Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today we resume consideration of the border security bill. After an hour of debate equally divided and the leaders' remarks, we will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to commit, which is the Hagel-Martinez language. This will occur at approximately 9:45 this morning. This will be the first of several votes we will have today. If cloture is not invoked, we will immediately proceed to the second cloture vote on the underlying bill. If cloture is not invoked on the underlying bill, we will turn to the cloture motions that were filed on the defense nominations. We confirmed two nominations last night, and we hope we will be able to reach agreement on the remaining few. Senators are alerted that we will have a busy morning and should stay close to the Chamber. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation before we recess for the Easter break.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I want to pose a question to the distinguished minority whip. Last Thursday, I offered amendment No. 3215, which is second in line after the Kyl amendment. I have listened intently to the distinguished Senators from Illinois with regard to the objections they have expressed to the Kyl amendment. I have not heard them say what their objection is to amendment No. 3215. I ask the Senator from Illinois this question: Amendment No. 3215 is a simple amendment, which says that any provisions of this act which grant legal status to someone who is here illegally do not take effect until such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and the Congress that our borders are reasonably secure. Now, I would like to hear what objection someone would have to the United States of America living up to its responsibility of securing our borders?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I will take a minute. On Thursday of last week, I offered in this Senate amendment 3215 which is pending after the amendment by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Texas. On Friday, when the majority of the Senate went home and there were no votes, I stayed in this Senate for 3 hours and presided in order for Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander to offer their amendments. We had last week a spirit of cooperation in this Senate to ensure that suggestions and amendments of the Members would be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The Senate stayed in session on Friday to accommodate Democrats and Republicans alike with the understanding we would proceed in regular order this week. To blame the Senator from Arizona for being obstructionist is totally incorrect. The fact is, there are other amendments following his that would equally be objected to by the distinguished minority whip. So we are frozen at this time because there is a lack of spirit of cooperation in order to consider issues that are important to the people of the United States of America on what I consider to be the most important domestic issue in the United States of America. So singular blame on any one individual such as Mr. Kyl is not only inappropriate, it is not right. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, my response to the Senator would be that I am not an attorney, but I spent 33 years in the real estate business. I saw the term ``reasonable attorney's fees'' on more documents than the law would allow. I never met an attorney who could not describe what reasonable attorney's fees meant. I think we can find a lot of people in the Senate who understand that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside in order for me to call up amendment No. 3215; provided further that at 4 p.m. on Monday, the pending amendments be temporarily set aside and Senator Mikulski be recognized in order to offer a first-degree amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3215 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, yesterday I took the floor to speak at length about the legislation before us and to talk particularly about the history of amnesty in the past dealing with immigration. I talked about the dangerous step we would take if we created another opportunity to attract even more to come here without first having secured our borders. The amendment I have asked to be placed before the Senate today accepts a very simple premise, and that is that we have failed as a country to secure our borders. We continue to have those coming here illegally to work because it is easier than coming here legally. And until we stop that and shut that down, any program granting status to an illegal person in this country should never be implemented. In the insurance industry, swimming pools are entitled an attractive nuisance. In the business of immigration, American policy is an attractive nuisance. We are attracting people to come here the wrong way. We are not penalizing them for coming here the wrong way. And we are now allowing people to come here the right way, a seamless system that seems to work. So this amendment is merely a trigger. It says that notwithstanding what programs we adopt in the Senate before final passage, no program granting status to someone who is here illegally or may come here illegally in the future will take effect until the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President of the United States and to the Congress that our borders are reasonably secure. I am not going to take a lot of time, but I want to repeat something I said yesterday: A month ago I took to the border myself along with Senator Coleman. We went to Tijuana and San Diego, Fort Huachuca in Arizona. We saw firsthand the mechanisms that are available and being used today that will secure our border. We also saw firsthand the huge holes because we have neither funded the intelligence equipment and the eyes in the sky nor put the manpower on the border. I, for one, will hold myself responsible and will be a reminder to this entire Senate that when we pass an appropriations act this year for Homeland Security and enforcement of immigration and customs, if it doesn't include the unmanned aerial vehicles we need on the border and the agents we need to enforce immigration law, then we are turning our back on a problem that began in 1986 and has continued until this day, and that is the benign neglect of us to fund the necessary equipment, manpower, and material to make the laws of this country work to allow people to come here in the right way as easily as possible but with accountability, and the people who come here the wrong way, to know there is a consequence to pay. Human nature is human nature. People will respond when they know what the story is. Right now, they know the story is that it is easier