Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON. In the third chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes, the Bible teaches us that there is a time for everything; a time to live and a time to die, a time to reap and a time to sow. Last night became the time that Craig Thomas left us. For that we are all sorry and extend our sympathy to Susan and all his family and the people of Wyoming. But for all of us today and for years to come, it will be a time for us to reap the benefits of having known Craig Thomas, having benefited from his service as a colleague in the Senate, but for the people of Wyoming as a great servant to that State. I don't know if there are two finer people who ever served the Senate than Mike Enzi and Craig Thomas. To have a matched set of rock-solid, quiet but humble, and strong men to serve a State is quite a unique privilege for that State and a unique privilege for all of us who serve. On this sad occasion of the passing of a great Senator and a great friend, I know I will benefit and reap for years to come from the service, the passion, and the integrity of Craig Thomas. I honor his life.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, in deference to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I will only be a minute. To the distinguished Senator and my ranking member on the Finance Committee and my dear friend, I commend him on his words and his effort. I do want to correct or at least amplify on a simile he used in his remarks where he had the picture of a stuffed horse named Trigger and made an analogy to the triggers in this bill. I have worked for 18 months on these triggers. They actually are a complement to what he wants to do in terms of deporting people who are in this country on expired visas. One of the triggers in the bill that is a prerequisite to any of the rest of the bill going into effect is a biometrically secure ID which will prohibit exactly what happened with the hijackers on 9/11, because every business, school, employer, university, training center, and the like will be able to swipe that mag tape, and if they have an expired visa, they will know it. Secondly, because of the biometrics of a fingerprint, you cannot have a forged ID, nor can you have a stolen ID, because the holder of the stolen ID's print will not match. With regard to the other triggers--and I appreciate the time of the Senator from New Jersey to amplify on the remarks I made yesterday--the triggers in this bill provide 2,700 redundant miles of barriers and visual security on the border, more miles than there are on the common border; 18,000 Border Patrol agents; 27,500 beds to detain anyone who is caught until their hearing date comes forward; 375 miles of barriers; 1,640 miles of ground positioning radar; 600 miles of constant surveillance in the air, plus all the ground sensors and the cameras that allow those 18,000 agents, when they are on duty, to immediately intercept the people who are violating the border, immediately put them in one of the 27,500 beds, and hold them until their case comes up and they are deported. I have no qualm with the Senator's amendment whatsoever, but I don't think it is exactly correct to make the reference to Roy Rogers' horse as an analogy to the triggers in this bill because, in fact, these triggers are meaningful. In their absence and in the absence of the President seeing that they are done, Homeland Security executing, and the Congress appropriating, this bill self-destructs. It is the predicate upon which complementary things such as the Senator is trying to do actually are made more meaningful and more helpful. I appreciate the Senator letting me amplify on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his graciousness in allowing me 10 minutes. Two years and five months ago, I made my first speech as a United States Senator on the floor. It was a speech about the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal. A year ago today I made another speech about immigration on the day I offered an amendment that has become known as the trigger amendment on immigration. I rise for the third time in 2 years and 5 months to talk about the most significant issue facing the United States of America as far as domestic policy is concerned. Our borders to the south have been leaking far too long and in too great of numbers. We have had an immigration policy that for the better part of 21 years has been to look the other way as people flowed across our southern border to calibrate on a low basis legal immigration to say we are doing something about it, while millions come into this country. It has to come to an end. It is the reason the controversy is so great over this issue today. I, first of all, want to thank the Members who have worked with me over the last 6 weeks on the concept of putting a trigger in the underlying bill, to be the trigger upon which immigration reform either takes place or doesn't. There is so much misinformation out there right now about this issue, so I want to spend the remainder of my time talking about what trigger must be pulled in order for immigration to be reformed. The underlying bill we are debating today says the following: No program granting status to anyone who enters the United States of America illegally may be granted until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified that all the border security measures in section 1 are completed, funded, and in operation. There is no wiggle room. There is no Presidential waiver. There is no possibility of the Secretary saying: Well, maybe we are OK. This is absolute. Let me tell my colleagues what those five are. No. 1 is 370 new miles of walls. Many of us got this in the mail last year. When Congress attempted to debate a flawed immigration bill that called for no border security, they mailed bricks because they wanted barriers. This bill calls for 370 miles. It calls for 200 miles of obstacles on those areas where vehicles might come across the border. That 200, plus the 370 miles of walls, is 570 miles. It calls for four unmanned aerial vehicles, eyes in the sky, 24/7, each with a 150-mile radius. That 600 miles, added to the 570 miles, is 1,170 miles. Then it calls for 70 ground-positioning radar systems with a radius of 12 miles, or 1,680 miles of seamless security. That 1,680 on top of the 1,170 is almost 2,800 miles of seamless security. There are not 2,800 miles on the border. We have redundancy all along the border. The next trigger is 27,500 detention