Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, responding through the Chair, I appreciate the clarification. My point is you can't intervene if you don't know where it is going to happen. Let me just make a point, if I can. I live in the great State of Georgia, and I live in a suburb of Atlanta. There will be a trial in April of two students at Georgia Institute of Technology--Georgia Tech. Because of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA law, our intelligence agencies tracked communications from Islamabad, Pakistan, into Atlanta, GA, to the library at Georgia Tech to two students, Islamic students who were then communicating to Toronto, Canada, to establish a cell in Atlanta. Days before they were to activate the plan of that cell, our authorities moved in and put them under arrest, and they are going to trial. The cell was never activated. No lives were lost. That is how you preempt. You preempt through intelligence, you preempt from knowing what the enemy is going to do before they do it, and you preempt by having the strong intelligence and military forces to make it work.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, after seeing what al-Qaida wants to do to us and has done to us, I don't think we should minimize what the effort might be that we have to take. I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, it is one of preemption, and the No. 1 way to preempt is to know in advance what the enemy is going to do, and the No. 1 way to do that is to be able to surveil known enemies. That is why we have the FISA bill. You can preempt when you have the knowledge. If you don't have the knowledge and you strip your intelligence agency of the business, yes, they are going to grow in 80 countries, and yes, they are going to hit us. So we have a policy of preemption. The best way to preempt is to have good intelligence, and the best way to get their attention is to let them realize we will go after them wherever they are as long as they declare war on the United States of America.

Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise for just a few minutes. I know the distinguished Senator from Michigan wants to speak, and I will not be long, but I feel compelled to come to the floor today to speak about S. 2634, to require a report back to the people of the United States and to the Congress on our country's plan to address al-Qaida and its affiliates on a worldwide basis. It is very disappointing to me that we would put something on the floor like that when, in fact, it is those who have objected to the plan we have who are causing all of the problems we are experiencing today. I wish to go through it for a moment because there is a plan. Nine days after 9/11, when the United States of America was attacked and New York City was attacked and the world saw the evil of al-Qaida and the evil of terrorism, the President of the United States went to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he made a speech in which he declared a change in U.S. policy--a change from one of reaction to one of preemption. So, first of all, we don't need a 60-day report back to the people of the United States on what our policy is. Our policy is one of preemption. Now, if you want to argue whether that is right or wrong, it is fine with me, but don't pretend as though we don't have a plan. Secondly, in terms of preemption, it is a proposition where you don't want to see what happened on 9/11 happen again, so you are proactive rather than reactive. We were attacked as a country in the late 1990s and early 2000 seven different times in which we reacted after the fact. In most cases, those reactions were benign. In one case, we sent one missile into an aspirin factory, but it was too late for the diplomats who had died, for the soldiers and sailors on the Cole who had died, and for others who had died tragically under terrorist attack. So, first and foremost, I would submit that we have a policy called preemption. Thirdly, I would submit it has been a pretty good policy because since the President of the United States established it in that speech on the floor of the House in September of 2001, there has not been a single executed attack on the United States of America on our homeland. I think that is pretty good evidence that we have a plan, and a plan that is working in the interest of the safety of the American people. Fourth, recommendations regarding the distribution and deployment of U.S. military, intelligence, diplomatic, and other assets to meet the relative regional and country-specific threats described in paragraph 1. The people who want to pass this bill are the very people who 2 weeks ago would not allow us, in the House of Representatives, to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here we are asking what our plan is going to be. Yet people are voting against the United States having the intelligence to conduct the worldwide program against al-Qaida and its affiliates. You just can't have it both ways. I respect anybody being opposed to our deployment in Iraq. I respect anybody's opinion in this body--or any other body, for that matter--on the policy of the United States. But do not on the one hand assume we have no policy and then on the other hand vote against every meaningful contribution to the policy we do have, and the absolute prima facie evidence of that is FISA. Go look at the votes in the Senate on who voted against the extension of FISA, and you will find the same people who are supporting and furthering S. 2634. It is on its face patently unacceptable. Lastly, it requires recommendations to ensure that the global deployment of the U.S. military of personnel and equipment best meets threats identified and described in paragraph 1; and, A, doesn't undermine the military readiness; B, requires the deployment of Reserve units more than twice, once every 4 years; and C, requires further extension of deployments of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Let me interpret what that means. In 60 days, they want us to report to our enemies exactly what our military deployments are going to be in the future. One thing you don't do when your sons and daughters are engaged in harm's way around the world is tell your enemy what your game plan is. Sure, you should have one, and it should be one we all listen to on the fourth floor in our secured briefing rooms, but don't require it to be advertised to the world. We live in the greatest, freest, most liberty-loving country in the world. We fight in this body every day to protect the Bill of Rights. But we have to recognize something: The terrorists don't want what we have. They don't want us to have what we have. They don't want us to have a first amendment to protect speech or for me to be able to stand up here and express myself. They don't want a law-abiding citizen to be able to carry a firearm or own a firearm. They don't want you to be able to worship on Sunday or worship on Friday or worship on Saturday or worship five times a day if you are a Muslim. They want to be able to dictate how you worship and whom you worship. We have to remember that, as we talk about the individual liberties and freedom we protect, those are the very liberties al-Qaida and its affiliates, as this bill portends, want to take away from us. The last thing we want to do is pass legislation requiring us to give them our game plan. I welcome debate on these issues anytime we want to come to the floor. I take pride in the accomplishments of the young men and women who stand today in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other places around the world furthering the interests of the United States of America and protecting us against al-Qaida and its operatives. We have a policy, and it is called preemption. We have a plan, and it is our plan, and it doesn't need to be advertised to them. Most importantly of all, we have the finest men and women in the world executing that plan today around the world on behalf of the people of the United States of America. But let's not require disclosure of our plan, and let's not pretend we don't have a way to attack al-Qaida and its affiliates. We do. It is called preemption. As of yet, they haven't hit us on our territory, in our country since the day we established that as the policy of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, we are on a very important piece of legislation, and I thank Senator Bond for all his hard work, and other members of the Intelligence Committee. I hope we can very soon pass a good FISA bill on the floor. I want to deviate from that debate for a second to talk about a headline many of my colleagues