Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. President, President Bush has recently concluded an historic and highly productive trip to Europe. During my review of what was said, and more importantly, what was accomplished, I was struck by the number of significant issues that were addressed and how so many of them portend a better future for our important transatlantic relationship. This was a ``good news'' trip, which might explain why its coverage in the U.S. media was minimal at best. There is no doubt that relations between the United States and Europe have been strained, especially over the conflict to liberate the people of Iraq. And, as we know, the media seems to thrive on reporting bad news at the expense of the good, which can distort what actually exists. I know, for example, that reading about the situation in Iraq in the press forms one perception of reality. But, one gets a very different point of view if they visit Iraq and meet with our military personnel who are serving there, as I was able to do recently. One would think that they are talking about two completely different countries. The fact is that Iraq is not all doom and gloom, nor is it yet the place we envision it to become. It is evolving politically, economically, socially, and yes, it is facing significant challenges from insurgents and terrorists. Yet, thanks to the vision and fortitude of President Bush, the extraordinary men and women in our military and diplomatic service, and the Iraqi people, Iraq is becoming a more secure country working toward its own unique form of representative government. In Europe, it is my firm belief that we have far more in common than we have differences over foreign policy. Again, the media has tended to focus its reporting on the problems between us, which distorts the reality of our relationship with Europe. And, what is that reality? What are the issues? And, how do we see the transatlantic alliance in the future? I come to this issue without any ``rose colored'' glasses. As a congressional delegate to the WorId Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland, last January, I experienced first-hand the depth of resentment toward the United States felt by many Europeans. But on that same trip, in a meeting with French President Chirac, I also saw the beginning of the end of this feeling. We have a vision for Iraq and the Middle East in general that calls for individual freedom and representative government. I do not think that the French, or any other democratic, European nation was opposed to this ``vision.'' Rather, they were skeptical that President Bush could actually move his vision of freedom to becoming a reality in an area of the world pretty much devoid of democratic governments, with a few exceptions like Israel and Turkey. In our meeting with President Chirac it was clear that he saw that United States polices in Iraq are beginning to work, that freedom might really take root in the Middle East, and that France and the rest of Europe had to be a part of this historic process. By working together with European leaders, President Bush has put our transatlantic alliance and relations with Europe back on a normal track. We came to agreement on some issues, agreed to work on others, and identified those where we differ. The list of results and issues addressed by President Bush during his trip is impressive and I want to highlight some of the major ones that fall into several categories: First, with respect to NATO, all 26 member counties have now agreed to provide some form of assistance to support the NATO mission of training Iraqi defense forces. With regard to Afghanistan, NATO continues to expand its role as the leader of the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, and the United States and NATO agreed to work toward merging the United States- led Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF into one allied command. With regard to Ukraine, strong support was expressed by NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer and President Bush for the future accession of Ukraine into NATO. With regard to the E.U., the United States and the E.U. issued a joint statement in support of the people and the Government of Iraq. United States concerns were clearly expressed to the E.U. about lifting its arms embargo against China. President Chirac understands these concerns and there will be more United States and E.U. discussions on the embargo. The United States and Germany announced joint actions on cleaner and more efficient energy policies and on climate change, which will include: Joint activities to develop and deploy cleaner, more efficient energy technologies; Cooperation in advancing climate science; and joint action to address air-pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. With regard to Iran, the United States and its European allies exchanged views on nuclear weapons in Iran and agreed to that it is not in the world's interest and that a common approach on this issue should be developed. The United States agreed to take a more proactive role in the European-led negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. With regard to Russia, President Bush made clear to President Putin the importance of promoting democracy in Russia. Both presidents announced cooperation in combating the spread of man- portable air-defense systems or MANPADS. Both agreed that Iran and North Korea should not have nuclear weapons. Both voiced strong support for a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. Presidents Bush and Putin announced six areas, called the Bratislava initiatives, designed to bring Russia and the United States closer together. These initiatives are: nuclear security cooperation, World Trade Organization, energy cooperation, counterterrorism, space cooperation, and humanitarian, social, and people-to-people programs With regard to Lebanon, President Bush and President Chirac jointly announced their condemnation on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minster Rafiq Hariri and pledged their mutual support for a free, independent, and democratic Lebanon. I began my remarks by stating that President Bush's European trip was historic and productive. The partial list of issues I just mentioned clearly shows how much President Bush and European leaders have moved beyond policy differences over Iraq and that we share a common vision for a peaceful, democratic world. We may not always agree on how to reach our objectives, but we can agree on what those objectives are. Our remaining challenge to further strengthen our ties with Europe is to change the negative perception that many average Europeans have of the United States. This is where the media can, and should, play a constructive role by balanced reporting on the true state of our relationship with Europe. Let me repeat that we have far more in common with Europe than the differences between us and President Bush made great strides in promoting our common vision of the world with our allies. It is now up to the rest of us to reinforce the President's message of working with our European allies, just as it is up to the Europeans to understand that President Bush's goal of promoting freedom around the world is a perpetual one that is in all mankind's interest to promote. I close by commenting on some statements that were made yesterday in a hearing. In the Senate Armed Services Committee, under the leadership of Senator John Warner and Senator Carl Levin, we had General Jones, General Abizaid, and General Brown, who represent the commands responsible for the Iraqi conflict. In his opening statement, General Abizaid made the comment that as a result of what has happened in Iraq, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Afghanistan, we have now seen free and open elections in Afghanistan, and we have seen free and open elections in Iraq. We have seen an election take place in Saudi Arabia that were it not for the conflict in Iraq would never have happened. We have seen the people in Lebanon rise up against their Syrian invaders and put pressure on the Syrian Government to return that country to the people of Lebanon. We have seen the Government of Libya turn over their nuclear weapons to the IAEA and to the United States for examination, to rid their country of the potential to have any nuclear weapons. We have seen the leader of Egypt now proclaim he wants to see democratic elections in his country for the first time. There are any number of instances that have occurred and are going to occur in the Middle East, a part of the world where violence has prevailed for decades, and where the terrorist community has trained and perpetuated itself for decades. Were it not for the vision of President Bush relative to the freedom of the Iraqi people, were it not for the support of Congress and the American people of that vision, and were it not for the strong leadership of our military, the strongest, greatest fighting force in the world, those events General Abizaid ticked off yesterday simply would not have happened. If he had come in 12 months ago and said here is what is going to happen in the Middle East over the next year, no one would ever have believed that what he said would come to be true. The fact is it did. The fact is the people of Iraq are moving toward freedom and democracy. The fact is that now, after President Bush's highly successful trip to Europe, the Europeans have a better understanding of the importance of the transatlantic alliance working together to promote our president's vision of freedom throughout the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair let me know when I have 6 minutes remaining on our time, please.