beds on the border so when somebody is intercepted, they are held until their court date comes up. No more catch and release. Then, importantly as well, 18,000 Border Patrol agents have to be trained and in place and functioning. We have 14,500 right now. That is another 3,500. Those agents, by the way, are trained ostensibly in Georgia at FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. They are trained on border security, on intervention, and on capture. Then, it requires the seamless border security. It requires the ID that is biometric and is secure. It ends the largest growth industry on the southern border, and that is the forged document industry. When those five triggers are in place and when the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified them, then and only then is the immigration reform in place because we have stopped the bleeding. There are a lot of people talking about this issue of immigration from a lot of different standpoints, but I know one thing: When you go to the doctor, you don't want him to treat the symptom. You want him to treat the cause. If you are cut, you want him to sew up the cut, not just put a Band-Aid on it. If you hurt and you hurt badly, you want him to x-ray and find out whatever that source is. We know what the source is in America. The source is we have a 2,000- mile land contiguous border with a country that is less developed than ours and has less opportunity, and the United States of America is a magnet without obstacle for them to get in. We have to stop the source of the problem or we will never be able to reform it for the future. I come to this debate as a second-generation American. My grandfather came here in 1903 from Sweden. In 1926, he became a naturalized citizen. It took him 23 years to follow what is the only right pathway to citizenship, and that is legal immigration. I stand before my colleagues today to say the American people want border security. I want border security. If it is the trigger for immigration reform, it ensures that we will never have to repeat the mistakes of 1986 and that America once again will restore confidence in its borders, confidence in its immigration policy, and legitimacy with its people. I am where I began. There is no wiggle room in this trigger. There is no waiver. There is no looking the other way. If we in Congress don't fund the money, it doesn't work. If the President doesn't do what he is supposed to do, it doesn't work. If the Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't do what he is supposed to do, it does not work. The American people, for the first time, have an ironclad guarantee that our biggest problem, and that is an insecure border in the south, will be fixed and fixed forever. I again thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for giving me the chance to make this presentation. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 1153 to Amendment No. 1150

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. About an hour and a half ago, we negotiated our final agreement to make this deal possible. Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe have been indispensable in making this a reality. This bill, as I said last week when the bill came to the floor, is not a spending bill, it is an investment bill. As Senator Vitter recited, regarding Louisiana, it is a meaningful response to the tragedy that took place with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Across the country, projects that have needed to be done, or need to be focused on, are being authorized. We are finally doing what, for 7 consecutive years, Congress failed to do. This is a very important piece of legislation that has been handled in a bipartisan fashion. The chairman has been exceedingly fair to everyone. The ranking member has worked diligently, and Senator Baucus, myself and the ranking member and the chairman have stuck to the deals we made, which, in this body, is the most important thing of all. I acknowledge both of them and offer my appreciation. On behalf of the citizens of Georgia, I thank the Corps of Engineers for what they do for our State and particularly the language in the bill that recognizes the possible bi-State port that will be built in South Carolina, and the multiregional WRDA language for the metropolitan Atlanta-North Georgia Planning District, which is essential. vote explanation Yesterday morning, I was absent for vote No. 163 on amendment No. 1090. For the record, I was having a root canal, which is a bad way to miss a vote. I ask unanimous consent to let the record reflect that had I been here, I would have voted no, in accordance with my agreement with the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that Mike Quiello of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on WRDA.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member and I commend the chairman on great work on this bill. I want to make one point. This is not a spending bill; this is an investment bill. It is an investment in safe drinking water. It is an investment in storm water management. It is an investment in flood control and water resources of the United States of America. It is fiscally responsible and it is accountable. We have worked together in an absolutely bipartisan way to accomplish that. I encourage each of our Members to come and vote for the motion to proceed. If they have an amendment, bring it early, and let's go forward with the most important bill we may do in this session of the Congress of the United States. I want to add to that it is bipartisan, it is fiscally responsible, and it is the first time we have reauthorized it in 7 years. It is long overdue and important for us to do it now.