to get here by sneaking in. In this measure, we send a signal that there will be no amnesty, no more free pass nor a continued flow of illegal people coming into this country. Instead, there will be consequences for ignoring the law, and there will be respect and appreciation for a normal, rational immigration process to work, so that America's labor needs are met, but America respects the borders between ourselves, the nation of Canada and the nation of Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in 1903, Andrew Bengsten boarded a ship and left Sweden, the son of Isak Bengsten. He landed on Ellis Island and took the last name Isakson, which is the Scandinavian tradition, to take the father's first name and add ``son'' to it. In 1916, he had a son named Ed, and in 1926 he became a naturalized citizen. He went to West Texas as a laborer, and later on to Atlanta, GA as a carpenter. In 1944, his son Ed and Ed's wife Julia had a son, who by the grace of God is me. No one in this body has any greater respect or admiration for this great country and our process of legal immigration than I. As we approach the most important debate this Senate will encounter in this session, it is important that it be a debate of dignity and a debate of substance and a debate where we learned the lessons of the past and make sure that immigration in the future holds the same promise it held for my grandfather 103 years ago. I have filed an amendment at the clerk's desk, which at the appropriate time in the debate I will offer, which to me is the key as to whether we proceed on whatever the final product this Senate may adopt may be. It is a point that has been missed by many and avoided by some but we must focus on and we must accomplish. It is an amendment that very simply says no provision of any act we pass which contains a guest worker program will go into effect until, first, the Secretary of Homeland Security has certified to the President and to this Congress that our borders are reasonably secure. I want to tell you why that is important. It is important because 20 years ago, in 1986, a great President, Ronald Reagan, and this Congress adopted a program that gave legal status to 3 million illegal aliens in the United States. We did so in the hopes of clearing up the problem. Instead, what we created was an attractive reason for more to come illegally in hopes of gaining the same status. Today, 20 years later, we have estimates of 11 million to 13 million Americans who came exactly that way--over the border illegally in hopes of that same promise that happened in 1986. Were we to pass in this body this year a bill granting status that does not require, first, security on the border, then we will create the same attractiveness we did 20 years ago. The result will be the same, and the legacy to another Congress and the problems in our social services system in our great country will be great. It is important that whatever security requirements we place in this legislation--and there should be many--be funded and be in place before any other provision takes place. Second, it is important to understand that enforcing the border is something we can do. Before I introduced border security legislation a few weeks ago, I traveled to the United States border with Mexico. I went to San Diego and Tijuana, met with our border agents who are having remarkable success now because of technology and, of course, because of improved numbers. I went to Fort Huachuca in Arizona where the one and only unmanned aerial surveillance vehicle, the Predator, has a 150-mile stretch of the United States-Mexican border secure because we have eyes in the sky 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. For $400 million, we can deploy a fleet of 26 of those unmanned Predator aircraft to have eyes in the sky 24/7 along the entire 2,000- mile border. That will have a tripling effect on our manpower because it allows us through technology to identify those who are coming and where they are, to position the agents we have to intercept them and turn them around. It will send the signal that no longer are we going to look the other way but instead we are going to focus on those who are trying to come here illegally and be smuggled, and shut the door so they will apply legally to come to this country the right way, as so many American guests have and some citizens have, to ultimately become naturalized. This place we all call home and the rest of the world calls America is a very special place. Our problem isn't that people are trying to break out of this great country; they are all trying to break into this great country. We owe it to our country and our future and to the legacy of our children to assure that the path to this country is legal and operable, and that it isn't done illegally and involve smuggling. While often many of us talk about the Southwest border, it should also be true on the border with Canada as well, and it should be true at our ports. Whatever we do in this 2 weeks of debate, it must ultimately be predicated on, first, securing the border of the United States, whether it be on the north or on the South. We must have fortitude in this Senate to pass the appropriations necessary to fund the programs to secure those borders. Rhetoric is cheap. Enforcement on our borders can be expensive. But it must be essential. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, who is on the floor, has been an absolute leader to the appropriations and the budget process in focusing like a laser beam on seeing to it that we authorize and ultimately appropriate the funds to do exactly that in terms of manpower. I will join him in that as well as those who put the funds up for the unmanned aerial vehicle surveillance and the ground sensors for tunneling and other technology we have. It is a matter of us developing a resolve to secure the borders of the United States of America. We must not demonize anybody. First, we must secure the borders which the American people expect us to secure. I come from a great State, the State of Georgia, a State that is a major agricultural producer in this country, a State where there are many migrant laborers. I am well aware of what the green industry, the agricultural industry and the construction industry workforce, is made up of. We owe it to those industries to see to it that we have a legal path to come to this country and to work and appreciate America, that no longer will there be smuggling of illegal aliens across our border, but instead we have as a country a legal path for people to come and an illegal door that is shut because we have stopped turning and looking the other way. I look forward to this debate. I appreciate the promise of this country, because were it not for