read yesterday, and that we are all reading repeatedly around the United States, and that is the rapid increase in the number of houses going into foreclosure. I want to address that in the context of the economic stimulus package and in the context of a possible recessionary tendency in the economy, and also from a historical perspective, in that we have been down this road before, and suggest there is an action the Senate and the Congress could take, and the White House could endorse, that could avoid an awful lot of foreclosures, improve the housing market, reverse the tendencies toward recession, and be a private sector solution to a problem that is going to be a tremendous burden if we don't act. I understand the short-term surgical benefits of the stimulus that was passed by the House, the other benefits that the Finance Committee passed. We will work ourselves through that in the next few weeks, and shortly thereafter the American people will more than likely be receiving a check of $300 or more with which to infuse some energy into the economy. But while that is going on, these numbers of a 200-percent and 300-percent increase of houses going into foreclosures are going to materialize into houses in foreclosure. When we get into the second quarter of this year and the middle of the summer, we are going to find ourselves in a difficult situation where the following has happened: a tremendous number of houses foreclosed on, the banks and lenders taking back inventory--and there is a term called REO, real estate owned--and the regulators coming in, looking at their books and telling them to get rid of that inventory. The lenders are going to then write them down, take them to the marketplace with deep discounts, and sell them. Now what that is going to do to your homeowners Jim Weichert sells to in New Jersey, mine in Georgia Harry Norman sells to, and those from all around the country, is those people who are in houses making payments and they are in good shape, their value is going to plummet because of the number of foreclosures that is flooding the market. What happens is the equity, the difference between their existing mortgage and the value of the house, decreases because the value of the house goes down. If they are like 87 percent of the American people who have an equity line of credit, where they use the equity in their house as a line of credit, if you will, their available credit is going to be squeezed. You know what is going to happen then? They are going to stop spending. When that happens, we will have the full pressure of the economy in a downward spiral, and it begins to feed upon itself. That is precisely what happened in 1975. In 1973 and early 1974, there was a great housing boom in the United States, like we have had over most of the last decade. And like what happened over most of the last decade with subprime loans and underwriting, back in 1974, money got awfully loose. Banks made loans with very little underwriting criteria, and we had a plethora of new homes built all over the United States by newfound homebuilders who had a hammer, a pickup truck, and easy credit. We found ourselves at the beginning of 1975 with a 3-year supply of vacant housing on the market in the United States. A viable real estate market is a 6-month supply. So you had six times the volume of houses that would be considered a balanced market, and we went into a deep recessionary spiral. A Democratic Congress and a Republican President passed a $6,000 tax credit available to any family who purchased a standing vacant house in inventory, and that allowed them to collect that credit over 3 years-- the 3 succeeding tax years after the year of their purchase. The only thing they had to do, other than qualify for their loan, and qualify under good qualifying standards, is they had to occupy the home as their residence. In a 1-year period of time, we absorbed a 2-year supply of housing and returned the housing market to balance and the economy stabilized. Although we had the impacts of the oil embargo, which was causing problems with inflation, the economy returned to a relatively stable time period. I, along with a number of Members of the Senate, have introduced legislation--Senate bill 2566--which takes that model from 1975 and applies it to our problem in 2008. What it very simply does is, it offers a tax credit of $15,000 for the purchase of any house that falls in the following category: a new house permitted before September 1 of last year that is standing and vacant; a house owned by a lender that was foreclosed on in the last 12 months from an owner occupant; and any house pending foreclosure owned by an owner occupant who is willing to sell. That is where all this inventory that is beginning to flood our market comes from. The tax credit would be available if the purchase was made between March 1 of this year and February 28 of next year. So there is a 1-year window to incentivize those who may be reluctant to go in the marketplace to do so. The Joint Tax Committee has scored this, and guess what the score is--$9.1 billion over 5 years. Put that in the context of the stimulus package that is before us of $150 billion to $160 billion. It is a relatively small inducement to provide a private sector solution to what is about to become a huge burden to the taxpayers of the United States and this Government. I come to the floor at this time in hopes that some of our colleagues who have not found an interest in this legislation yet will take a look at it. As the author, it is not original thought. I happened to have been a real estate broker in 1975 trying to hang on and make a living to educate my three children, and I saw my Government come to the rescue of the housing economy through energizing people to go in and purchase houses that were in trouble, rather than bail them out somewhere down the line, and it worked. The cost to the Government was infinitesimal, yet the benefit to the public was astronomical. I hope, as we finish talking about a surgical, strategic, short-term stimulus to get the consumer buying, which is what we are talking about in terms of either the Senate Finance Committee bill or the House bill, we take a look at what is coming. Because, believe me, in July of this year, if we do nothing, we are going to be dealing with a housing supply in this country bigger than it has ever been, with vacant houses by the thousands in neighborhoods, declining values on the value of housing, and people who are in good shape are not going to be able to either have their equity line of credit work or be able to move their house in the marketplace because of the tremendous inventory available. History is a great teacher both in terms of things you should never repeat but also in terms of things that work and you should repeat again. I would submit the tax credit to qualified individuals to purchase and occupy a troubled house in this economy is an incentive that worked not only for the betterment of the market but for the betterment of our economy and in the best interest of the United States. Senate bill 2566 is an opportunity for us to join together to do something good and right for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Cornyn on his remarks, and I want to add that I too think it is important to address the stimulus package that has come from the House quickly and decisively. I fall in the category of one of those who has some other ideas as well, but I think while the iron is hot and while we do have a surgical and strategic proposal before us, we should act. Immediate action can make a large difference in when the infusion comes back into the economy, when the tax breaks can be taken advantage of by business in terms of depreciation and expensing, and in particular for the housing market, the increased loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA loans will be essential in saving some houses in foreclosure and those ultimately facing foreclosure, because they will be purchased by people who will qualify under the new loan limits and who will be able to take that loan and make it a performing asset. It is to that subject I want to talk for a second. Experience is a great teacher. There is an old saying if a cat sits on a hot stove, it will never sit on a hot stove again. Of course, they never sit on a cold stove; they just get out of the business of sitting on stoves. In my experience in the private sector as a businessman, for years I was in the real estate business in the 1970s, in particular, in the period of time between 1968, as a matter of fact, and 1999. In the mid 1970s, the United States faced a housing crisis almost