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I reiterate my commitment to the chairman and ranking member, and to Senator Baucus, that we will remain united to support this bill to the end. We will be united on amendments whether we are for them or against them. This is in the best interest of the United States. I thank Ruth Van Mark, Angie Ciancarlo, Letmon Lee, Jeff Rosato, Ken Kopocis, Tyler Rushforth and Jo-Ellen Darcy for their work on this bill. I particularly thank my staff member Mike Quiello. The bill before us is an investment in infrastructure. It is not a spending bill. It ensures safe drinking water, clean drinking water, storm water management, and navigable waterways will be a reality. They will be workable and they will be improved. To use my State as an example, I cite three things included in this bill that are important to the infrastructure of the Southeast. First, I wish to take a minute to talk about the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This committee has considered that legislation to authorize four projects on a biennial basis. Unfortunately, we have gone 7 years without a reauthorization. Now is without question the time to make that reauthorization. I am proud of the work the committee has done. Specifically, for the State of Georgia, there are a number of important provisions included in this legislation: a fund for the construction of conveyance systems to connect both existing and planned wastewater infrastructure and facilities for the Metro North Georgia Water Planning District. What is so important about this is, it represents what Congress and the Corps have said is the future of quality, good management water. That is a regional approach. Water does not recognize political jurisdictions. It does not recognize politicians. It flows downstream and downhill and intersects regions as it goes. It is important to fund projects such as this to deal with water on a regional and comprehensive basis. Also included in this legislation is the Big Creek watershed in North Fulton County. The Mayor of Roswell, the city of Roswell, the County of Fulton, have worked critically on this watershed management and have increased the flow of water into the Chattahoochee and improved its quality and used new high technology for flood and water control management. It is essential we invest in that type of infrastructure in the future for good quality water, good quality runoff, and good quality storm management. I also wish to take a moment to talk about an historic event that took place in my State at 2 p.m. on 12 March 2007. Governor Sonny Purdue of Georgia and Governor Mark Sandord of South Carolina met on the banks of Jasper County in South Carolina and announced a bistate proposal to build a joint port operation in Jasper County. It is historic because for the better part of two decades, Georgia and South Carolina have fought over the use of that land. It has been used as an environmental dump, if you will. The two States operate the Port of Charleston, the Port of Savannah, and the Port of Brunswick. All are reaching capacity. The two States wanted to go together, build a port, and operate that port jointly to ensure the future of commerce to the Southeast and, in fact, the rest of the Nation, so much so that the two States are putting up the money to pay for the feasibility study. The WRDA bill only authorizes the study to be made. It does not cost the taxpayers of America a dime. The taxpayers of Georgia and South Carolina are paying for it. During the debate, there is going to be an amendment offered to clarify language in section 4028 of the bill which will more accurately reflect that agreement. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this historic transcript as well as a copy of the transcript of Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works John Paul Woodley talking about this agreement and acknowledging it in the EPW Committee.

Mr. ISAKSON. In conclusion, this water resources bill represents a long overdue step forward in the investment to protect our water resources, enhance our environmental restoration, and spur economic development. It is an investment in the future of our drinking water, an investment in the future of our navigable waterways, and an investment in the future of our commerce. For Congress to fail today or the Senate to fail today to act on this bill responsibly and move forward will be doing a disservice to commerce, to our citizens, and we will, in fact, be abandoning our responsibility to meet the needs of the people of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will address the Senate as in morning business for a few minutes on two points of great personal privilege for me. The first is, I read last week of the retirement of Susan Gordon, executive secretary and office manager of the Office of Legislative Counsel in the Georgia General Assembly. That might seem an odd thing for me to come to the Senate floor and talk about, but for me Susan is emblematic of all of the people who make us look good in this job of public service. For 31 years, she served the people of Georgia and the Office of Legislative Counsel for the Georgia General Assembly. In my 17 years in that assembly, I can think of hundreds of times where Susan stayed late or went the extra mile to see to it that legislation was drafted, perfected, and got to the floor within the constraints of the general assembly. She never played Republicans over Democrats or Democrats over Republicans, and she loves the State of Georgia. When I learned of Susan's retirement, it only seemed appropriate for me to memorialize on the Senate floor to her my appreciation for all she has done for me, and countless other legislators who have gone before me in Georgia would say precisely the same thing. I say for all those others who work in our offices, in legislative counsel, and in the departments of government, the unsung heroes of this great thing we call democracy and public service, to all the ``Susan Gordons,'' thank you very much. In particular, I thank the Susan Gordon I know in Atlanta, GA. I memorialize my thanks and appreciation for her 31 great years of service to me and the people of Georgia. Birth of Cecilia Gay Mitchell Mr. President, on a second point of personal privilege, at 4:33 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, my daughter, Julie, gave birth to Cecilia Gay Mitchell, my seventh grandchild. With Mother's Day coming up on Sunday, I was struck while on the plane flying here on Monday by the generations of people before us, what they have done and the importance of family and the importance of motherhood. You see, Gay is a family name on my wife's side: My wife's great- grandmother Gay Deam, my wife's mother Gay Davison, my wife Dianne Gay, my daughter Julie Gay, and now Cecilia Gay--a fifth generation of Gays, all ladies, all but one a mother, all close and treasured by me. I will never claim to be the equal of Robert Byrd in terms of his great Mother's Day speech, which I think we will all hear on Friday, but for me on the celebratory day where I celebrate the birth of a seventh grandchild and the fifth-generation Gay in our family and the Davison family and the Isakson family, I pay tribute to my daughter Julie, her husband Jay, and my expression of thanks to them on behalf of Dianne and me for the greatest present that could ever be given to a parent--that is the gift of a grandchild, especially a fifth-generation Gay. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, today I wish to acknowledge a very special occasion. It has come to my attention that on May 9, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation in Atlanta will be honoring Kent ``Oz'' C. Nelson, retired chair and CEO of UPS, for his unselfish and untiring work on behalf of CDC and public health around the globe. They will be dedicating CDC's main auditorium as the Kent ``Oz'' C. Nelson Auditorium. This is a great honor for a man who truly deserves it. As elected officials, we naturally and rightfully expect to hear from interested constituents and from the leaders of our governmental institutions about programmatic and capital needs. It is much more unusual to hear about such needs from a CEO-level leader of a global corporation like UPS. But over the past 8 years, Oz and many other CEO's like him, including Bernie Marcus, Phil Jacobs and Christine Jacobs, have regularly written, called and visited Washington, DC to remind us of the importance of upgrading CDC's Atlanta-based labs and facilities to ensure that the world's best scientists are equipped with world-class facilities to support their work. During a tour of CDC in the fall of 1999, Oz, Bernie and Phil were troubled by the condition of CDC labs and its negative impact on CDC's ability to recruit top scientists and to protect all Americans from a host of threats ranging from SARS, anthrax and pandemic flu to obesity and environmental toxins. Scientists were working in overcrowded World War II Quonset huts and cinder block labs with frayed wiring and poor ventilation. Oz could have just written a letter. He could have written off CDC's problems as the government's problem. Instead, he helped organize a concerted effort to highlight the problem and encourage a solution. In the last 8 years, Congress has appropriated $1.2 billion of the $1.6 billion needed to complete CDC's master facilities plan. One needs only tour CDC's campus and visit with the scientists there to see the amazing results. As elected officials, we learn early to appreciate people like Oz Nelson. People who are never too busy to care, never to busy to identify and help solve problems. Since ``retiring,'' and I use that term loosely in Oz's case, he has chaired the Annie Casey Foundation, served on the board of the Carter Center in Atlanta, served on the board of the United Way of America and chaired its national fundraising campaign, chaired the board of the CDC Foundation and been instrumental in starting and supporting an Atlanta-based Museum of Patriotism that celebrates the American spirit. And these are just a few of his many nonprofit interests. Oz Nelson is, himself, a patriot who embodies the very best of the American spirit. And I know those of you who know and have worked with Oz join me today in congratulating him on the dedication of the new Kent ``Oz'' C. Nelson Auditorium at CDC.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise today to address the war supplemental which was vetoed last night at 10 minutes after 6 by the President. It is my understanding that today leaders from both sides of the Senate will go to the White House, this afternoon, to begin talking about where we go next. I rise today to talk a little bit about what has got us to where we are, why we are where we are, and what, in my judgment, as one Member of the Senate, we need to be focused on. I am glad the President vetoed the war supplemental with timelines for withdrawal. It is absolutely wrong to tie the money to support our troops to arbitrary timetables that have nothing to do with success or failure but only to do with the declaration of a cause being lost. We should never declare, as Members of the Senate, our cause to have been lost. And we should never hold hostage the money for our troops based on arbitrary deadlines or thresholds. It is, however, important for us to debate the war on the floor of the Senate. I hope when the next supplemental comes, it will be a supplemental that goes to support our men and women who have been deployed in defense of freedom, to give them everything they deserve and everything they need without strings and complication. To do so will not keep us in the Senate from debating the war, but it will clearly separate the money to support our troops from whatever the course that debate may take. We have a long history in this country of many great Americans taking exactly the same position. One of those great Americans, Walter George, a Member of the Senate, from Georgia, a Democrat, in 1955--when Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States of America and Adlai Stevenson had been his first opponent, and would be his second opponent in the 1956 Presidential election--the big issue of the day was the issue of Quemoy and Matsu and Red China's attempt to expand its influence on those islands and the policy of the United States of America and our President, Dwight Eisenhower. In Time magazine, April's issue, 1955, Walter George, Senator, Democrat from Georgia, a man in whose legacy and in whose shadow I now serve, said the following: If it would advance the cause of peace, I would be happy for the President to declare his policy. But how would it advance the cause of peace to inform the enemy of what we intend to do? I know one thing-- George said, and I continue to quote-- if we do fulfill our high mission and our high destiny, it will be because we have resolved to do our dead level best to advance peace, to advance security, to shore up a shaky world. Only by doing that can we vindicate the sacrifice of those who died on land and at sea, and fulfill the hopes of men and women in every free land. It has been 52 years since that statement was made, but it could never ring more true than it rings today. Walter George was absolutely right, and Walter George, a Democrat, came to the defense of Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican who was President, when Dwight Eisenhower was being forced to play our hand in a critical issue of the day. We should never force our chief executive officer, nor should we force our generals, nor our troops in the field, by declaring our hand before the cards are dealt. There are a few other quotes I wish to share with my colleagues as I lead up to the point I want to make this morning, and these are