our legal immigration process I would not be here today. But I will fight as hard as I can to see to it that whatever passes this Senate requires first and foremost the securing of our borders before the extension to guest workers or any status be granted. If we do not, we will have recreated the problem we created in 1967. We will deal not with just 3 million illegals coming but millions and millions and millions more, all because we looked the other way at a time when we needed to focus like a laser beam. The people of this country are looking to us to secure our borders for the homeland and for immigration. We must secure them first before we do anything else. A comprehensive bill is possible, and I have no problem with addressing comprehensive reform. But those reforms that involve guest workers must only be implemented after the certification by the Secretary of Homeland Security that our borders are secure. For failure to do so is to pass on to another generation of Americans a compounded problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a remarkable young man, Brad Cohen. Brad is a teacher and an author. Brad Cohen is one of the more than 100,000 people in the United States who have full-blown Tourette syndrome. I first met Brad through his loving father and my friend Norm Cohen. Later, as chairman of the State Board of Education, I visited Brad in his classroom at Mountain View Elementary. I marveled at Brad's ability to teach and hold young children spell-bound. I watched as Brad's occasional twitches and noises went unnoticed by his class. I watched a young teacher master both teaching and Tourette syndrome through determination and personal commitment. Brad has authored a book titled ``Front of the Class, How Tourette Syndrome Made Me the Teacher I Never Had.'' It is a story of personal challenge and determination. It is a story of a young man's dreams coming true. Brad's book is for everyone, and his twenty motivational tips on living with a disability are an inspiration for anyone. I commend Brad Cohen on the power of his life of achievement and the inspiration he has to the children he teaches.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as the chairman may know, I recently took a trip with Senator Coleman to the U.S.-Mexican border to look at the challenges facing our Border Patrol agents as they work to secure the border against illegal immigration. One of our stops was at Fort Huachuca, AZ, where we saw, in operation, the lone UAV Predator B that the Customs and Border Patrol has in service. I was tremendously impressed with this technology and saw its usefulness in assisting our CBP agents in locating and interdicting illegal immigrants as they crossed the border. In fact, Mr. Chairman, while at Fort Huachuca, CBP caught 13 illegal immigrants using the Predator B right before our eyes. In our discussions with the CBP officials at Fort Huachuca, we learned that with a squadron of UAVs the CBP could provide 24-hour-a- day, 7-day-a-week, coverage on the Mexican border. These MQ-9 UAVs would have satellite command, control, and communications which would allow them to be operated anywhere in the world from anywhere in the world, as well as an updated sensor suite to assist in finding illegals coming across the border. It is my belief that this body should make a significant investment in unmanned aerial vehicles. We also learned that there is an issue surrounding critical spares for the lone UAV in operation. I understand the CBP is scheduled to receive a second Predator B this year; however, we need to fund the critical spares CBP needs to keep these UAVs up and flying. Through conversations that I and my staff have had with FAA, I understand they are working out the issues surrounding the flying of UAVs within U.S. airspace. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the FAA to continue to work with other Government agencies as well as the private sector to mitigate the problems surrounding the use of UAVs in U.S. airspace. Mr. Chairman, the chairman has been a leader in this body on so many issues but in particular on homeland security issues. I look forward to working with you in this effort and on this issue.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. First of all, let me try and set up my remarks. I chaired the State Board of Education in the State of Georgia from 1996 to 1998, which is a period of time during the last administration. When I heard some of the speeches this morning about our commitment to education and about this budget, I found myself compelled to come to the floor and maybe add a perspective that might not yet have been heard on some of the comments that were made. First of all, I commend Senator Gregg and the committee on what they have done. As the Senator said as he left a minute ago, this represents a $1.5 billion increase over the President's budget for education. When this Education bill passes this year in the appropriations act, we will have increased Federal spending on education by 33 percent since the election of President Bush. It is unprecedented in the history of this country, our commitment to elementary and secondary education. The Senator from Massachusetts made a comment about the Pell grants. He said: Well, you will hear us say that we are really spending more on Pell because there are more students receiving them. And his comment was--and I wrote it down: Well, there are more poor children receiving Pell money. That is why there is more money going out. There is a phrase that was left out of that. Today, there are more poor children qualifying for higher education, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. That is why more money has gone out while the level of Pell funding might not have been raised from the $4,050 level. In fact, this President's commitment to leaving no child behind, seeing to it that students can read and compute math at grade level and can go to high school ready to learn in the sciences and those other areas that are a prerequisite for a postsecondary education, no administration ever in the history of this country has made the commitment this one has. With regard to the comments on Perkins--and I am a big Perkins person. I will tell you now, I will be on the floor of the Senate when the appropriations bill comes through fighting for Perkins money. But the illusion was created that the President zeroes out Perkins. Perkins is a discretionary program. Perkins was not delineated in last year's budget resolution, but it was fully funded in the appropriations act. So anyone who says this budget cuts out Perkins is making the assumption that of the $1.5 billion in increased funding that we are going to spend in this budget resolution, none of it would be appropriated