identical to what is about to happen in this country today. In 1973 and 1974, we had a huge housing boom, with increasing values, where credit got easier, loan limits got higher, and underwriting got lower. What ended up happening was that a lot of bad loans were made. In that particular period of time, many were to homebuilders rather than homeowners. But suffice it to say it was the same underwriting problem and the same deficiency in terms of loans. A plethora of foreclosures took place, new homes went back, and the United States found itself in 1975 in a recession with a 3-year supply of single-family houses on the market, unsold and with no housing market. The President and the Congress took action. They passed a $6,000 tax credit, where a family could collect $2,000 a year for 3 years if they purchased any standing new home in inventory and occupied it during those 3 years. Within the course of a year, we had reduced as a country a 3-year supply of housing to a 1-year supply of housing. We had reinvigorated the construction trade, the subcontractors, the building suppliers, those who manufactured carpet, washing machines, dryers, and all the components so important in the overall economy that are spurred by a home purchase. Yesterday, I introduced, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Craig, Senator Allard, and Senator Chambliss, S. 2566, calling for us to repeat history in this country, to reenergize the housing market that is so sluggish, at a strategic time. We can save houses in pending foreclosure from actually being foreclosed upon and turn them into occupied single-family dwellings. Very simply, S. 2566 would do the following: It would provide a $15,000 tax credit--$5,000 for 3 years--to any individual, couple, or two people living together filing separately, if they purchased and occupied as their home any single-family dwelling on the market that was: A, a new home permitted for construction before September 1 of 2007 and now vacant; B, a home that has been foreclosed on that was owner occupied and is now in an REO--real estate-owned-- category of any lender, bank, or financial institution; and, C, any property pending foreclosure that is owner occupied. We all know from reading the paper that foreclosures are going up in geometric proportions. What is about to happen in the first quarter of this year is the largest realm of foreclosures that has taken place in this country in years. What is going to go into the second quarter of this year is those banks being told by regulators they have to get rid of that inventory, that they can't keep it on their books, and banks and lenders are going to do what they have always done. They are going to get rid of them by deeply discounting the prices to try to get people to come and buy those houses. Now, what that does to Mr. and Mrs. America who live in a house making their payments is it depresses the value of their house, it lowers their home equity line of credit available because the value has gone down, and it stagnates the very consumer the economy has depended on over the last decade for the longest protracted period of growth in our history. I come to the floor today to ask all the Members of the Senate to take a look at S. 2566, to take a hard look at it, and to make sure they look back at the history of 1975, when we faced almost an identical problem, took the strategic action this bill recommends, and had a result that was absolutely right for the economy and right for the American homeowner. I understand all kind of incentives, I understand giving money back, I understand trying to send people to do things, but there is nothing better than helping to make the No. 1 investment every American family wants to make. An incentive to do that, at a time that very market is in trouble, is one of the keys to seeing to it that whatever lies ahead for us in our economy is a much lower trough, and maybe even a peak, where we at the right time strategically invest in the American family, in homeownership, and take those houses in ownership by lenders and put them in the ownership of families. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 7 minutes as in morning business and to maintain the existing 30 minutes for the majority side.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in morning business to discuss a recent trip I made about 2 weeks ago to Iraq. It was a trip I made, as I have every year since I have been in the Senate, to visit Iraq, to visit firsthand with Georgia troops on duty, Georgia troops who are there standing guard for America, as well as to interact with the Iraqi Government--the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shias--and rank-and-file Iraqi people to measure the progress of our effort in Iraq but, more importantly, the progress of the Iraqis themselves. I am delighted to be able to come and give a very unbiased and, hopefully, unvarnished and very plain recitation of the remarkable changes that have taken place in that country. We all know a year ago in this body we had serious debate over the fate of our effort in Iraq. There were calls for us to withdraw. There were declarations that we had lost. There were other challenges that were brought forward. But finally, though difficult, the decision by the President to commit to an increase of troops for the surge and follow the anti-insurgency plan of General Petraeus and put General Petraeus in charge finally became a reality. About midyear on the ground in Iraq the deployment was complete and they began exercising the plan. Let me try and give an idea of what Iraq today is like compared to Iraq 1 year ago. When I landed at the Baghdad Airport, for the first time I drove by car--by armored vehicle--into downtown Baghdad. Every year before we had to fly in on Apache helicopters because of the ground fire and the danger. We arrived in Baghdad in the Green Zone and spent the night. On every trip before to Iraq, they took us out to Kuwait City to a Sheraton Hotel when darkness fell in Baghdad because it was so dark. Twice during the course of the visit we got outside of the Green Zone and into a Chevy Suburban in one case, and into an MRAP in another case, and went out on two excursions. I would like to talk about them for a second. The first was in an MRAP. I have to pause here and pay great tribute to Senator Biden. About 18 months ago, Senator Biden led the charge in this body for us to fund the MRAPs to try and do away with the tragic loss of life that was taking place through IEDs on the ground and on the roads in Iraq and in Baghdad. There is no question in this body that the most strident voice in favor of that funding and that commitment was the Senator from Delaware. Today, the soldiers of the United States of America and of Iraq and of our coalition partners ride in the new MRAP vehicles, which are remarkable. General Petraeus told me at the dinner I had with him that in the first five hits where an IED exploded under an MRAP, there was not a single scratch of an American serviceman. I know a week ago we lost our first serviceman in an MRAP, but that serviceman was the gunner above the turret at the time he was hit. It has a 100-percent record in terms of those inside of the MRAP when moving the troops. It is a marvelous transformation and a great testament to this body, Republican and Democrat alike, to rise to the occasion to see to it that when our men and women are threatened, if there is a technique, if there is a technology, if there is engineering sufficient to bring about a new product, we will do it, and we will fund it. We did it on the MRAP, and today our soldiers are safer and our efforts stronger. I rode in one of those MRAPs to a neighborhood known as Gazaria. Gazaria was the neighborhood that was completely destroyed 2\1/2\ years ago. I went to a market that had about 20 shops, of which about half were open, and traveled with a squad headed by a lieutenant colonel who was making microgrants and microloans and measuring the progress of previous loans that had been made to Iraqis who were reopening their stores. Senator Cornyn, Senator Coburn, and myself stood in a bakery and ate an Iraqi-type of flatbread and drank tea in a market that had been totally destroyed and unoccupied for 2\1/2\ years. We went to an auto repair shop where two brothers had reopened the shop and were beginning to do repairs and had bought a generator to provide them with reliable, continuous electricity. These are microloans made by the United States of America to the Iraqi people to reinvest in themselves, reinvigorate their enterprises, reinvigorate their employment. Was it dangerous? Sure. We had