contemporary quotes and these are quotes about Iraq. These are quotes about the supplemental. These are quotes about our brave men and women in harm's way. The first is by General Lynch, the commanding officer of the third ID. When asked about whether funding should be tied to an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, he said: Ultimately, a precipitous withdrawal would increase the probability that American troops would one day have to return to Iraq and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous than today. He is absolutely correct. Every time this country waited or every time it determined to withdraw from a conflict or looked the other way from a challenge of evil, it only had to muster itself in greater numbers and fight with greater losses at a greater day in the future. General Lynch continued: No matter how frustrating the fight can be and no matter how much we wish the war was over, the security of our country depends directly on the outcome in Iraq. The price of giving up there would be paid in American lives for years to come. It would be an unforgivable mistake for leaders in Washington to allow policies and impatience to stand in the way of protecting the people of the United States of America. I could not say it better myself. Lastly, for quotes from contemporaries, Gary Kurpius, commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said the following: The time to debate the war is not in front of a microphone making irresponsible statements, and it's certainly not in the funding bill that keeps our troops alive. If our troops need funds, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide them the money. Debate the war elsewhere. My last quote is from an e-mail I got from Captain Schratt, on the ground with the U.S. Army in Baghdad right now, a couple of weeks ago when this debate was going on. He e-mailed me and said: I see they are debating whether or not they can not support the war and still support me. He said: Please tell them I am the war. That is the truth. Our troops are the war. They are deployed and they are fighting and their funding should not be restrained or constrained or in any way hinged on political gymnastics. Those gymnastics belong in the speeches on this floor and the dialogue we have with our administration. Now, it is my understanding there are some who are talking about a second supplemental to come, to be an incremental supplemental, maybe 60 days at a time. I would implore the Senate to consider not doing that because that brings uncertainty to our troops in the field and only partial funding on a daily or on a 60-day basis, which is wrong. There are others who are talking about maybe benchmarks--not timetables for withdrawal but benchmarks for the achievement of the Iraqi people. That may or may not be wise, depending on what those are, and I will reserve judgment, but I will tell my colleagues one thing. A lot of us around here have selective memories and have forgotten the fact that we have had some benchmarks. In fact, when we went into Iraq, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, declared three succinct benchmarks. He said: When we deploy our troops, we will do the following: A, we will search and find the weapons of mass destruction that the U.N. and the entire world believed were there, and in fact we found the remnants and the evidence, although never the smoking gun. Then, second, he said: We are going to give the Iraqi people a chance to hold free elections and determine a new Constitution and self-determine their future. The Iraqis have held three elections. They have a parliament. They have established a self-determined democracy in their way of doing so, and it is functioning. Then the President said: Our third goal will be to train the Iraqi Army so that it can protect and defend that fledgling Government and we will come home. Those are three benchmarks. Two of the benchmarks have been achieved. The third benchmark is what the surge is intended to accomplish. Today in downtown Baghdad and in Anbar Province, American troops are sleeping and eating and deployed in the neighborhoods--not in bases-- side by side with Iraqi troops. The securing of neighborhoods is taking place, the holding of neighborhoods is taking place, and the rebuilding of those neighborhoods is soon to follow. In the months ahead, if we remain committed to the cause, if we fund our troops, we have the opportunity to reduce the violence, to allow the reconciliation that is so necessary. So as people debate whether we ought to put benchmarks in supplemental appropriations for our men and women in harm's way, I hope they will recognize we have benchmarks, three that we established when almost every Member of the Congress voted to go into Iraq, two of which have been completely met and satisfied and a third is partially there and will ultimately be achieved if we don't pull the plug and we continue to fund our troops. War is never fun and it is always controversial. There is not a one of us in this room who does not wish war was ever necessary. But we know as we look back upon history, as Walter George, the Senator from Georgia, said: We have to honor the lives of those who were lost on land and sea to preserve freedom and liberty and democracy for the people of the United States of America. We are at such a day today with our battle in Iraq and in the overall war on terror. Iraq is but a battle in that war. We don't need to send signals that we will quit; we don't need to declare that we have lost. We need to declare the resolve to see the mission through. There are 140,000 brave men and women deployed in Iraq right now committed to the cause. When they come home and I talk to them, to the man and to the woman, they all say: We are there for the right reason. We are making progress. Continue to support me, and we will do the job. So as the leaders go to the White House today to discuss with the President where we go next, as we look to what we do in this supplemental, let's resolve to fund our troops. Let's resolve to do it without condition on our troops. Let's resolve to do it without declaring defeat but instead in the interest of and with a commitment to victory. Then, if we have debate--and we should and we must--let's have it on the floor, unattached to funding, not restricting our troops but deciding what our course will be and the absolute objective to be, rather than a conditional debate that only sends a message to our enemy that our resolve may be lost and we may be turning the other way. As Walter F. George said in 1955, an American Democratic Senator from Georgia, in support of a Republican President, we should honor the lives that have been lost and stay true to our commitment, and it will never be in our interests to declare to our enemies what our intentions might be. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to associate my remarks with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. I think his point-by-point rebuttals to previous declarations were appropriate and were right on point. I will not talk long, but I rise to explain precisely why I will vote against this supplemental. In fact, there are a number of reasons I will vote against it--140,000 reasons are the men and women deployed right now on behalf of the United States of America and the civilized world. It is right for the Senate to debate this war. It is right for us to ask questions. But it is wrong to hold hostage the money that supports those troops. We should separate the money from the debate. We should never hold hostage the money for our troops who are, on order of the President of the United States, defending our country and what we stand for. There are almost 3,300 reasons I will vote no; that is, the sacrifices that have already been made on behalf of the United States of America, those troops who have fought and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice, troops like Diego Rincon, the first soldier from Georgia to die in Iraq, and LT Noah Harris, a famous Georgian who sacrificed his life as well. I have known those families. I have gone to those services. I understand the sacrifice, and I know how they feel of the pride of their sons who fought on behalf of this noble cause. There are six additional reasons--my grandchildren. This is the ultimate war between good and evil. This is but one battle in a war that will determine the future security of the world. Make no mistake, there have been mistakes made, but it would be a horrible mistake to not confront terror or the agents of terror, because if we do, they have won. Unlike any other war ever fought by the United States, we are fighting a group of people who don't want what we have, they don't want us to have what we have: the Bill of Rights; the right for me to express myself and Senator Kennedy to do the same without fear or without cowering; the right for the press to call it as they see it; the right to worship as you see fit; the right to bear arms. The 10 basic rights of the Bill of Rights are precisely what they want to take away, not only from us but from the rest of the world. Terrorists want us to cower in fear and want to run the world based on that principle. To pass a supplemental appropriations bill that couches the support of our troops based on arbitrary deadlines that only serve to benefit the very people we fight is just plain wrong. I relish debate of this war every day on the floor and hope we will continue. The way you avoid making mistakes in the future is debating those things which have happened in the past. But it would be the worst of mistakes to withhold funding from our troops or condition it upon arbitrary deadlines and circumstances in another country, at another time, at another place. Mr. President, I end my remarks by thanking those brave men and women who have sacrificed and those who are sacrificing now and the families of those troops, many of them families who live in my State of Georgia. I will vote for the supplemental appropriations of our troops unconditionally and separate our debate of other issues to another document. But I will not support holding hostage our troops or their money. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I express my sympathy and I know the sympathy of all of the Members of the Senate and the people of the United States of America on the tragic losses this week at Virginia Tech. None of us can understand what happened in Blacksburg, VA, but all of us recognize the profound tragedy and the loss of youth in its prime. I learned this week that one of those losses was a Georgian by the name of Christopher James ``Jamie'' Bishop, and I, from the floor of the Senate, send to Pine Mountain, GA, my sympathy on the tragic loss of Jamie. Jamie, who was passionate about his art and an avid amateur photographer, grew up in Pine Mountain, GA, and was valedictorian of Harris County High School. He received his bachelor's degree in German from my alma mater, the University of Georgia, and was a Fulbright scholar at Christian-Albrechts-University in Kiel, Germany. He returned to the University of Georgia to earn his master's degree in German linguistics. Jamie, who was known for wearing his hair in a ponytail, had been a German instructor at Virginia Tech since 2005. His wife, Stefanie Hofer, is an assistant professor of German there. By all accounts, Jamie was an intelligent, clever and passionate individual. I am very proud as a Georgian to have known of his accomplishments, and I send his wife Stefanie and his parents Michael and Jeri my prayers and my hopes that they will accept our sympathy as they endure the heartbreak of the loss of Jamie. To the families of all of those professors, employees, and students who lost their lives or were hurt in Blacksburg, VA, I extend my sympathy and my deepest prayers that we will find reconciliations out of tragedy.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sympathy and I know the sympathy of all of the Members of the Senate and the people of the United States of America on the tragic losses yesterday at Virginia Tech. I learned this morning that one of those first tragic losses was a young gentleman by the name of Ryan Clark, and I, from the floor of the Senate, send to Martinez, GA, my sympathy, that of Senator Chambliss, and that of all Members of the Senate on the tragic loss of Ryan. None of us can understand what happened yesterday, but all of us must understand the profound tragedy and the loss of youth in its prime. Ryan Clark, 22 years old, a double major in English and biology, was about to walk across the stage and graduate and then pursue a masters and a Ph.D. in psychology. Ryan is survived not only by his mother Letitie but by his brother Bryan. Bryan told us that his brother was known best by his nickname on the campus, ``Stack.'' Stack, if you go to the Web site of the Virginia Tech band, can be seen volunteering his time in a food drive for the needy. In fact, just last December, in the Georgia Dome at the Peach