by this Senate to go to Perkins. Let me tell you how bad that is in terms of an idea. Last year, the budget read exactly the same way, and this Senate, by a vote of 99 to 0, funded Perkins. So this budget resolution gives a $1.5 billion increase in discretionary spending so that programs such as Perkins, which are not delineated because they are not mandatory in the budget resolution, are funded in the appropriations act. But let us get to mandatory. IDEA is kind of my special passion. Children with disabilities is something I have worked on all my life. I married a special education teacher. I married a special education teacher 10 years before Public Law 94-142 was passed, which was the Special Education Act that really put in the mandates that today are IDEA. And for years, this Congress and this Nation mandated on our local governments that they spend 40 percent more per FTE, full-time equivalent, on a special needs child than they did on an average child or a nonspecial needs child. Yet we funded none of it. For years we funded none of it. Under this administration, we have gone from funding what was about 10 percent when the President was elected, to where now we are almost to half of that 40 percent mandate or 20 percent in total of the FTE the Federal Government is funding. In this budget resolution, as a mandatory item, there is inclusion from now through 2011 for that commitment to IDEA and to children with disabilities to increase so that we meet the Federal promise made over 30 years ago, or almost 30 years ago. So we shouldn't play word games. I will be the first person to tell you that I will be on the floor with the appropriations bill fighting for pieces of that $1.5 billion increase to go to enhanced programs such as Perkins. I believe in our commitment to the less fortunate, whether they be disabled or whether they be in poverty, and I was proud to be one of the coauthors of No Child Left Behind which, in and of itself, is a commitment to our title I children who are free and reduced lunch children and, in fact, our children most in need. But we should not characterize this budget as cutting short a commitment to America's children but, rather, a reaffirmation of a commitment that was made in 2001 and has continued to result in a 33-percent increase in the investment in our children. One last point. I didn't hear this said, but I know I will hear it said before this debate is over, or certainly before the appropriations bill passes. We do two things in the Congress of the United States. We authorize and we appropriate. A lot of times because of the public misunderstanding of the difference between the two, people will say we are cutting short our commitment to this or to that or the other because we authorized X but we appropriate Y. Well, from defense to education to everything in between, we always have an authorization that is higher than the appropriation. but the appropriations for education are not in this budget resolution. It does not portend a reduction but an increase--in this case, $1.5 billion, and in the case of education, 33 percent in the first 5 years of this President of the United States, the President who declared and this Congress affirmed that we shall leave no child behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in a few weeks in my home county of Cobb County, GA, a pretty normal occurrence is going to take place for someone who is anything other than a normal person. It is going to be the 65th birthday of a man named Robert Moultrie. Now, 65th birthdays are becoming pretty common. I am pretty happy they are, because I am about to have one in a couple of years. But Robert is an extraordinary individual. I hope he is not watching C-SPAN right now because they are going to give a big surprise party for him, and if he is watching I am going to be in big trouble, but I doubt he is because he is a busy entrepreneur of unbelievable accomplishment. He started a company in 1986 known as The Facility Group, and it was six individuals. Their revenues were about $10 million. Last year, Robert Moultrie's company, The Facility Group, employed 300 people and their revenues were $250 million. He is an extraordinary individual, a graduate of Georgia Tech. He is a good engineer, as someone running a design/build firm should obviously be, but also a great benefactor to that institution, as well as Erskine College, where he led the $30 million capital campaign a few years ago. What makes Robert extraordinary is not just those accomplishments in business, which are great, but the fact that he and his wife are a little bit like the title of Bob and Elizabeth Dole's famous book, ``Unlimited Partners,'' because they are equal partners in their journey both in business as well as community service. When Robert chaired the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce, the second largest chamber in the State in 2002, everybody thought Cheryl was kind of cochairman because she was as involved as he was. When they chaired the Heart Ball for the community, they set an all-time record in our State, raising $600,000 in 1 night to benefit those who were fighting heart disease. Girls Club, Boys Club, United Way, or simply a helping hand, Robert and Cheryl Moultrie have always been there. As I said, 65th birthdays are very common but Robert Moultries are not. Our community is very fortunate to have had him there, and I am very fortunate to have the opportunity today in the Senate to commend him on his achievements for our community and commend him on this milestone in his life. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I mourn the passing and pay tribute to a wonderful Georgian, a great leader, and a personal friend of mine. The Honorable Eleanor Richardson passed away on February 21, 2006, leaving a tremendous void in the hearts of all who knew and loved this extraordinary woman. A long-time resident of Decatur, GA, she was involved in Civic Organizations such as the League of Women Voters, serving as the president of the Dekalb League and then the Georgia League. It was during this time that a friend urged her to run for a vacant seat in the Georgia General Assembly, thus beginning her memorable political career. From 1975 until 1991, she served with great distinction as one of the first female members in the Georgia House of Representatives, and I was privileged to serve with her for many of those years. She gained an impeccable reputation as a faithful advocate for her district and a determined voice of the voiceless. Eleanor's legislative priorities included issues related to the welfare of children, women, the elderly and the homeless. She had an unwavering commitment to justice and equality. Eleanor was respected by her colleagues on both