on bulletproof vests, we had on helmets, and we traveled in MRAPs. But heretofore you could never have gone into downtown Baghdad as we did on this trip. Twice we ran into local Iraqis: once two Sunnis who joined the awakening movement and the CLCs who were taking up arms to guard the secured market to see to it that no terrorist or insurgent could come in and do damage, and then twice to refugee families who over 2 years ago had left Baghdad and Gazaria with no intention of ever returning, but now, because of its relative security, they returned. The second trip was made by Chevy Suburban--not by armored tank or not by MRAP--and we left the Green Zone and went through Baghdad to the government building where we met with Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders. For the first time in my annual trips back there, the talk was substantive and the inference on the part of the leadership was that things were getting ready to get better. As all of us know, on debaathification and reconciliation, things have started to happen. As the President acknowledged in his speech last night, they will be happening in terms of sharing the oil revenues and eventually a hydrocarbon law for the entire country. My point in bringing this story to the Senate and telling it firsthand is the progress the President described last night is real. It is tangible. Things are changing in Iraq, and they are changing for the better for the Iraqis and for us. We have brought back two groups, and as the President said, we will bring back five more without replacing them this year. Our troop level will be going down. We are going from a combat confrontation to an oversight role in terms of helping and providing logistics to the Iraqis. Have the Iraqis responded? Think about this: Remember about 6 months ago when the Prime Minister of Great Britain said they were pulling the British troops out of Basra, and the American press wrote about another failure: One of our partners was leaving, so what were we going to do. Nobody has written about Basra since then because here is what happened: All the Brits who left were replaced by Iraqis--not by Americans, not by coalition forces. Have you read about damage or problems in Basra? No, you haven't because the army has performed magnificently--the Iraqi Army. Today we read of reports in Mosul, and we mourn the tragedy of the loss of U.S. soldiers, but in that big attack going on against one of the last strongholds left of the insurgents of al-Qaida, the spear of that attack, the point of that attack was all Iraqi soldiers. I had the privilege to meet with Iraqi generals who, for the first time, see themselves energized, see themselves fully capable of assuming the role that we have taken for so long: for us to move to oversight and for them to move to the point of the spear. The practical matter is, whatever mistakes may have been made in the past, whatever differences we may have had, the young men and women of the United States of America have performed magnificently. General Petraeus has lived up to every single promise of hope we had for him. In the name and in the memory of the tragic loss of life in Iraq, Georgia soldiers such as Diego Rincon, LTG Noah Harris, SGT Mike Stokely, and the other 119, the sacrifice they have made has not been in vain, and we are on the doorstep, hopefully, of building and of helping to have created a democracy that will last and endure in the Middle East. Hopefully, it will be the first step of many to accomplish the hope of peace, freedom, and liberty that we in this country so often take for granted but the rest of the world cherishes. So the President was right last night in his State of the Union speech. We have made great progress. There is work left to be done, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not a locomotive. It is the light of hope, liberty, and peace and freedom because of the sacrifice and the endurance of the fine young men and women in the U.S. military serving in harm's way today in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise before you today to pay tribute to Sidney Flowers. Mr. Flowers was the respected Solicitor General for Liberty County, GA, a popular member of the community, a loving family man and a true Southern gentleman. After high school, Sid Flowers gave 2 years of service to his country by enlisting in the Army. He then went on to study law at Mercer University law school in Macon, GA, before heading back to live and work in his hometown in Liberty County, GA. The community was always at the center of Sid's life. He was chairman of the Liberty County Cancer Society, a member of the Lions Club, the Masonic Lodge and the American Legion, as well as an honorary member of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. He was also a committed elder at the First Presbyterian Church, to which he gave not only his time, but also his legal expertise. The Senate has passed H.R. 3470, a bill naming the post office in Hinesville, GA, as the Sidney `Sid' Flowers Post Office Building. It will stand as a reminder of one man's exceptional contribution to his community.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise on a sad occasion for me personally and for my State, but also in some sense a proud time for me to be able to acknowledge the life and times of Thomas B. Murphy. Last night, at 10 o'clock, in Bremen, GA, in Haralson County, Thomas B. Murphy died from the complications of a stroke that for the last 4 years kept him, at best, semiconscious and in a very difficult state. But in those previous 79 years of life, he is probably the most remarkable political figure in the history of the State of Georgia. Elected speaker of the house in 1974, he maintained that position until 2002--for 28 years--longer than any speaker of any legislature in the history of the United States of America. He was the son of a primitive Baptist preacher by weekend and a railroad telegraph man by day. He was a product of the Depression. And he was Irish. He was tough as nails but had a heart of gold. He was a Democrat through and through, and proudly stated his absolute distaste for any Republican. For 8 years of my 17 years in the Georgia Legislature, I was the Republican leader of the Georgia House. To give you an idea of what a minority is really like, I was 1 of 19 Republicans, and there were 161 Democrats. I understood what being a minority leader was all about. Tom Murphy was a powerful, forceful leader. But from the day I met him, when I was first elected in 1976, to the last day I held his hand, this past April, by his bed in Bremen, GA, he was always fair, he was always good, and he did what was best for the State. Tom Murphy did not play golf. He did not play tennis. He raised tomatoes in his garden. His house is a modest brick ranch in Bremen, GA. His trade as a country lawyer was exceeded only by his skill as a politician. He never cared for money. He never cared for fame. He never cared for attention. His favorite day of the year was March 17, St. Patrick's Day, for which he would summarily adjourn the Georgia Legislature so he and his entourage could go to Savannah, GA, and be a part of the second largest St. Patrick's Day parade in America, in Savannah, on St. Patrick's Day. His second favorite thing was to hold his grandchildren in his lap as he sat on the throne of the speaker of the house of representatives, and let them watch over his presiding of the Georgia House. But this common, tough, fine man did so much for our State it is almost difficult to describe. We would not have a Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority were it not for Tom Murphy. He delivered the rural vote for the urban city of Atlanta in 1974 to get mass transit and to raise the taxes to do it. If you ever watched the Super Bowl in the Georgia Dome, the Georgia Dome would have never been built were it not for Tom Murphy. As to the Georgia World Congress Center, there is not a Member of this Senate who has not been there because almost every convention in America goes through there once every couple years. It would never have been built were it not for Tom Murphy. Our rural roads and highways, the Governor's Road Improvement Program, would never have happened were it not for Tom Murphy. But of all the great legacies and edifices that will be named after him, and have been named after him, his legacy will live on not through buildings and institutions but through people because Tom Murphy cared the most about people. And he cared the most about people who were poor and people who were disadvantaged. Tom Murphy's legacy is the children who were born in poverty who came out