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will hold two hearings to consider the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The first hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 10 a.m., in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The second hearing will be held on Thursday, March 10, 2005, at 10 a.m., in SR- 328A, Russell Senate Office Building. Senator Saxby Chambliss will preside at both hearings. For further information, please contact Robert Sturm at 202-224-2035.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today we are introducing legislation, two bills that I hope will pave the way to correct a half a century of transportation inequity in the Southern United States. First, I am introducing a bill, supported by Senators Isakson, Lott, and Cochran, that proposes a new interstate highway, Interstate 14 or ``I-14,'' linking Augusta, Macon and Columbus, GA connecting through Montgomery, AL and going all the way to Natchez, MS. Second, my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson and I are proposing the creation of Interstate 3 or ``I-3'', linking Savannah and Augusta, GA to Knoxville, TN. In the 108th Congress, Senator Miller and I introduced these bills. If passed, they would require the Secretary of Transportation to study and report to the appropriate committees of Congress, before December 31, 2005, the steps and estimated funding necessary to designate and construct these new interstate highways. These proposals are multi-purpose plans. They would naturally improve the interconnectivity and highway safety for those in the Deep South. Also, they would help provide the badly needed economic development to areas of the South ignored by our current interstate grid, and improve the national defense highway linkage for which our interstate system was originally designed. In addition, they could help provide critical environmental improvements for the entire Sunbelt region by reducing the air pollution and traffic congestion in some of our major gridlocked southern cities. The honorary name of the ``I-14'' plan helps to provide symbolic recognition to the promise of economic parity to freed slaves which was implied with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. As the South struggled to overcome four years of devastating war and find a way to integrate the newly emancipated slaves into the full benefits of citizenship, Congress passed this amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans. I am convinced that this area remains largely isolated from the economic expansion that transformed much of the rest of the South starting in the 60s. Many in this region still suffer from the lack of economic parity with America. Eighty percent of jobs in America are located within 10 miles of an interstate. In this case, there are regions where there is no interstate. It is my hope that the addition of I-14 will help bring and provide the promising economic development and much needed jobs to this region. The 3rd Infantry Division Highway Initiative Act is named for the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division of Fort Stewart--division that served as the ``Tip of the Spear'' in the War on Terror in Iraq and whose soldiers conquered Najaf, seized Saddam International Airport and Saddam Hussein's palaces, and led the fighting on the day of Baghdad's historic liberation. The proposed route for ``I-3'' would provide a highway link between strategic defense interests in our region including Fort Gordon, Eisenhower Army Regional Medical Center, the Augusta Veterans Administration Hospitals, Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, and the Port of Savannah among others. In the process, we will provide long-needed North-South interstate access for Augusta, which happens to be Georgia's second largest city. It will also provide a direct interstate link between Fort Gordon in Augusta and Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, which would serve both facilities well in warding off base closures now and in the future. It may take a decade to bring these projects to full completion. They are not a quick or easy fix, however they are the necessary, equitable and common sense solution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today we are introducing legislation, two bills that I hope will pave the way to correct a half a century of transportation inequity in the Southern United States. First, I am introducing a bill, supported by Senators Isakson, Lott, and Cochran, that proposes a new interstate highway, Interstate 14 or ``I-14,'' linking Augusta, Macon and Columbus, GA connecting through Montgomery, AL and going all the way to Natchez, MS. Second, my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson and I are proposing the creation of Interstate 3 or ``I-3'', linking Savannah and Augusta, GA to Knoxville, TN. In the 108th Congress, Senator Miller and I introduced these bills. If passed, they would require the Secretary of Transportation to study and report to the appropriate committees of Congress, before December 31, 2005, the steps and estimated funding necessary to designate and construct these new interstate highways. These proposals are multi-purpose plans. They would naturally improve the interconnectivity and highway safety for those in the Deep South. Also, they would help provide the badly needed economic development to areas of the South ignored by our current interstate grid, and improve the national defense highway linkage for which our interstate system was originally designed. In addition, they could help provide critical environmental improvements for the entire Sunbelt region by reducing the air pollution and traffic congestion in some of our major gridlocked southern cities. The honorary name of the ``I-14'' plan helps to provide symbolic recognition to the promise of economic parity to freed slaves which was implied with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. As the South struggled to overcome four years of devastating war and find a way to integrate the newly emancipated slaves into the full benefits of citizenship, Congress passed this amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans. I am convinced that this area remains largely isolated from the economic expansion that transformed much of the rest of the South starting in the 60s. Many in this region still suffer from the lack of economic parity with America. Eighty percent of jobs in America are located within 10 miles of an interstate. In this case, there are regions where there is no interstate. It is my hope that the addition of I-14 will help bring and provide the promising economic development and much needed jobs to this region. The 3rd Infantry Division Highway Initiative Act is named for the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry Division of Fort Stewart--division that served as the ``Tip of the Spear'' in the War on Terror in Iraq and whose soldiers conquered Najaf, seized Saddam International Airport and Saddam Hussein's palaces, and led the fighting on the day of Baghdad's historic liberation. The proposed route for ``I-3'' would provide a highway link between strategic defense interests in our region including Fort Gordon, Eisenhower Army Regional Medical Center, the Augusta Veterans Administration Hospitals, Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Airfield, and the Port of Savannah among others. In the process, we will provide long-needed North-South interstate access for Augusta, which happens to be Georgia's second largest city. It will also provide a direct interstate link between Fort Gordon in Augusta and Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, which would serve both facilities well in warding off base closures now and in the future. It may take a decade to bring these projects to full completion. They are not a quick or easy fix, however they are the necessary, equitable and common sense solution.