sides of the aisle for her determined leadership. She served on several key House committees, including the Appropriations Committee, the Health and Ecology Committee and the State Planning and Community Affairs Committee, where she served as chair of the local legislation subcommittee. After retiring from public office, Eleanor was appointed to the newly founded Georgia Commission on Women in 1992 and served as its first vice chair. She remained a tireless servant to her community and to the State through her work on countless other boards and advocacy organizations. For over 45 years, she was a faithful and beloved member of Glenn Memorial United Methodist Church, highly active both in the local church and in her denomination. Eleanor leaves behind a loving and devoted family, including her husband, Merlyn Eldon Richardson; her daughter, Merlyn Richardson Nolan; her two grandsons, Gaillard Ravenel Nolan, Jr., and Merlyn Richardson Nolan; and her two great-grandchildren, Hadley Jane Nolan and Parker Richardson Nolan. This strong-willed and generous woman devoted her entire life to serving others, and she will always be remembered for her compassion, integrity, fairness and unshakable commitment to creating a fair and just society. She touched the lives of many Georgians, including this Senator, through her efforts on behalf of our community. It was an honor to know and to serve in the Georgia House with Eleanor Richardson, and it is a privilege to be in this Senate and pay tribute to her great life.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise in favor of the confirmation of the nomination of Mr. Timothy Batten, the U.S. district court for the Northern District of Georgia. In doing so, I give sincere thanks to our selection committee and review committee in Georgia which interviewed all the potential candidates for this judgeship. My three appointees: Jimmy Franklin, Dr. Ron Carlson, and Mr. Ingram, have done a wonderful job in donating countless thousands of hours to see to it that the very best nominees were sent forward to the White House. I extend my thanks to them. I extend my thanks to all those who submitted their names, and, in particular, Mr. Tim Batten, who has been selected by the President of the United States for this judgeship. Over the last few years in terms of the judiciary confirmation process, offering oneself for a Federal judgeship in this country is not a walk in the park. It is not a picnic. We are very fortunate in this country to have men and women of the caliber and the standing of Tim Batten who are willing to make the sacrifices for public service and offer themselves to serve this country. Tim and his beautiful wife Elizabeth and their six children are truly an American success story. With his confirmation and the vote by this Senate tonight, we will be adding to the U.S. district court a competent, dedicated individual, dedicated to the rule of law, the principles of this country, and the Constitution of the United States of America. As the junior Senator from the State of Georgia, I am happy and honored to commend to the entire Senate Mr. Timothy Batten as the next district judge in Georgia. Mr. Batten was born in Atlanta, GA, received his undergraduate degree at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1981, and his juris doctorate degree at the University of Georgia in 1984. He has practiced law in Georgia his entire professional career at the firm of Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, and he and his wife Elizabeth have six children. I know Mr. Batten is very well qualified and keenly aware of the responsibilities he is about to undertake. I know that as the Members of this Chamber have considered his nomination they have learned that that he will be a jurist who understands the value and the strength and the power of the Constitution of the United States of America, and a jurist who will rule based on the law, not legislate based on the position. Mr. Batten has exceptional qualifications, and I have every confidence that Mr. Batten is equal to the position he has been nominated for. I ask unanimous consent that personal information on Mr. Batten be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, within the hour, we will cast our votes on whether to proceed on the debate on the extension of the PATRIOT Act, which I intend to vote for, both to proceed and then finally for that act. I rise this morning to reflect on my strong support for the PATRIOT Act and also express some of my frustration with those who have questioned its use with regard to our civil liberties. I was born in the United States of America in 1944. I am 61 years old. The inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that our forefathers built this Government on, of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have been the cornerstones of my life. They are the foundation of all our civil liberties. They allowed me to pursue a business career, a marriage, the raising of a family, the educating of children, and allowed me to proceed to the highest office I could have possibly ever imagined: a Member of the Senate. Because of God's blessings and the blessings of this country, last week I was blessed with two grandchildren, born 61 years after I was but into a country that still is founded on the cornerstones of the great civil liberties of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But Sarah Katherine and Riley Dianne, my two granddaughters, were born into a totally different world--the same country but a different world. Today, terror is our enemy, and it uses the civil liberties that we cherish to attempt to do us harm; in fact, to destroy us. In fact, the freedom of access to communication, to employment, to travel, even to our borders, are the tools and the weapons of those who would do our civil liberties harm and in fact take them away. Because of this, do we give up our civil liberties? Absolutely not. But because of this, we must watch, listen, and pursue our enemies with the technologies of the 21st century. The PATRIOT Act does not threaten our civil liberties. It is our insurance policy to preserve them. We obviously must be diligent with anything we give Government, in terms of a tool or a power to communicate or to watch or to surveil. But do we turn our back on everything we cherish and that has made us great out of fear we might lose it when, in fact, it is our obligation to protect it? We are in the ultimate war between good and evil. Our enemy today, terror, is unlike any enemy we have ever had. All our previous enemies wanted what we had--our resources, our wealth, our ingenuity, our entrepreneurship, our natural resources, our money, our wealth. Terror doesn't want that. Terror doesn't want what we