of poverty and became successful because of the programs he put in place as speaker of the house. Tom Murphy's legacy will live on because of those who know, as a foster child or as a child in trouble, it was Tom Murphy who was there to give a hand up, not a handout. Tom Murphy will be honored this Friday in the State capitol, where he will lie in state, and where his funeral will take place--a State capitol where for 28 years, through five Governors, he ruled the State of Georgia--not in the sense of a ruler or a tyrant but in the sense of a proud man whose time and destiny came together in the great State of Georgia. I will mourn his loss for all I learned from him. I end my remarks by telling you about that day I sat by his bed this past April and held his hand. He could not communicate, but I knew he was awake. I said: Mr. Speaker, I am now in the U.S. Senate. And I just wanted to tell you I am a better man, and I probably got there because of the painful and wise lessons I learned from you. A tear came in his eye, and he squeezed my hand. I knew, as we communicated first in 1976, we communicated once again. And from the day I knew him in 1976, to the last day I knew him this year, I respected him, I honored him, and I loved him. Georgia appreciates the service Tom Murphy gave to all her people. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Georgia. Secondly, I express my appreciation to Senator Reid for his attempt when this was discovered to allow us a chance to debate the merits of the proposal in division C of section 134 of the Omnibus appropriations act. Unfortunately, that could not be done. Senator Chambliss and I are left with expressing our deep disappointment on the floor of the Senate tonight. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the complete article of a December 18, 2007, front-page article from the Marietta Daily Journal entitled ``Drought Talks to Speed Up.''

Mr. ISAKSON. I would like to read one sentence from that article: Governors Charlie Crist of Florida, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, and Alabama's Bob Riley said ``that their staffs will continue to work together to come up with a plan for doling out the region's water by March 15.'' That common goal stated by those three Governors today in Florida puts us within less than 90 days' reach of what has been out of the grasp of the States of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida for 18 years, since 1989. At the last minute, because of a broken process for an Omnibus appropriations bill to contain legislation that directs, potentially limits, or sets the parameters by which the Corps of Engineers might be able to implement control of the waterways is just not right. It is my sincere hope at some time in the future those who might have thought this was a good idea will recognize it is actually contrary to what we in the Senate from the three States have attempted to do when we had a summit in Washington less than 2 months ago with our three Governors and the Secretary of the Interior. There is no more precious gift than water, no better and more precious resource than water. There also is nothing better in the legislative process than a spirit of cooperation between each of us who shares borders in our States so as to find the right way to solve problems, not have dilatory tactics to postpone or delay problems. I conclude by expressing my deep disappointment that the Omnibus appropriations bill contains division C, section 134, which has those potentially limiting factors and urge my colleagues to look to the future to find solutions, rather than a way to protract and delay and find confusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Trent, this is the time, on an occasion like this, where somebody always rises and says: Whatever could be said about this subject has been said, it is just that everybody has not said it yet. But in this case, it is not true. We have only been talking for 2 hours 7 minutes. It would take a lot longer than 2 hours 7 minutes to say all the things that could be said about your distinguished career. But there are two things I wish to say, the two most powerful words in the English language: Thank you--first, on behalf of the late Paul Coverdell and his lovely wife Nancy. I will never forget in March of 1993 meeting Paul--as I had for 20 years, as I led the Georgia House and he led the Georgia Senate--at the International House of Pancakes in Buckhead at 7 a.m., his first time back in Georgia after being sworn in. I had him tell me about the place known as the Senate. All he could talk about was Trent Lott. He said: Johnny, Trent Lott has the two Ls. He can legislate and he can lead. So on behalf of Paul, whose legislation--the Coverdell Education Act, and many other things--was done here, thank you for what you did for him. I know you always have shared with me how much you appreciate what ``Mikey'' did for you. But, secondly, Trent, thank you on my behalf. If every one of us in this room stood up and thought about it, we could take a specific incident that in our career has been accomplished that would not have happened were it not for your insight, your leadership, and your commitment. For me, it was the pension bill last year and the pension of 91,000 Delta employees in Georgia. We got down to the lick log, as they say in Georgia, on the last day, in the last hour before the August recess. Bankruptcy was pending, and it was almost over. Thanks to your tenacity on Finance and your care and your willingness to be able to do what you did, that legislation passed. I got the credit, but the benefit belongs to you. Thank you for what you have done for all of us.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I will be happy to.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to commend the authors of this legislation on what they have done. This is an outstanding piece of work. I spent 33 years of my life in the single family housing business. When I got started in 1967, I cut my teeth selling houses on FHA and VA loans. For all those years--and it has now been 40 years-- the FHA and VA have served the United States of America well. The first thing the American public needs to understand is the current mortgage crisis in America is not an FHA problem, from a standpoint of poor underwriting or poor loans. FHA does a good job of underwriting, a good job of servicing, a good job of appraising. They have good standards. The subprime market problem is an irresponsible lending practice in the conventional market, particularly when it comes to the underwriting. However, because that crisis does exist, FHA is going to be looked to as the savior in many cases. As conventional capital restricts and credit is reduced, it is going to be more important than ever for the FHA to be able to meet those demands. But during the deliberations of this and during the writing of this bill, Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd did some great things the American public needs to understand. They realized one of the problems in the subprime markets was they were starting to make 100 percent loans--interest only--for 3 or 4 years, with a bullet at the end. This bill specifically ensures that every FHA loan, every FHA loan that is made will have at least a downpayment of 1.5 percent. So there is not going to be any 100 percent lending. You will have some skin in the game. Statistically, you always know in the housing business when a borrower has to put equity in a house, it is an insurance policy that loan is going to be paid. That is the insurance that ensures FHA they have a very low risk on the taxpayers' money. Secondly, this recognizes the rising values in America and raises the cap on the amount of an FHA loan that can be made. This is going to allow FHA to meet a lot of demand that is going to be created by failures in the subprime market. Another point on the subprime market is, FHA loans have not ever been, nor are they now, subprime loans. They are intended to be loans for those entering the housing system of the United States of America. My dear friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, is going to offer an amendment later on which I will comment on for a second. He and I have had some discussions on it. There is a section of the bill that deals with what is known as reverse mortgages, and probably most people in here would not know what that is. But basically that means, if you pay for your house and you get in your senior years and you want to draw on the equity and value of that house, then you can take out a mortgage against your house, and instead of making payments every