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am pleased to hear our Budget chairman stand up and talk about real fiscal responsibility. I am also very pleased to see that we have a President who continues to provide the kind of strong leadership Americans demand. In 1994, when I was elected to the House of Representatives, I campaigned long and hard on the fact that we needed to move the Federal Government back to the same type of fiscal responsibility we ask every single American to make every month when they sit around their kitchen table; that is, not spend more money than we take in. Thank goodness, due to the economy thriving and surging ahead and due to fiscal responsibility on the part of Republicans and Democrats in the 1990s, we were able to not only balance the budget but achieve surpluses. Then along comes September 11, 2001. Since that point in time, we have operated in a deficit situation for a number of reasons. First, revenues have been declining from the projected increases we thought we would have. But most significantly, we have seen an increase in Federal spending both in defense and nondefense areas, but also in homeland security-related areas irrespective of whether it is defense or nondefense. Therefore, we have seen ourselves projected back into a deficit-spending situation. But we have a President who has made a commitment to the American people. He made it during the course of the campaign, and he is living up to what he talked about during the campaign; that is, we need to return to more of a balanced budget scenario so our children and grandchildren can see us operating in the black in the future, and we can tell them that we were fiscally responsible and that we will turn this country over to them with a new, sound fiscal condition. Unless we have somebody who is as bold as this President is with this budget which he has come forward with, that is never going to happen. I am very pleased to see the President is leading us in the right way from a fiscally responsible standpoint. That having been said, there are a number of programs in the President's budget that he has proposed eliminating. I think there are some 150 programs. In last year's budget that came from the White House, we saw a proposal to eliminate some 61 or 71 Federal programs that were not performing up to the standards at which they should be performing. Therefore, the President was proposing to eliminate those, very much like what he has done this time. The problem is when those proposals reach Capitol Hill, we tend to look at those programs and then somebody has some parochial interest in those programs and they never get eliminated. I don't know what the programs are this time. I have not looked at the budget in that kind of detail. But I do hope--and I know under the leadership of Senator Gregg as well as Senator Conrad, who is very fiscally minded always--that we look at these programs which the President is suggesting, that we look at eliminating them, and that we give them serious consideration relative to their efficiency, to whether they are performing at the standard we have always anticipated they perform at, and if they are not performing, then we ought to consider eliminating them. There are two areas of the budget I do have some concerns about. First of all, we are seeing an increase of about 5 percent in defense spending. I know the President is like me. He is very strong minded when it comes to defense issues. We have a very difficult situation, a very complex situation on our hands right now, relative to Iraq. We are still in the midst of a war. It is imperative that we continue to spend the money necessary to make sure America's military forces are the best trained, the best equipped fighting forces in the world. We need to make sure they have in their possession the latest, most technologically advanced weapons systems that are made anywhere in the world so they can protect freedom and democracy around the world; that they can accomplish what is being accomplished in Iraq today; that is, the liberation of the Iraqi people; that we are giving hope and opportunity to the people of Iraq in making sure they live in a free, open, and democratic society, in a country where freedom does reign; where they have an opportunity to provide a better quality of life for themselves and their children, unlike the society in which they have lived for the past 30 years under Saddam Hussein. In order to do that, it is imperative we look at the weapon systems we are going to be purchasing over the next decade, over the next two decades, and into the future, because we not only have this conflict to consider, but we must also keep in mind there will be future conflicts out there. We need to make sure our men and women will continue to have the best weapon systems available to them to continue the fight for freedom around the world when freedom calls us. In that regard, there are two particular weapon systems that are proposed to be eliminated in this budget that I have serious questions about: the FA-22--not that we are eliminating it, but the number we are going to buy--and also the C-130, which is a great weapon system, a weapon system that has been in our inventory for at least four decades, and we are into the fifth decade. Any time you turn on the TV, whether you see the Baghdad International Airport or whether you see the tsunami relief effort, you see C-130s flying the flag of America as well as other countries participating in national security issues. It is critically important that we review the proposals relative to these two weapon systems. The C-130 is proposed to be eliminated, and the FA-22, we are thinking in terms of not buying as many as we originally thought we would buy. I was in a meeting this morning at the Pentagon that the President happened to be in, and we had a very good discussion, a frank discussion with the Secretary of Defense and his colleagues relative not just to this issue but to the overall issues relative to Iraq, as well as the budget. I was pleased to hear they are going to continue to look at these two weapon systems, and hopefully we will make some changes from the budget that are more realistic, more reasonable, and decisions that are a lot more correct than the decisions contained within the budget. The second area I will talk about that concerns me relative to this budget is the proposal to reduce the budget of the Department of Agriculture by some $5.7 billion over 10 years. In 2002, we wrote the latest farm bill. That farm bill was a controversial farm bill. It has been criticized by conservatives. It has been criticized by liberals. It has been applauded by both sides as well. I happen to think it is the right kind of farm bill that allows our consumers in America to go to the grocery store and be able to continue to buy the most reasonable food products of any industrialized country in the world. We spend less money per dollar on food products in this country than any other industrialized country in the world. We have a guarantee that those products are safe and secure, and at the same time we provide the research that allows our farmers to produce the highest quality and the largest yields of agriculture products of anyone in the world. All of that happens for one simple reason; that is, the action this body, as well as the House of Representatives, takes when we write a farm bill. That is exactly the result that happened from the 2002 farm bill. This budget seeks to rewrite that farm bill and to reduce the amount of funding under that farm bill. That is wrong. We have to look at the proposals and make sure farmers and ranchers participate in the deficit reduction, which they have always been willing to do. They are the greatest people in America, even though they are small in number these days. They are hard-working, dedicated men and women who have made plans under the current farm bill for 6 years, which is the length of that farm bill. They made financial commitments, they leased land. They have their crop rotations planned out for 6 years. We are in the middle of that. We are in the third year of that. Those who wrote the farm bill told the Members of the House of Representatives and the Members of the Senate as well as the farm community that when we wrote that bill we were changing it philosophically to a farm bill that would extend a helping hand to our agriculture community in times of low yields and low prices, but when prices were good and yields were good the Federal Government was not going to be there in the way of commodity payments; that is exactly what happened. It was projected by the CBO that we would spend for the first 3 years $52 billion. The fact is, we have spent $37.9 billion. The reason is, for 2 of those years, we have had good yields and we have had good prices, so payments have been down. While I applaud the President and I applaud his administration for being fiscally responsible and coming forward with a budget that does meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half during the next 4 years, we have to be careful and make sure we do not throw the baby out with the bath water and that we make sure we approach this budget for the next 5 years in a sound and sensible manner, in a manner that makes sure our defense community is looked after and makes sure that all of America is looked after when it comes to our agriculture production and our ability to buy safe and secure products in the grocery store. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her great leadership on this issue, particularly organizing the support on the floor this morning for Judge Gonzales. I do rise in support of Alberto Gonzales to be confirmed as the next Attorney General for the United States. I had the pleasure of serving on the Judiciary Committee for the past 2 years, having gone off at the beginning of this session. But during the course of my 2 years as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to be involved in the hearings, the discussions, and the review of a number of issues to which Judge Gonzales has spoken during the course of his confirmation process. One of those issues is the administration's policy on torture, for which the judge has been unduly criticized by folks who are in opposition to his nomination. I want to respond to some of the ridiculous accusations of those who are opposed to this confirmation, and talk about some of the actual facts involved, which seem to be missing from the conversations on the floor coming from his critics and from those who are opposed. I do not think Judge Gonzales nor could the administration be more clear than they have been on the policy and the subject of torture. As President Bush stated at his January 26, 2005, press conference: Al Gonzales reflects our policy, and that is we don't sanction torture. In all of his statements and responses, Judge Gonzales has emphasized that there is a distinct difference between what the law would allow and what the administration policy is. No matter how the obligations of the United States under the Constitution, treaties, and various statutes have been interpreted, the President has said he would never order or condone torture. That is the policy. That is what Alberto Gonzales has represented and does represent today. President Bush's February 7, 2002, memorandum to, among others, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence unequivocally required those detained by the U.S. Armed Forces to be treated humanely. The President stated: Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva. . . . I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the Secretary of Defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, consistent with the principles of Geneva. It could not be clearer. It absolutely could not be clearer. And it is not something that he said which is the subject of interpretation; it is something which the President committed to writing and for which Judge Gonzales stands. Judge Gonzales has unmistakably, forcefully, and consistently made clear before, during, and after his confirmation hearing that it is not the policy of the United States to condone torture and that he personally does not condone torture. At a June 22, 2004, press briefing, before his confirmation hearing-- indeed, well before he was even a nominee--Judge Gonzales stated: The administration has made clear before, and I will reemphasize today that the President has not authorized, ordered or directed in any way any activity that would transgress the standards of the torture conventions or the torture statute, or other applicable laws. He continued later: [I]f there still remains any question, let me say that the U.S. will treat people in our custody in accordance with all U.S. obligations including federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution and our treaty obligations. The President has said we do not condone or commit torture. Anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture will be held accountable. The President has not directed the use of specific interrogation techniques. There has been no presidential determination of necessity or self-defense that would allow conduct that constitutes torture. There has been no presidential determination that circumstances warrant the use of torture to protect the mass security of the United States. I have several more pages of statements that were made by Judge Gonzales in his confirmation hearing that directly apply to this issue. They have been consistent. They have been very clear. They have been concise to the effect that Judge Gonzales has never condoned the use of torture. It is not the administration policy to condone torture. Why in the world folks on the other side continue to criticize this man for something he has not said or has not condoned should be pretty obvious to the American people. There is a reason for it, but the reason simply doesn't hold water. Who is this man? That is the more important question. Who is Alberto Gonzales? Is he qualified to become Attorney General of the United States? Judge Gonzales grew up as a humble man. He is a Hispanic American who grew up, interestingly enough, in a two-bedroom house in Humble, TX, that his father and uncle built and where his mother still resides. His parents were never educated beyond elementary school, and he was the first person in his family to go to college. He is a graduate of Texas public schools, Rice University, and Harvard Law School. Judge Gonzales served in the U.S. Air Force between 1973 and 1975 and attended the U.S. Air Force Academy between 1975 and 1977. He is married and has three sons. While his family lived in Houston, TX, he practiced with one of the best firms in America, and having practiced law for 26 years myself and having associated with the firm of which he was a member, not knowing that in fact he was, I am very familiar with the firm. It is not just one of the best firms in Texas; it is one of the best firms in America. They don't hire lawyers who are not competent and capable to get the job done. That is exactly what Judge Gonzales is--competent and capable. He was commissioned as Counsel to President George W. Bush in January of 2001, obviously showing what kind of confidence the President of the United States has in the man. Prior to serving in the White House, he served as a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Before his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, he served as Texas's 100th secretary of state; that being from December of 1997 to January of 1999. Among his many duties as secretary of state, he was a senior adviser to then-Governor Bush, chief elections officer, and the Governor's liaison on Mexico and border issues. Simply stated, this man, unlike a lot of folks coming out of the same kinds of conditions in which he grew up, made a decision that he wanted to improve the quality of life for himself and for his family. He worked hard. He studied hard. He became a lawyer, something that nobody else in his family could ever do before him. He practiced law in one of the largest States in our country with one of the largest law firms in that particular State. He was a dadgum good lawyer. Obviously the President of the United States has confidence in him from the standpoint of looking to him for legal advice. All of the criticisms directed at him have nothing to do with his ability to operate and practice as a lawyer, and in his capacity as Attorney General, he will be the No. 1 lawyer in the country. I submit to all of my colleagues that he is qualified for this job. I ask for their support of Judge Gonzales to be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a hearing on February 3, 2005 in SD-106 at 11 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to examine the effects of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on U.S. imports and exports of cattle and beef.