Bowl of 2006, one of the last times that Ryan went back to Georgia, he performed with the Virginia Tech band at halftime of that bowl game. This young man was a residential adviser, a member of the band, an outstanding student, a proud son, and a proud brother. I am very proud as a Georgian to have known of his accomplishments, and I send his mother Letitie my prayers and my hopes that she will accept our sympathy and endure the tragedy of the loss of her son Ryan. To the families of all of those professors, employees, and students who were hurt yesterday in Blacksburg, VA, I extend my sympathy and my deepest prayers that we will find reconciliations out of tragedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to tell a quick story. I was in my office working and watching the beginning of Senator Byrd's speech about Senator Stevens. I was reminded that I had a picture of two fellows who came up from Georgia to cook for the Senate at a barbecue. It is a picture of Senator Stevens, myself, and those two gentlemen. The reason I ran over here is to say this: When I asked who the two gentlemen wanted to have their picture taken with, they said Senator Ted Stevens. I think that is a testimony to his reach, which is far beyond Alaska and to my home in Georgia. Secondly, when I saw Senator Byrd speak, I knew he was speaking about Senator Stevens, and I realized the embodiment of history in the Senate that these two gentlemen represent. To come and sit down as Senator Thad Cochran came into the Chamber, I realized this 2-year rookie of the Senate was sitting among greatness. My favorite book of all time is ``The Greatest Generation'' because it tells true stories of those great men and women who, in the most critical test in the history of our country, defeated the axis powers in Germany and in the Pacific and saw to it that this democracy continued. Senator Stevens fought bravely for this country in the Pacific. As I was born in 1944, his generation was seeing to it that I would have the opportunity to live the life I have and one day actually come to the Senate. Senator Stevens, I wanted to say, as a youngster in the Senate, thank you for what you have done. You sacrificed, and you have allowed me to be able to take advantage and eventually come to the Senate. I pass those same compliments on to Mr. Cochran and Mr. Byrd. These are three great Americans with whom I am honored to share a moment today. Congratulations.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will be brief. I will take a portion of the remainder of our time and yield back the rest. I compliment Senator Durbin on his excellent remarks. Referring back to Senator Dorgan's and Senator Smith's speeches and so many other speeches, I think this has been a terrific debate. I compliment the Senator from Iowa tremendously. We all gained a great deal of education. I think, with rare exception, we have seen exhibited a passion to further embryonic stem cell research. The questions are not if that is what we should do but how we go about doing it. What I have tried to do, and Senator Harkin and I had a great exchange last night when we educated one another on our positions, but what I tried to do is open a door that already existed, a door that brought about 5 of the 21 embryonic stem cell lines that are currently under NIH approval. But as Senator Harkin and others have stated, those lines have now been experimented on for 5\1/2\ years, using mice, they have developed pollution or less-than-quality lines. It is time for us to find a way to further the science, to reach out for those discoveries and do so. S. 30, which I am here to advocate for, affords that opportunity because it allows the NIH to invest future funds in embryonic stem cell research on embryos derived from Level III Gardner principle remainders and in vitro fertilization, arrested embryos, as they are referred to in some cases, dead embryos as referred to in other cases, but in all cases embryos that are no longer going to become a life but do generate and contain pluripotent embryonic stem cells. In the end, I feel that approach satisfies the questions raised at the White House and affords us an opportunity of a bill that will be signed by the President and does what everybody on this floor supports, with rare exception, I believe, or maybe no exception once done, and that is the expansion and the extension of the research. I end where I began with my remarks a minute ago. I compliment Senator Harkin and others who have spoken and the advocacy that has been here today and the level and quality of this debate on this subject. I look forward to this afternoon and the remaining 3 hours as we lead up to the votes. I guess I would say the same thing the Senator from Iowa would say. If any Members want to speak this afternoon, it is time to let us know now rather than later because we will have 3 hours equally divided between four different groups. With that said, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his support and particularly Meg Hauck who has been of immense value to us throughout the entire process of this deliberation. I thank majority leader Harry Reid and his staff on the floor for the equitable and fair way in which they allocated time in support of this debate. I thank Tyler Thompson on my staff, Chris Carr, Joan Kirchner, and a former member of my staff who retired but started this journey with me some time ago, Brittany Espy; also, Dr. Steven Stice at the University of Georgia, whom I have quoted many times on this floor in the course of the last 20 hours of debate, but a scientist like many in America who seeks to find cures for diseases not yet cured, who understands the potential, the vibrance, and the hope of embryonic stem cell research and found ways to develop those embryonic stem cells that are compatible with the directive of the President of 5 years ago but offer new, expanded hope and reality for research in the future. I particularly pay a compliment to Senator Harkin who has been the floor manager on S. 5 throughout this debate. He has been very cooperative in every way in allowing us to share our thoughts on two distinct bills, S. 5 and S. 30. I want to quote Senator Gordon Smith. Senator Smith, in his speech, said these bills should not be looked at as competitors but as companions. I agree with that statement because they seek to accomplish the same thing, although they travel down a highway that differs slightly. The minority leader has accurately expressed the hopes and dreams