have. Terror doesn't want us to have what we have. They don't want me to be able to speak freely in this body and speak my mind, or my constituents in Georgia to do the same, even if what they say is diametrically opposed to me. They don't want me to freely carry a weapon and defend myself. They don't want a free press that can publish and write its opinion. They don't want any of the inalienable rights and the guarantees and the civil liberties that we have because they know it stands against the tyranny and the control and the suppression that their radical views have brought to a part of the world. This place you and I call home and the rest of the world calls America is a very special place. You don't find anybody trying to break out of the United States of America. They are all trying to break in. And they are for a very special reason. The civil liberties and the guarantees of our Constitution and the institutions that protect our country--the reasons that you and I stand here today. While I respect the dissent of any man or woman in this Chamber about the PATRIOT Act, I regret that we have delayed our ratification of the single tool that turned us around post-9/11, in terms of our ability to protect our shores and our people. I remind this Chamber and everyone who can listen and hear what I am saying that when the 9/11 Commission reviewed all that went wrong prior to 9/11, it recognized that what went right post-9/11 was the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It acknowledged, without our ability to connect the dots, we could not protect the country. Once again, I cherish our civil liberties. I see the PATRIOT Act not as a threat to them but an insurance policy to protect them. As we go to a vote in less than an hour, I encourage every Member of the Senate to vote to proceed and then debate, as we will, the issues and the concerns. But in the end, we should leave this Chamber, today or tomorrow, sending a message to those who would do us harm and sending a message to those whom we stand here today to preserve and protect, that we will not let any encumbrance stop our pursuit of those who would destroy or injure us, our children or our grandchildren. At the end, at the age of 61 and with the opportunity to serve in the Senate, the rest of my life will be about those grandchildren. Riley Dianne Isakson and Sarah Katherine Isakson are less than a month old. They have a bright future. The PATRIOT Act is going to ensure that the very civil liberties that will allow them to pursue happiness to its maximum extent will still exist because America did not turn its back or fear our ability to compete in a 21st century of terror with the type of 21st century laws we need to surveil, to protect, and to defend those who would hurt or those who would harm this great country, the United States of America. I yield the floor.

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 on behalf of myself, all Georgians, and I am sure all Americans, to express my deepest sympathy and condolences to the family of Coretta Scott King, the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King. We learned this morning that she passed away yesterday at the age of 78. Coretta Scott King is known in history for being the wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, but she was far more than that. As he wrote in his ``Letter from the Birmingham Jail'' to the concerned clergy of Birmingham about his justification for coming to Birmingham on behalf of the citizens who had been discriminated against, Dr. King said: I come because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. As we all know from history, he took his mission wherever it took him to fight on behalf of justice for all Americans. He was able to do that in large measure with the support and the partnership of his great partner in life, Coretta Scott King. I had the privilege, as a Georgian, of knowing her since my days in the legislature. I saw her as an equal with Dr. King in the movement. I saw her as a loving mother in the raising of their four children. And I have seen her, since the loss of Dr. King, as an untiring advocate on behalf of ensuring that the legacy of Dr. King and his movement is perpetuated in American history. A few months ago, the United States of America and this Senate honored the life of Rosa Parks as a significant leader, the matriarch of the civil rights movement. There is no question today, as we pause in sympathy for the loss of Dr. King's wife, Coretta Scott King, that she joins Rosa Parks as a great woman in American history and as a tireless advocate for equality for all Americans. On behalf of my State, myself, and all those who love peace and justice, I express our sympathy on the loss of Coretta Scott King.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, at the outset, I thank Mike Quiello and Nick Pearson of my staff for the research and preparation they gave me in my deliberation and consideration of Samuel Alito, Jr., and his appointment to the Supreme Court. Further, as a second generation American, the grandson of a Swedish immigrant who came to this country about 11 years prior to Samuel Alito, Sr.'s coming to this country from Italy, I am pleased that in the next few days I will have the chance to cast my vote to confirm Judge Alito as a Justice of the Supreme Court and reaffirm the promise that is the American dream of those who have come here from backgrounds that are diverse and far away to be a part of a great nation and have pledged their allegiance to all it stands for. I have thought a lot about what I would say in confirming my vote on behalf of Judge Alito, and I decided, after listening to the speeches over the last couple of days, that I would try to draw a distinction that, to me, has been apparent in this debate but also is clearly the reason that I support Judge Alito. As we have heard today from a number of my colleagues, he has been criticized for being narrow and restrictive. It is important that we understand what the opposite of narrow and restrictive is to understand where those who oppose him are coming from. The opposite of narrow and restrictive is broad and unlimited. The last thing the United States of America needs, or our Founding Fathers intended, is to have a Supreme Court that is unrestricted and broad in its interpretation of the Constitution and the laws the legislative branch passes under its authority. Therein lies the philosophical difference in this debate. It has saddened me that through innuendo and reference in some of the previous speeches over the last couple of days, Judge Alito has been cast as being exactly the opposite of what Judge Alito really is. For example, in the recent aftermath of the tragedies in West Virginia, one