month to pay it off, you receive payments every month up to a percentage of the appraised value of the property. So for people reaching their latter years or their senior years, who need to be able to supplement their income to exist, they can use the equity in that house to continue to have an income and a cash flow. FHA can make that loan and insure it. So can the conventional markets. The question the Senator from Oklahoma has is whether the FHA should raise the limit on the number of those loans it makes, which is at $275,000 right now. Talking to FHA, they are at that cap. There is a provision in the bill that calls on CBO to make a study to determine what that cap should be. But in the meantime, we should not be capping the number of loans. So the bill is appropriate to raise the cap, and it is appropriate to call for the study. I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but I do so mainly because I wish to ensure every American senior who has paid for their home, who has it mortgage free, has the opportunity to leverage that home to have income in their later years, safe and secure by the underwriting process of the FHA. But I conclude with the way I began: This is a great bill for the United States of America. It is not a reaction to bad practices on the part of FHA, but it is a reaction to say that because of our good practices, because of the capital that is available because of FHA, it is important for us to recognize the demand that will come to us as a byproduct of the subprime market. I commend Senator Crapo, Senator Shelby, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, and all those who have worked on it, and I commend it to my colleagues for a favorable vote. I yield back.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I have worked closely with the staff of Senator Inouye and Senator Domenici on an issue with regard to CAFE standards the Senate passed in its version but the House rejected. I thank Senator Inouye and the other members of the Commerce Committee for their work on a corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standard. As you know, the Senate-passed CAFE bill contained a low- volume manufacturer exemption that would have classified low-volume manufacturers as those that have a U.S. market share of less than 0.4 percent and that sell less than about 64,000 cars--at current sales rates. While current law allows large multiline manufacturers to achieve compliance through averaging across various makes and models-- offsetting the performance vehicles with economy cars--it denies some small independent limited-line niche manufacturers the same opportunity. Small limited-line companies that manufacture only three models produce vehicles having superior fuel economy yet pay millions in CAFE noncompliance fines. Other automobile manufacturers avoid penalties through mergers and acquisitions and the ability to offset sports cars with economy cars. The law on automotive fuel economy standards does not require each passenger automobile to meet the standard, but instead allows manufacturers to meet the standard through a fleet average, permitting manufacturers to produce vehicles with varying levels of fuel economy. The law, 49 U.S.C. 32902, includes a provision allowing low-volume manufacturers of passenger automobiles to petition for alternative fuel economy standards. Should a petition be granted under section 32902(d), the low-volume manufacturer is required to meet the maximum feasible fuel economy standard that the Secretary of Transportation finds that the manufacturer can attain. In the case of a high-performance vehicle, this requirement can lead to greater fuel economy savings than results if a similar vehicle is merely averaged into a larger fleet. At the time the law was enacted, the threshold for petitioning for alternative standards was set at annual worldwide production of 10,000 passenger automobiles, which at that time made some 12 companies eligible. Today the structure of the U.S. market for passenger automobiles is considerably different than it was in 1975. In particular, because of consolidation in the automobile industry, only three independent manufacturers designing for niche markets remain in the United States market. Most, but not all, niche manufacturers have been acquired by major manufacturers and so are able to avail themselves of both the vastly greater resources and flexibility of fleet averaging of those major manufacturers. Thus, the few remaining niche manufacturers are at a distinct disadvantage in meeting fuel economy standards not only in an absolute sense, but compared to other manufacturers of comparable vehicles. I believe Congress's original intent in enacting the CAFE standards was not to competitively disadvantage small independent manufacturers. However, the fundamental change in the structure of the passenger vehicle marketplace has in fact disadvantaged the remaining low-volume manufacturers without furthering the CAFE goal of increasing fuel economy. I believe that changes in the marketplace have altered what should constitute a low-volume manufacturer, raising serious questions about the reasonableness of the 10,000 threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards. At the same time, I recognize that the threshold must not be so high as to competitively disadvantage major manufacturers. In order to preserve the original intent of section 32902 to afford relief to low-volume manufacturers, Senator Chambliss and I proposed and the Senate accepted a provision to set a new threshold for eligibility for alternative fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles by setting the threshold as a percentage of the worldwide market rather than an absolute number. This allows for a threshold that will adapt to changes in the marketplace, unlike the current threshold. This is the same as the language proposed by Senator Smith in 2002 and included in the Kerry-McCain amendment to the then-pending CAFE bill. The provision the Senate passed set the threshold for eligibility as a low-volume manufacturer above the current 10,000 but equivalent to less than \1/2\ percent of the world-wide market. It is my understanding that although the Senate voted on and passed this provision, the House asked that it be removed because they were concerned that a manufacturer who is covered by this new provision would no longer pay fines as a result of it. It is my understanding that under the terms of section 813 as drafted, the Secretary of Transportation--through NHTSA, we presume--conducts an investigation into the capabilities of any petitioner for consideration under this provision and decides whether or not to authorize an alternative standard that differs from the established CAFE standard, and if so, by how much. In the case of any manufacturer who petitions for an alternative standard, NHTSA may decide not to authorize a different standard or they could set an alternative standard that could still be unachievable in that model year. In either scenario above, a company would pay penalties for noncompliance and would not be relieved from paying penalties by anything in section 813. Obviously the hope would be that NHTSA would set a standard that could be achieved based on our maximum feasible technological capabilities. I also understand the provision was removed because the House was concerned that the alternative standard for low-volume manufacturers is an exemption from meeting CAFE standards. Again, it is my understanding that section 813 is not an exemption because the provision is drafted so that it mirrors current law procedurally in that it authorizes the Secretary of Transportation--again, through NHTSA--to prescribe an alternative fuel economy standard if there is a finding that the petitioning manufacturer's ability to meet the standard prescribed by law is not achievable. Again, there is no provision that allows NHTSA to ``exempt'' a manufacturer. As we read it, the alternative standard must be achieved by the manufacturer in order to achieve compliance and not pay a penalty even if the standard exceeds that which the manufacturer claims it can meet. So in short, there is no exemption from CAFE and the standard established by NHTSA could still result in penalties for noncompliance. It is also my understanding that the House is not on record as having voted on this provision, and that the House has not passed a CAFE standard this Congress.