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President a mere 20 minutes away from the hustle and bustle of the booming city of Atlanta, GA, lies a quiet refuge that cradles historical remnants and nature's beauty. This area around Arabia Mountain houses the ecosystems of endangered species, historic structures, and archeological sites--a treasure deserving of our protection and our admiration. Arabia Mountain's proximity to Atlanta makes it accessible to millions of Americans, but it also puts this national treasure in danger of urban sprawl. No condominium development should destroy the ancient soapstone quarry which attracted Native Americans over thousands of years ago. Nor should a strip mall tarnish the pristine land which contains farms from the days when the area was the heart of Georgia's dairy industry and which contains remnants of Georgia's Gold Rush in the 1820s. I, along with my colleague Senator Isakson, have introduced legislation to designate Arabia Mountain, which encompasses land in DeKalb County, Rockdale County, and Henry County, as a National Heritage Area. This designation will help preserve the rare and endangered species that inhabit the land, and it will save historic buildings from the wrecking ball that often comes with modernization. Arabia Mountain and its surrounding area is the product of significant geological changes. Starting several thousand years ago with the quarrying and trading of soapstone, the history of human settlement in the area is closely connected to its geological resources. It would be a shame to allow a decade of uncontrolled growth to deny future generations from enjoying the history and natural beauty of this land. The quest to obtain National Heritage designation for Arabia Mountain began as a concept between conservationists, neighborhood activists, landowners, and concerned citizens, and support has grown ever since. Local Georgians even voted to tax themselves to support the project. Support has come from both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress. I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard for this designation--Kelly Jordan, Chair of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance; Mayor Marcia Glenn, of Lithonia; Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb County; Mark Towe and Glen Culpepper; and Senator Zell Miller and Congresswoman Denise Majette for their efforts in the 108th Congress on this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the preservation of this truly deserving area.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President a mere 20 minutes away from the hustle and bustle of the booming city of Atlanta, GA, lies a quiet refuge that cradles historical remnants and nature's beauty. This area around Arabia Mountain houses the ecosystems of endangered species, historic structures, and archeological sites--a treasure deserving of our protection and our admiration. Arabia Mountain's proximity to Atlanta makes it accessible to millions of Americans, but it also puts this national treasure in danger of urban sprawl. No condominium development should destroy the ancient soapstone quarry which attracted Native Americans over thousands of years ago. Nor should a strip mall tarnish the pristine land which contains farms from the days when the area was the heart of Georgia's dairy industry and which contains remnants of Georgia's Gold Rush in the 1820s. I, along with my colleague Senator Isakson, have introduced legislation to designate Arabia Mountain, which encompasses land in DeKalb County, Rockdale County, and Henry County, as a National Heritage Area. This designation will help preserve the rare and endangered species that inhabit the land, and it will save historic buildings from the wrecking ball that often comes with modernization. Arabia Mountain and its surrounding area is the product of significant geological changes. Starting several thousand years ago with the quarrying and trading of soapstone, the history of human settlement in the area is closely connected to its geological resources. It would be a shame to allow a decade of uncontrolled growth to deny future generations from enjoying the history and natural beauty of this land. The quest to obtain National Heritage designation for Arabia Mountain began as a concept between conservationists, neighborhood activists, landowners, and concerned citizens, and support has grown ever since. Local Georgians even voted to tax themselves to support the project. Support has come from both sides of the aisle in both houses of Congress. I would like to thank all of those who have worked so hard for this designation--Kelly Jordan, Chair of the Arabia Mountain Heritage Area Alliance; Mayor Marcia Glenn, of Lithonia; Vernon Jones, CEO of DeKalb County; Mark Towe and Glen Culpepper; and Senator Zell Miller and Congresswoman Denise Majette for their efforts in the 108th Congress on this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the preservation of this truly deserving area.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of U.S. District Judge William Augustus Bootle. Judge Bootle passed away yesterday at his home in Macon at the age of 102. Judge Bootle and I became friends as I began my law practice 36 years ago. His leadership and integrity have had a great impact on my role as a public servant. From our first meeting until now, Judge Bootle and I have maintained a close working relationship and have had many opportunities to interact over the years. A stalwart of our country's judicial system, Judge Bootle will be remember for his unwavering commitment to doing what's right on behalf of all Americans, having led our country though some of the most difficult decisions in our Nation's history. Georgians will remember him for being fair and judicious in his verdicts and for being the type of judge before which all lawyers like to practice. He showed an exemplary sort of courage in the fight to desegregate the South and helped resolve many hard fought battles respective to the integration of Georgia's education systems. To this end, Judge Bootle was responsible for the admittance of the first black students in the University of Georgia. I would like to take this opportunity to quote from a book written by Frederick Allen which is entitled ``Atlanta Rising.'' This book deals with a lot of history which took place in the Atlanta area during the years of the civil rights movement. Two black applicants who were denied admittance to the University of Georgia filed suit in the middle district of Georgia, and quoting from this book, I read as follows: Two black applicants, Charlayne Hunter and Hamilton Holmes, went to the court attacking the welter of excuses University of Georgia officials had concocted to keep them out. The two made a convincing case that the only reason they had been denied admission was segregation, pure and simple. In a ruling issued late on the afternoon of Friday, January 6, 1961, Judge William A. Bootle ordered Hunter and Holmes admitted to the school, not in six months or a year, but bright and early the next Monday morning. In the 1960s in Georgia, that took great judicial integrity. In the 105th Congress, my good friend Senator Paul Coverdell and I successfully led the charge to designate the Federal building and U.S. courthouse in Macon, GA, as the ``William Augustus Bootle Federal Building and United States Courthouse'' in the honor of his steadfast service to the people of Georgia. The legacy of Judge Bootle will continue to impact countless individuals across our great Nation and I know he will be sorely missed--but honored in high regard by future generations. My wife Julianne and I are proud to have counted Judge Bootle a close friend, and extend our deepest condolences and prayers to his family and loved ones.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules adopted today by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Tax Act of 2005. This bill will promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the Federal income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax. The Fair Tax, which offers a national sales tax as the primary source of Federal revenue, is a necessary piece of tax reform that, should it pass, upon its inception would eliminate our current archaic and inefficient Tax Code and replace it with a simpler, fairer means of collecting revenue. Our antiquated Tax Code was implemented in 1913 and has since been modified numerous times. The Federal Tax Code in its present form is overly complicated and desperately in need of an overhaul. We are well beyond rectifying the unfairness in our current system by tinkering around the edges. All Americans are in dire need of unbiased, sweeping tax reform--and the Fair Tax provides just that. The Fair Tax Act of 2005 would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, capital gains taxes, all payroll taxes, the self- employment tax and the estate and gift taxes in lieu of a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Elimination of these inefficient taxing mechanisms will not only bring about equality within in our tax system, it will also bring about simplicity. This bill will also provide for tax relief for business-to-business transactions. These transactions, including used-product transactions which have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax, thereby abrogating any double taxation. Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax bill. There would be no financial reductions to either one of these vital programs. Instead, the source of the trust-fund revenue for these two programs would be replaced simply by sales-tax revenue instead of payroll-tax revenue. Lastly, under the Fair Tax Act, every American would receive a monthly rebate check equal to spending up to the Federal poverty level according to the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities. The Fair Tax creates a fairer, simpler code that allows every American the freedom to determine his or her own priorities and opportunities. Ronald Reagan once said, ``I believe we really can, however, say that God did give mankind virtually unlimited gifts to invent, produce and create. And for that reason alone, it would be wrong for governments to devise a tax structure or economic system that suppresses and denies those gifts.'' I couldn't agree more. And as long as we continue to operate under our current skewed Tax Code, we will continue to suppress and deny these unlimited gifts to the American people, who would otherwise thrive boundlessly under the Fair Tax.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from Kansas, the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee under whom I served, my dear friend, Pat Roberts.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Kansas for his very kind comments and also for his support of the nomination of Governor Johanns. I, of course, rise to support that nomination by the President of the United States of Governor Michael Johanns of Nebraska to serve as Secretary of Agriculture. I, too, want to first thank our outgoing Secretary, Ann Veneman, for the great job she has done. She has faced some very serious challenges over the last 4 years. I have continually pointed out to folks involved in agriculture, as I have spoken to groups around the country, the terrific job she personally as well as her Department did relative to the potential BSE issue that arose in the northwestern part of our country several months ago. I thought it was a prime example of the difference in the way our system works, particularly under APHIS, which is an organization that does exactly what it is supposed to do, and that is to make sure animals are inspected in an appropriate way before they come into the United States, versus countries that simply do not have in place the mechanisms that we do to try to prohibit this very terrible disease from spreading among livestock. I thought Secretary Veneman herself, by engaging immediately on this issue, showed strong leadership. I believe it was because of that that this issue faded very quickly, as it should have. Following September 11, we have had a continuing issue of food security. We have been very fortunate, but I believe it is more than that. It is a situation where we have had strong leadership in USDA, under Secretary Veneman, that has been on top of the issue of food safety. As a result of that strong leadership, we have not encountered a potential terrorist attack on our food system. I compliment her for the great leadership she has shown. She was willing to come to my State early on in her tenure. Having grown up and been involved in a peach farm in California, she particularly appreciated coming to a peach farm in Georgia where, as I told her, we grow much sweeter peaches, but that is always for debate. But she made herself very knowledgeable of southeastern agricultural issues, which are a little bit different from California issues. I appreciate her from that standpoint. We wish her well in her new endeavor, and I know she is going to be very successful there. I want to say on behalf of Governor Johanns that he is extraordinarily well prepared and qualified for this new challenge which the President is giving him. He grew up on a dairy farm in Iowa. He served two terms as mayor of Lincoln, NB, and he is in his second term as Governor of that State. He has shown outstanding leadership during his tenure as Governor, which will serve him well in managing the diverse and important activities of the Department of Agriculture. As leader of a major agricultural State, the Governor is obviously familiar with the issues that are important to farmers and ranchers. He has been a leader in the Western Governors Association on drought issues, and has led five trade missions to expand overseas markets for American agricultural products. I want to emphasize that all of us who have been involved in agriculture, as I have from the legislative side for the last 10 years, know and understand that the future and survival of the American farmers is their ability to export the finest quality of agricultural products that are grown anywhere in the world. Those export markets are critical. Governor Johanns brings a particularly unique strength and perspective to that aspect of agriculture. I am very pleased about that fact. He has also been a leader on other issues that are critical to the very diverse mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He has been a strong voice for rural economic development. He is a past chairman of the Governors Ethanol Coalition, and knows the potential of value-added agriculture. He serves as chairman of the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, and has fostered electronic government and technology applications in his State. On January 6, Governor Johanns appeared for his nomination hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry which I have the privilege to chair. For nearly 3 hours he answered questions on a wide range of subjects, and made a clear and positive impression on members of the committee. His compassion and understanding of the issues was so evident that committee members voted to approve his nomination that same day by a unanimous vote of 20 to zero. Today in his inauguration address, the President made a direct outreach to all Members of the Senate, and showed a willingness to cooperate in a bipartisan way to try to enact positive legislation in this body. I am very proud of the fact that the committee which I chair in a very bipartisan fashion, including the Presiding Officer, voted out unanimously the nomination of Governor Johanns. To my ranking member, Tom Harkin, I appreciate his cooperation in this effort. He has been very forthright in his discussions with Governor Johanns, and he has also been very forthright and forceful in his support of Governor Johanns for this nomination. I congratulate the President on his choice to lead the Department of Agriculture for the next 4 years. I appreciate Governor Johanns' commitment to continue an outstanding record of public service, and I recommend to my colleagues that they all support his nomination. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we will not ask for bowl scores at this time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I urge my Senate colleagues to support the President's nomination of Governor Michael Johanns of Nebraska to serve as the Secretary of Agriculture. Governor Johanns is extraordinarily well-prepared and qualified for this new challenge. He grew up on a dairy farm in Iowa. He has served two terms as Mayor of Lincoln, NE, and is in his second term as Governor of that State. He has shown outstanding leadership during his tenure as Governor which will serve him well in managing the diverse and important activities of the Department of Agriculture. As leader of a major agriculture state, the Governor is obviously familiar with the issues that are important to farmers and ranchers. He has been a leader in the Western Governors' Association on drought issues and has led five trade missions to expand overseas markets for American agricultural products. He has also been a leader on other issues that are critical to the very diverse mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He has been a strong voice for rural economic development. He is a past Chairman of the Governors' Ethanol Coalition and knows the potential of value-added agriculture. He serves as Chairman of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership and has fostered electronic-government and technology applications in his state. Mr. President, on January 6th Governor Johanns appeared for his nomination hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which I have the privilege to chair. For nearly 3 hours he answered questions on a wide range of subjects and made a clear and positive impression on the entire Committee. His compassion and understanding of the issues was so evident that Committee members voted to approve his nomination that same day by a unanimous 20 to 0 vote. Mr. President, I congratulate the President on his choice to lead the Department of Agriculture for the next 4 years. I appreciate Governor Johanns' commitment to continue an outstanding record of public service and I recommend to my colleagues that they all support his nomination.