speaker referred to Judge Alito's dissenting opinion in the case of RNS Services v. Department of Labor as exemplifying the fact that Judge Alito was against the little man and the worker. That was a case where a ruling was made on the application of a rule on mine safety. But if you read the rule, Judge Alito did what you would hope a judge would do: He ruled on the application of the rule given the circumstances of the case. He didn't rule against the little man, nor did he rule for the big guy; he ruled based on the laws and the regulations promulgated by the agency this Congress appointed to be over mine safety. That is precisely what we need--a Court that will show us direction, but a Court that will never direct the laws we have passed in the wrong direction. Secondly, there have been those who have talked about his commitment to civil rights, or really his lack of commitment to civil rights in terms of the claims of a few. I went to do some research on that issue because everything I saw in Judge Alito when he and I talked was the opposite of what those allegations would imply. I went to the testimony of Jack White, an attorney from San Francisco, CA, an African American, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union who came to Washington, DC, and testified before the Judiciary Committee on behalf of Samuel Alito. Rather than me trying to paraphrase what Jack White said, I would like to read it verbatim and then ask anyone who hears this speech the question whether Samuel Alito is a man who is not for the civil rights of all and the individual rights and liberties of every American: Now, as I clerked for Judge Alito, I saw a deep sense of duty, diligence, humanity, and respect for his role as a Federal appellate judge. . . . . . . He uniformly applied the relevant law to the specific facts of every case. Judge Alito recognized that every case was the most important case to the parties and attorneys with something at stake. See, Judge Alito doesn't judge people by their color; he judges everybody individually in the cases he calls, as the cases are, understanding that every party has an equal interest. I further quote Jack White: I never witnessed an occasion when personal or ideological beliefs motivated a specific outcome in a case. . . . I left New Jersey without knowing Judge Alito's personal beliefs on any of them. Now, the reason I didn't know his personal beliefs on all these issues was that the jurist's ideology was never an issue in a case that Judge Alito heard. You see, Jack White, who was an African-American law clerk for Judge Alito, said that when he left, he never saw the ideological beliefs of the judge interfere with his judgment of the law and his ruling in a case. I end my quote by reading simply what he said: Without fail, I saw Judge Alito treat everyone, every individual, with dignity and respect. I will take the word of Jack White, who worked for Sam Alito, any day over any of us who, through innuendo or what we may have heard, want to castigate this nominee on his commitment to civil rights. Jack White's word, and his experience, is good enough for me. And Jack White knows what I know about Sam Alito--that he is committed to equity and fairness in the treatment of all Americans. There has been something made of the fact that he is replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. I wish to talk about that for a minute. Sandra Day O'Connor is one of my favorite Justices. I am not a lawyer. I came to the Senate from the House, but prior to my years in the House, I ran a small business. I am a businessman, and that is the interest I know and that which I know the best. Judge O'Connor was, without question, during her period on the bench the very best Justice in dealing with the complex issues of business that came before the U.S. Supreme Court. When I had the chance to meet with Judge Alito, I made that point to him and I asked him questions about American business, free enterprise, and the law. In every case, I became convinced that he had the same commitment Sandra Day O'Connor had. To that end, and with regard to ``narrow and restrictive'' and with regard to the little guy, I wish to conclude my remarks on behalf of Samuel Alito by taking a second to talk about the Kelo v. New London case, the dissenting opinion which Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, and the answers to questions Judge Alito gave before our Judiciary Committee because they completely contravene any comment anybody has made about his commitment to the little guy or the benefit, or lack thereof, of narrow and restrictive ideology. Justice O'Connor was one of the four dissenting Justices in the Kelo case. They didn't believe in the broadening of eminent domain to take property just because somebody could pay more taxes and would benefit more from it, and I concur with that. I think they made the right ruling. She said: For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property-- She is speaking within the context of the ruling in the majority. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. What more brilliant statement can be made on behalf of the little guy, the average American, or the small homeowner than Sandra Day O'Connor's? What better affirmation of someone's capacity to replace that distinguished Justice could you possibly make than by reading the last sentence of Judge Alito's answer to that question before the Judiciary Committee when he was asked about the Kelo case? He said: I would imagine that when someone's home is being taken away, a modest home, for the purpose of building a very expensive commercial structure, that is particularly galling [to me]. Sandra Day O'Connor was a great Justice and did a great service to America. She broke the glass ceiling in being the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe Justice Alito will serve our people on this Court every bit in same way Justice O'Connor did. The criticisms of Judge Alito of being narrow and restrictive may, in fact, be, if you look at them in the perspective I have given, a great compliment to his ability and that which all of us seek, and that is a jurist who will rule based on the law, not legislate based on the position. A jurist understands the value and the strength and the power of the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. President, I look forward to casting my vote in favor of the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to memorialize in the Record of the Senate, one of the great institutions in the State of Georgia. This year, Saint Joseph's Hospital celebrates its 125th anniversary of providing the citizens of Atlanta and the Southeast with the highest quality and most compassionate health care services. Let me speak