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the exchange between the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Texas in a different context. I am sure the theatrics of this morning are entertaining for a few. But for me, they are illustrative of how a broken Congress has real ramifications for the people of the State of Georgia. I hold this seat in the Senate because a majority of Georgians sent me here to vote on their behalf and act on their behalf. But the way in which this session has been managed, the way in which certain pieces of legislation have been managed, the way in which we even are debating this morning in 3 hours of morning business when we should be on the farm bill is causing pain and suffering to the people I represent. I wish to put meat on those bones. First, I wish to talk about the veterans bill mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Texas, a bill nobody here really objected to but some objected to and kept it from coming to the floor. It still has not come. It has been objected to this morning. What is the ramification of that on Georgians? The VA hospital in Atlanta, GA, on Claremont Road is a great VA hospital that has been there for years. It has been in terrible need of repair. Three years ago, the Congress authorized and appropriated the money to remodel all the floors of the VA hospital in Atlanta, where today hundreds of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, all the way back to the Korean war, are being attended to. In the last 3 years, three of those floors were redone, but they didn't get the other three done, and they are waiting to be done. The money, $20.552 million, is in the bank, but the authorization that was passed 3 years ago has expired. As the Chair knows, we don't appropriate without an authorization. We are not supposed to. And if we don't have an authorization, the money is frozen. The ramifications of holding the veterans bill to real Americans, real Georgians, real heroes who served this country in uniform is that those floors set to be remodeled in a hospital for veterans sit there unremodeled. The new equipment, new technology, everything that is in there for veterans is held. The money is in the bank, already appropriated. All we to have do is the authorization. It is in a bill nobody objects to when you talk to them. But continuously it is objected to on the floor of the Senate. I wish to talk about the ramifications of messaging. There is a new technique we are using now. Instead of sending back a conference report to which a point of order can be raised--I know that is technical jargon--you send a message. You either have to vote up or down. You don't have a chance to amend or to make a point of order. Let's take the Energy bill going back and forth akin to a ping-pong ball. Most recently it came to us as a message, unamendable and no point of order, and we can't debate the dirty little secret that the renewable portfolio standard in the Energy bill benefits certain parts of the United States and is punitive to others. I happen to represent one of those States to which it is punitive. How punitive is it? It is so punitive that by 2020 it will have cost the ratepayers in the State of Georgia to the Southern Company and to the EMCs in our State $8.2 billion. So the tactic being used does not allow me to make that point on the floor or make a point of order or bring it to debate but asks all of us to agree to a proposition that would impose that much damage on the people I represent. That is the ramification of a broken Congress on real people, real Georgians. I understand the omnibus bill is coming to us as a message as well. There is an amendment in the omnibus bill which is punitive to the State of Georgia. It has been put in outside the process of the committee system and outside the process of debate. I am not going to have a chance to even raise a point of order on that particular amendment. In fact, as the Senator from New Hampshire observed, we didn't pass but one appropriations bill by the time the new fiscal year took place. We have been going back and forth because, instead, we spent most of the year debating 62 separate votes on whether to withdraw our troops from Iraq. In fact, I find it sad that in the 6 months that debate has been going on, the surge has worked by everybody's definition. Progress in Iraq has been of a tremendous advantage. The men and women who have sacrificed and accomplished it and are fighting there today are looking at us playing games with the money to fund the military. It is not only wrong, it is sad. It is time we had an appropriations process that worked in the Senate, not one that is broken. It is time we looked at ideas such as Senator Domenici's biennial budget, where you appropriate in odd-numbered years and you do oversight in even-numbered years. Wouldn't it be fun to see an even- numbered year election for Congress or President where the debate wasn't on what I was going to appropriate to make you happy but instead the savings I was going to find to make our country run better? Senator Domenici, who is leaving us at the end of next year, has a great proposition. It ought to go. We ought to be appropriating money by the time the fiscal year starts. The real effect on real Georgians with the process now is that in December of 2007, in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2008, we have Government appropriations policy based on an appropriations bill passed in 2006. The body of knowledge doubles every 7 years. We are still 2 years behind on our appropriations process. Why? Because of the dilatory tactics, because of thematic debates, and all because one side wants to leverage against another, to the detriment of real people. Lastly, I wish to talk about the real damage of a broken Congress on the appointment process. In today's Executive Calendar, there is a list of any number of appointees to any number of positions in the Government--judicial appointees, Department of Homeland Security appointees, Tennessee Valley Authority appointees, hazardous and chemical waste oversight board appointees. All those appointees have come out of committee; some of them from the committee I am on, Environment and Public Works. They have testified before the committee. They have been subjected to questions. They have been thoroughly vetted, and they have been voted out of committee; in the case of EPW, voted out unanimously. Last Thursday, there was a move to pass this list, still on the calendar, by unanimous consent. Remember, all these appointees have gone through the committee process. They have been vetted. They have been voted on. They have testified. They have subjected themselves to all the questions we could possibly ask. Yet there was an objection last week. So what is the pain and suffering to the American people? In those four States where judges were asked to be approved, they continue to have a backlog of criminal cases, a backlog of critical cases. To me and the Members of this body who represent areas that are served by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Congress finally fixed the TVA 2 years ago, got it under new management, into a good system, ran it like a business, appointed a significant board, and now it is time to reappoint three of those members or reappoint two and add one new one from Georgia, I might add. What happens? Somebody says: I object. We are objecting to the American people's business, are objecting to the progress of what this Government was set up to do. The broken Congress of 2008 has real consequences, not for me but for the people of my State. I will stay until Christmas or New Year's and repeat what I have said until somebody throws the light switch and understands the games we are playing don't affect us; they affect the people who sent us. In the case of the four examples I have given, they affect them negatively. To that point, I would like to make two unanimous consent requests. The first one is going to be with regard to the TVA board. I wish to repeat one thing I said. They all were approved unanimously. Two of them are reappointments. They are all fine people. TVA has reduced its debt under new management. Congress worked hard to pass this 2 years ago. It is time to have these people seated and working. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 404, 405, and 406; these are three nominations to be members of the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. I ask consent that these pending nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I finally ask consent that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations to the judiciary: No. 373, John Tinder to the U.S. Circuit Court for the 7th Circuit; No. 392, Amul Thapar, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; No. 395, Joseph Laplante, to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Hampshire; and No. 396, Thomas Schroeder, to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of North Carolina. I ask consent that these pending nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank my colleague, Senator Chambliss. Mr. President, I have great respect for Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. But I have respect for a lot of other people. One of them was my predecessor, a guy by the name of Zell Miller. From doing a little research about the 2002 farm bill, Zell stood on this floor and spoke. He made a statement I think is worth repeating. He said: This amendment says to those of us in the South one thing--hold on, little catfish, while we gut you. It should not go without notice the two sponsors of this are from the Midwest. Everybody on the floor talking right now is from the greater Southeast. This is a punitive amendment to a bill they contend on the one hand doesn't constitute reform, but it is probably the most remarkable reform in farm policy in the United States in the history of the Senate. We are moving in the right direction, but we are moving there without destroying family farms. We are moving there without playing favorites in agriculture. Supporters of this amendment say these payments go to the few and to the big. I couldn't disagree more. This amendment punishes the farmer and his family who depend solely on the farm for their livelihood. Why should we take the greatest, most abundant food supply in the world and try to mess it up. That is exactly what this amendment would do. Don't let these big numbers fool you. These farmers each year take risks equal or greater than those of their brethren in any other business. In fact, just alone, the equipment a farmer buys today in most cases exceeds the cost of the home that most other Americans buy. Some argue it is wrong for these payments to go to a small number of big farms. But it is these very farms that are producing the vast majority of our agricultural products. We should be supporting those who are fueling the economic engine of our country. Why should anyone want to punish family farmers who have made very large investments in order to become competitive in an international marketplace? Why are we going to hurt farmers who are trying to provide a decent living for their families in the face of tremendous challenges and soaring costs of production? They do not deserve this kind of treatment. With much of our Nation's farmland in a drought and input costs at record highs, why should anyone want to limit assistance during this time, at a time when our farmers need our help and need it most? I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Let's unify America in our ag policy, not have sectional differences, certainly not have sectional penalties. Let's not allow one part of the country to be gutted to the benefit of another. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, last week the Middle East observed a historic anniversary, in fact, a historic anniversary for all of mankind, for the 29th of November was the 60th anniversary of the U.N. resolution partitioning the State of Israel and providing a homeland for the Israeli people. I had the opportunity to be in Israel while that celebration was taking place. Another event took place in Annapolis, MD, the home State of the Presiding Officer, last Tuesday, the 28th of November, when 18 Arab Nations, the Palestinian Authority, and Prime Minister Olmert of Israel met in Annapolis, to try to begin the process for the roadmap for peace in the Middle East. I think all of us are encouraged, happy, and rewarded that the result of that conference was an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel to try, over the next 12 months, to reach an agreement by the end of 2008, which will in fact bring about peace in the Middle East. All of us have great hope, but all of us have great wonder how we get from the agreement to try to actually having that happen. Since I had the occasion to be in Israel, I thought I would share for a second the fact that, as complex as the Middle East is, as challenging as the issues are that face the nation of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, there are some simple steps upon which we can build to possibly get to a true roadmap to a lasting peace in the Middle East. There is no question, from having gone there, that the first step is security. The State of Israel deserves the security to live in peace and without intimidation and without threat. Not long ago, Israel took its settlements out of Gaza, moved those settlements out of Gaza to its perimeter. Within months, Hamas took over as the leading authority in Gaza, a Palestinian area, and instead of securing it for themselves began a method of intimidation and threat and terror against the people of Israel. Last Saturday, I stood on the last Israeli outpost overlooking Gaza, talking to an Israeli man and Israeli woman who lived in the settlement outside of Gaza, as a rocket went off and was fired into that very settlement, a practice that every day continues to take place, to intimidate, to threaten, and to terrorize. As long as elements of terror such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon continue to disrupt, we will never be able to reach a platform upon which we can have a roadmap to peace. But security could possibly take place. I want to commend the Palestinian Authority on its initial steps in the West Bank, one village at a time, to attempt to bring about peace and security on that side of Israel and in that area of the dilemma. I met with the Foreign Minister, Riyad Maliki, of the Palestinian Authority, who passionately convinced me that he and his leadership are interested in seeing to it that they deliver on that security, because they understand that without security there can never be any peace, without peace there can never be a Palestinian State. This President, George Bush, whom I commend for bringing about the Annapolis conference, was very courageous 6 years ago when as President of the United States he declared he would support a homeland and security for the Palestinian people, right after the Palestinians and the people of the Middle East accepted and acknowledged Israel's right to exist and respected its state. I believe the desire is in the Palestinian people to have their homeland. I believe the will is there to see to it that is accomplished. But as long as terror, through the elements of Hamas and Hezbollah, continue to threaten and intimidate the people of Israel, it will never happen. So the first step, following that agreement at Annapolis, is for the Palestinian Authority to secure Gaza and to secure the West Bank. But you do not go to the Middle East, as I have four times in the last 5 years, and not realize in the end it is also all about Iran. As long as there are state sponsors of terrorism, whether it be Hezbollah or Hamas or whether it be infiltration of terrorists or IEDs into Iraq, you can never truly have peace and security. But this President deserves great credit for setting up the conference at Annapolis. Condoleezza Rice deserves great credit for five times traveling to the Middle East, from one Arab state to the other, encouraging those states to attend. It should not go unnoticed by anybody, us in America and Ahmadinejad in Iran, that when finally pressed, the 18 Arab states all came to Annapolis because, in the end, they all want peace. But in the absence of security and the presence of terror it cannot happen. I commend our President for bringing about the conference in Annapolis. I commend the people of Israel for making the first step in Gaza and acknowledge their concern now that that first step has only been rewarded with acts of terror against their own people and encourage the Palestinian Authority to continue to work in the West Bank, and later in Gaza, to root out terrorism, bring about security, so the State of Palestine and the State of Israel can live in harmony. And for us in the free world, one of the biggest threats to our security is lessened because people are living together in peace and not in terror and not in fear. In closing, I wish to acknowledge the great ally we have in Israel, the resilience of their people, to that young man and woman I met on the hill overlooking Gaza, who daily meet the threats of rockets coming from terrorists, and let them know that we in America are with them, and one day peace and security can become a reality if we begin to get the security in the areas of the West Bank and in Gaza. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

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