the AEWR. To put this in terms my colleagues can understand, this would be like if you took a survey of all congressional salaries, from Senators and Congressmen to staff assistants, and then took the average of those salaries and mandated that the average wage must be the minimum amount paid to any congressional staffer. Agricultural employers who use the H-2A program to avoid breaking the law by hiring legal workers are put at a distinct competitive disadvantage when compared to growers who use the available undocumented workforce. In fact, this competitive disadvantage caused by the additional expense of using H-2A is a major factor in the agricultural industry's increasing dependency on an illegal workforce. Those employers who have been utilizing an illegal workforce have not been paying those illegal workers anywhere near the adverse effect wage rate. Most troubling to me is that in the Judiciary Committee's bill, once agricultural employers transition those illegal workers to blue card workers, there is still no mandated wage floor for them! Therefore, H-2A growers will continue to experience unfair competition if the AEWR is not replaced with local prevailing wages. I would also like to point out that the wages required of employers of workers admitted under every other temporary, non-immigrant visa category is a local prevailing wage rate determined by the U.S. Department of Labor through specific occupational surveys by the various states. I believe this should be the case for the H-2A program as well. Moving from an Adverse Effect Wage Rate requirement to a prevailing wage would allow the use of a more localized, occupation-specific, competitive wage when growers access legal workers through the H-2A program. This would naturally raise wages for some farm workers and better reflect the economic realities of the area in which the work is performed and the type of work being performed. It would also encourage agricultural employers to participate in a program designed to protect and identify the workers on our Nation's farms. I urge you to support the amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.