for a moment on the significance of Saint Joseph's: In 1880, 125 years ago, shortly after the Civil War, four young determined Sisters of Mercy traveled to Atlanta from Savannah with a meager 50 cents in their collective pockets to start a hospital. Hospitals were not common during this time. The Sisters' idea of creating a hospital that would serve the entire community, and not simply be a place to die, was truly bold and visionary. With the goal of ``extending the mission of healing mercy begun by Christ, showing a just and compassionate regard for all who suffer,'' Saint Joseph's Infirmary was established as a 10-bed hospital in an old house located on Courtland and Baker Streets in downtown Atlanta. Saint Joseph's established Georgia's first school of nursing in 1900, an indigent ward to care for the poor and rural population during the depression, diagnostic outpatient clinics, and a $10,000 operating room to begin a legacy of state-of-the-art medical technology. The hospital became a national leader in treating heart disease, performing the first openheart surgery in the Southeast, the first angioplasty as an alternative to bypass surgery, and operated the first comprehensive cardiac catheterization laboratory. And, Saint Joseph's became one of only six medical centers in the world to perform percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. In 1978, the hospital moved to north Atlanta in order to continue its growing mission of service and changed the name to Saint Joseph's Hospital. To maintain close ties with those it served downtown, Saint Joseph's Mercy Care Services began. Starting as a simple signup sheet for volunteers to visit women's and homeless shelters, teams used their own vehicles and worked out of tackle boxes filled with medical supplies donated by physician offices. Today, Saint Joseph's Mercy Care Services is truly an integral part of the community. They now provide comprehensive services to the chronically homeless of Atlanta. In 2003, the hospital formed the Saint Joseph's Research Institute, a comprehensive research center to provide patients access to some of the newest and most innovative therapies available in the world. The Research Institute provides preclinical research and trials and clinical trials in cardiology, pulmonology, radiation, oncology, gastroenterology, orthopaedics and more. Saint Joseph's is among only 10 nonteaching hospitals in the country to have earned the Distinguished Hospital Award for Clinical Excellence and Patient Safety by HealthGrades, Inc., the Nations' leading provider of health care quality information. It is also among a prestigious group of hospitals on Solucients 100 Top Hospitals for Cardiovascular care--Saint Joseph's has been named a 100 Top Hospital 5 times. J.D. Power and Associates also has recognized Saint Joseph's as a Distinguished Hospital for Service Excellence, providing an outstanding patient experience, for 2 consecutive year, the first hospital in Atlanta to earn the distinction. But it is the people behind the awards and recognitions that make Saint Joseph's so unique. From the Sisters of Mercy who still are intimately involved with the hospital to the nurses, physicians and medical support staff--the spirit of mercy is alive and vibrant. That spirit transcends the entire organization and is the foundation for the superior medical services and programs, the unique compassionate care, the volunteers who raise money for the homeless and underserved, and the auxiliary who put in tireless hours at the hospital without pay. The spirit of mercy is in all employees who come to work year after year with smiles on their faces and compassion in their hearts. It gives me great pleasure to recognize on the Senate floor the contributions of Saint Joseph's Hospital to the citizens of Atlanta, GA, and the Southeast.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak following the speech of Senator Wyden from Oregon.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today is an anniversary of a day of great renown in American history. Two hundred and thirty-two years ago, on December 16, 1773, a band of colonists boarded three ships in Boston Harbor, dumped the cargo of tea into that harbor, and it became known as the Boston Tea Party. It was a protest of taxation without representation in that great injustice. I rise today on the floor of the Senate to tell you that injustice still exists in our tax system, not in taxation without representation but in the complexity of our system. Think about it for just a second. It takes the average American filing the simplest form, 1040, 13 hours, the length of 6 college basketball games, just to fill out our simplest form. It takes 3 of 5 Americans the cost of hiring an outside accountant to consult with them just to meet the demands of the current tax system. It means the Tax Code is now 1,685,000 words long, which is exactly 380 times the number of words in the entire Constitution of the United States of America. As all of us on the floor of the Senate know, in months, 17 million more Americans will be brought under the alternative minimum tax, a tax that was allegedly started only to address the taxation of a few that now addresses the taxation of the many. Earlier today, I introduced legislation to deal with this injustice and create a mechanism for us to forthrightly come before the people of the United States and develop a simpler, fairer, and flatter system of taxation. Simply put, we would sunset the current Tax Code on the Fourth of July, 2008, and command the Congress to take the next 3 years analyzing consumption taxes, progressive taxes, flat taxes, revenues of all sorts, and the effect each has on the economy and economic policy, and then come back to the American people prior to that date with a new, simplified, fairer, flatter tax system, or, if failing to do so, the Congress of the United States would then be forced to vote on this floor to extend the existing system we have and all the injustice that goes with it. Only by creating a deadline, only by being faced with the termination and the loss of revenue would this Congress forthrightly take the due diligence it needs to have the massive overhaul our system needs. Today, the United States of America in the 21st century is operating under 20th century rules--1,685,000 words written as long as 100 years ago, when we are looking forward to a future that is brighter and better for all Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in cosponsoring this legislation and for us to forthrightly set a time when we can truly have a second tea party, this one liberating us from the injustice of complexity and opening the door for simplicity in the American tax system. Mr. President, I yield the floor.