and aspirations of all Americans, and that is for us to be a catalyst at the Federal level, to ensure that breakthroughs in health, in medicine, and in science take place, and that we are never a hindrance or obstacle to that taking place, while at the same time respecting concerns of all Americans as we go down that path. Senator Coleman of Minnesota has been a tremendous leader in this effort and has brought many of the portions of S. 30 to reality through his research, through his dedication, and through his compassion. As he said so often, he and Senator Harkin and myself understand we can do better, we can do more, we can reach out, and we can do so without crossing those lines that cause us trouble or may become an obstacle to further research. So I conclude my remarks by thanking my colleagues in the Senate for their patience and their listening over the last 20 hours. My sincere appreciation to Senator Harkin for his cooperation, my praise for Senator Coleman and his contribution, and my hope and belief that Members of the Senate will look favorably on S. 30 so we can move science forward in the research of embryonic stem cells and the hope and promise they bring to all Americans. I yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Minnesota for their diligent work over the last 2 days on the floor of the Senate dealing with this issue. I admire the passion of both. I am so pleased their passion is rooted in their belief, which I share, that we can move science forward, that we can enhance research for what are currently incurable diseases, and that we can do so in the public domain. Senator Harkin made a very good statement--he has made a number of good statements, but he made a good statement a little bit ago about why NIH is important. NIH is important because the research gets in the public domain, not in the proprietary domain of an investor or someone who is hoping to find something but does not want to share that with anybody else. So it is important to find a way to get the NIH investment in the embryonic stem cell research. S. 5 and S. 30 approach it from a different direction, but the goal in the end is the same; that is, to further the science and to find cures. I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1960s, I am reminded of a statement I heard--often repeated--by then Senator and previously Attorney General Robert Kennedy. I remember a particular speech he made, when, having returned from Biafra, where there was a terrible famine at that time, he said: Some people see things as they are, and ask, why?--referring to famine. I--meaning him--see things as they never were and ask, why not? That is what this is all about. Why not find cures? And why not find ways to seek those cures that pass the test we desire to pass that S. 30 portends? I have stated on more than one occasion the methodology and the derivation of these stem cells. It has been questioned a couple of times, but facts are stubborn. BGO1, BG02, and BG03, currently under the investment domain of the National Institutes of Health--lines for which diabetes research, neurological progenitor cell research, and other research takes place at this very day--were all derived from embryos that had passed the seventh day following in vitro fertilization, were naturally dead or arrested but contained pluripotent embryonic stem cells. I might add, in vitro fertilization takes place every day in the United States of America. My family has been touched by it. Many families have been touched by it. In each of those processes, the development of those embryos goes through the three stages I have referred to: Gardner principle I, the first 72 hours; Gardner principle II, the next 4 days; and then those thereafter where the cells stop dividing, where the pluripotent stem cells exist but the embryo is not implanted. Now, there have been some who have talked about: Well, there is no evidence of success yet in stem cells. I join Senator Harkin in his statement that the only way you find out about evidence of success is by doing the research. But I want to read something I think is important and I am proud to share because research that has been done on BGO1 and 03--two of those three lines derived in this methodology-- have had significant research conducted on them in a number of areas. This has a little bit of technical language, but it expresses the promise and the hope the Senator from Iowa and I and the Senator from Minnesota have all talked about. I quote: The directed differentiation of BGO1 and BG03 cells to neuroepithelia and multiple differentiated neuronal lineages, including cells expressing multiple markers of the midbrain dopaminergic lineage, has previously been demonstrated. ``Previously been demonstrated.'' That statement was confirming the research on BG01 and 03, designed to see if there was a way to develop neurological cells that could carry the hope for cures to spinal cord injury and, in fact, to neurological cell or brain cell injury. From the research on those three lines, a patent is now pending on a neurological progenitor cell process, which is a real advancement from embryonic stem cell research, from embryonic stem cells derived from level III Gardner principle derivation or those derived from an arrested or a dead embryo. So I would submit my passion for S. 30 is in the hope of finding cures, in the hope of avoiding a veto, and, instead, having an investment in the furtherance of science that can grow exponentially because of the unlimited moral and ethical access that would exist toward these stem cells. I conclude by encouraging all the Members of the Senate to thoughtfully consider S. 30 and encourage them to vote for it as a step in the right direction, the opening of a door that has, in fact, not been shut but stuck, and an opportunity to do what everybody in this Chamber has stated affirmatively they want to do; that is, provide hope for those who do not have it, expand research in the public domain at the National Institutes of Health, and invest tax dollars ethically in a process that brings a promise of hope to every single American. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will take that time as allocated.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, it is further my understanding the first of those four periods is controlled by me; is that correct?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, it is my understanding, according to the unanimous consent agreement, we have four 10-minute periods.