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I know of no other speakers on either side. I ask that all time be yielded on the nomination of Governor Johanns for Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, an enormous amount of time and effort by the White House, the Congress, the 9/11 Commission, the families of the victims the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, and others have gotten us here, today, to make a final decision on the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those involved with this process. However, not everyone will agree, nor should they, with everything contained in, or missing from, the bill we are about to vote on. This should not surprise us, since no one individual or group has all the answers on how best to reform our vast intelligence community. What we can all agree upon, however, is the dedication and sense of purpose of everyone in the Congress who has worked on this legislation. The Members and staffs, from both sides of the aisle, all tried to do what they thought was best for the future security of the United States and for that they all deserve our appreciation. I rise today not simply to commend the hard work of a lot of people, rather, I want to make the point that today marks the start, and not the end, of the intelligence reform process. Our work in the Congress on this issue is not ending today; it is just beginning in earnest. We were attacked on 11 September 2001 in a vile, unprovoked manner that employed methods heretofore never used in warfare. Before 11 September, the idea of hijacking civilian airliners, loaded with innocent people, and using them as guided missiles to destroy landmark buildings and thousands of non-combatant people was something you would only find in a book of fiction. It was difficult to imagine before that attack that a group of people could be so evil, so focused on destroying innocent lives, and so ready to kill themselves for some warped sense of their own religion and their distorted sense of justice. We can fault our intelligence analysts for not ``connecting the dots,'' but maybe they had too few ``dots'' to work with and maybe what they did have didn't seem quite plausible at the time relative to our own understanding of human nature and how wars have been fought in the past. The House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security issued the first report outlining problems within the intelligence community about our failure to stop the 9/11 attacks. As the chairman of that subcommittee, I released that report on 17 July 2002. What we discovered was that the two most egregious intelligence failures involved human intelligence or HUMINT and the sharing of intelligence, primarily between the CIA and the FBI. A dedicated enemy without any constraints on their behavior is a difficult and extremely dangerous foe to defeat. As I said in this Chamber last July 21, ``. . . there is only one principle to follow on intelligence reform. Intelligence is our first line of defense against terrorism, and we must improve the collection capabilities and analysis of intelligence to protect the security of the United States and its allies.'' The question we all need to ask ourselves is does this bill strengthen this principle or not? The answer is a qualified one and there is much more to do before we can unequivocally say we have done everything possible on reforming our intelligence community. Let me mention just six issues that we will need to focus on early in the 109th Congress relative to intelligence reform: One, once this bill becomes law, the President will be nominating the first Director of National Intelligence, DNI. This will be one of the most important decisions of his presidency and, in like manner, the confirmation of the individual nominated will be one of the most important responsibilities of this Senate. We need to make sure that the DNI has the ability, experience, and leadership qualities to successfully implement the legislation we are voting on today. Two, the Congress needs to put its primary focus on rebuilding the most critical aspect of our intelligence collection capability, namely HUMINT. If we are ever to win the war on terrorism we need to put our spies inside of al-Qaida and other organizations that mean us harm. We also need good HUMINT to get a better indication of the threats being posed by nation states such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Three, in this regard, we need to reshape the culture in the Directorate of Operations at CIA, which is responsible for managing our HUMINT activities, from ``risk-avoidance'' to ``risk-taking.'' Porter Goss has begun this process, but he will need the strong support of the Congress to institutionalize this new, aggressive culture. It is because of this very point that I voiced objections to the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, both in the original bill passed by the Senate and in the Conference Report. We need to take more risks in HUMINT and we need to rebuild the morale of our HUMINT collectors. What kind of message are we sending to our intelligence agents in the field who are risking their lives to protect us by creating a board designed to look over their shoulders and, which is redundant to the President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties? This may create a morale problem throughout our intelligence community that might take years to repair and, I hasten to add, at a time when we need HUMINT more than ever to protect our citizens. Four, to help Porter Goss rebuild our HUMINT capabilities and to raise the importance and priority of HUMINT reform, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI, should establish in the 109th Congress a Subcommittee on HUMINT to focus our attention on this critical aspect of our security. Without a subcommittee structure in the SSCI, I fear we will not be up to the task of providing in-depth oversight of the intelligence community, which would be a failure of one of the Congress' most important constitutional responsibilities. Five, the span of control for the new DNI that is being created by this legislation is enormous. In fact, it is almost impossible. This bill leaves the intelligence community at fifteen members, eight of which are in the Department of Defense. I had a bipartisan amendment to S. 2485 that was co-sponsored by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, that would have created a unified command for military intelligence giving the new DNI a single point of contact for military- related intelligence requirements and collection capabilities instead of eight. Collectively, the eight members of the intelligence community that this bill leaves in the Department of Defense are huge, with tens of thousands of people and multi-billion dollar budgets. How someone outside of the Department of Defense, like the DNI, could adequately and efficiently manage these vast intelligence capabilities by dealing with eight separate military members is beyond me. Senator Nelson and I are committed to fix this shortcoming by introducing a bill to create a four-star command for military intelligence in the 109th Congress. Six, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner championed several critical proposals relative to immigration reform, including improving our asylum laws and standards for issuing driver's licenses. I regret his proposals are not in the conference report before us today. We should be committed to working on legislation to strengthen our immigration laws as soon as possible. Yes, our work in the Congress on intelligence reform is just beginning. Confirming the first DNI, focusing our effort on HUMINT, shaping a ``risk-taking'' culture among our intelligence officers, improving our oversight of the intelligence community, creating a four- star military intelligence command, and strengthening our immigration laws will assuredly keep the 109th Congress fully focused on intelligence reform. Today is but the beginning of this effort and this process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to make a quick comment about a dear friend. The greatest thing about serving in the House of Representatives and the Senate is meeting the colleagues we have the opportunity to serve with on both sides of the aisle. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to get to know a number of the Members of the Senate, one of whom is retiring at the end of this session. Don Nickles was elected to the Senate when he was too young to serve in the Senate. He actually had a few months after his election before he was old enough, but he was old enough before he was sworn in. That was back in 1980. He has now served with great distinction in this body for 24 years. He leaves with a record that not many Senators are able to claim after serving in this Senate for whatever period of time they may be here. Don Nickles has been a leader in the Republican Party, but most significantly he has been a leader in the Senate. He is a man who has provided strong leadership on any number of issues, whether they are fiscal issues as chairman of the Budget Committee and a longtime member of the Budget Committee, which is where I first got to know him in our conferences between the House and the Senate, or whether it is on energy or social issues, Don Nickles possesses all the assets that America holds dear. He is a strong family man. He is a hard-working individual. He is a man of faith. He is a man who when he looks you in the eye and tells you something, you can go to the bank with it. I am going to miss Don Nickles. I will miss his quick wit. I am going to miss his being able to stand up in the Senate and quickly take on anybody on either side of the aisle with respect to whatever the issue may be or whatever the rule may be that applies to the issue that comes up. I marveled at his ability to, off the top of his head, take on folks on the other side of the aisle relative to a particular issue and to point out issue by issue and point by point what must be done. That is a unique capability and something that must be studied and learned. My predecessor, one of the folks who held my seat many years before I got here, was the master of that. That is Richard Russell. Don Nickles knows the rules just as well as Richard Russell did. I will miss Don in a number of respects off of this Senate floor. He is a close personal friend. He and his wife Linda are dear friends of Julianne and me. I will have to find somebody else to get money off of on the golf course because I have known Don so long now that I have come to spend the money before I play golf. He is a terrific guy both in the Senate as well as outside the Senate. He is a man of great integrity. He is the kind of Senator who every citizen of Oklahoma should and has been proud of for his 24 years of service to the Senate. I went back to his hometown a couple of months ago, his hometown of Ponca City, OK, a very small town in America. Don was a football hero. As in my home State of Georgia and my hometown, football is huge in Ponca City. They still remember Don as a high school fullback and linebacker. His old coach was there that night to talk about Don and some of the things he did during his high school career. It is those foundations that people all across America build upon to come to the Senate. The things that were said about Don back then could still be said about him today; that is, what a dedicated person he was, what a hard- working person he was, and what a student of the game he was, just like he has been a student of the Senate. No one there was surprised at what a great job Don had done as a Member of the Senate and what a success he was, what a success he will be once he leaves. Don had the right kind of foundation and the right kind of instincts and the right kind of family stability, support, and love to make sure he did the right kind of job in the Senate, and he will continue to be successful when he leaves here. To Don and to Linda, we say thanks for the service to our country. My children and my grandchildren are going to benefit from the service of the Senate of Don Nickles. That is something for which I will forever be grateful. Just as importantly, I have been a better Senator than I would have been otherwise because of Don Nickles. In future years, because of what I have learned from Don Nickles, I will be a much better Senator. Don, we appreciate your service to our country. Thank you. God bless you and Linda. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate request the House to return the papers with respect to S. 2283.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise this morning to pay tribute to a very special friend of mine and a friend of Georgia's and a friend of the United States of America. We are in what we think are our last couple of days of the 108th session. That being the case, this will be the last few days that Senator Zell Miller will be in Washington in his capacity as the senior Senator from our great State of Georgia. I want to take a minute just to talk about this man who has been such an inspiration to any number of politicians and others in my State relative to his public service to our State and to our country. Zell Miller was born in a little town called Young Harris, GA, which is in the mountains of north Georgia, one of the most beautiful parts of our State. His father, unfortunately, died when he was 17 days old, so he was raised by his mother, whom he has repeatedly talked about in the books he has written as well as in his speeches. His mother Birdie was the most influential person in his life. She did a heck of a job with Zell Miller as a young man and remained an inspiration to him throughout his adult life, and particularly in his life as a public servant to our State. Zell did one of the best things any man can do; and that is, he married way over his head early in his life. He married his sweetheart, Shirley. Before he went into the Marine Corps, he tells the story about leaving for boot camp and he was afraid when he got back she might not marry him, so while they were in the mood they ran over to South Carolina, which is not far away from his hometown of Young Harris, and got married; and they have had decades of glorious years together. They have two wonderful sons and four grandchildren and now four great- grandchildren whom the two of them have enjoyed. Now he will have even more of an opportunity to spend time with them and enjoy them even more. Zell entered the Marine Corps at an early age. Again, as he has repeatedly said in his books, as well as in his speeches, it is the best thing he ever did in his life from the standpoint of straightening him out. All of us go through difficult times in our early years, and there are specific instances that make us what we are and sort of chart the course for where we are going to be in future years. Zell has been very open about the fact that the Marine Corps is the institution that really put his mind in the right frame that it needed to be for his adult years. Zell began his educational career at Young Harris College following his tenure in the Marine Corps, and then ultimately graduated from the University of Georgia, which happens to be the same institution of which I graduated. Again, having a colleague such as Zell to look to as a fellow alumnus is a great privilege. Zell then began a teaching career, and also very shortly entered a public service career. He served two terms as a State senator from his home county area of Young Harris. I think that was the foundation for what was going to ultimately become an outstanding career for him in public service. Like all of us, he suffered defeat as well as victory. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House of Representatives twice. Having run for Congress myself, and lost the first time, I know it is not much fun, but you also find out it is the greatest experience of your life. You meet the nicest people in the world, and you get a real sense of the fact that there are just literally thousands and thousands of people in that congressional district who have the same beliefs and philosophy that you do, so you want to continue to make a difference. Even though Zell lost those races when he ran twice, that did not deter him from continuing in public service. He served as our Lieutenant Governor for four terms, 16 years. He just did a masterful job. The Lieutenant Governor in Georgia has a little more power than some of the Lieutenant Governors in other States around the country. He presided over the State senate, and in that capacity had the obligation and the power to appoint committee chairmen and to be involved in legislation from a direct standpoint. He did an outstanding job as Lieutenant Governor. Following those four terms, he ran for Governor and, in 1990, was elected Governor of our State for the first of his two terms. In 1990, he campaigned on the fact that if we were going to have a State lottery--that was one of the hot issues on the ballot that year--that if we were going to have a State lottery, he wanted to make sure the funds that were generated by that lottery were used for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that was to improve the quality of education in our State. I have to say if there is any one man who is responsible for the improvement of the quality of education in my State of Georgia, it is Zell Miller because he not only campaigned on doing that, he made absolutely certain all the funds generated from that State lottery went to improve the quality of education. He is the father of the HOPE Scholarship. It is kind of interesting, in every campaign now, every statehouse campaign and gubernatorial and lieutenant gubernatorial race now, those folks who have been involved in State politics for a while who are running for those races all claim responsibility for the HOPE Scholarship. But everybody knows that the father of the HOPE Scholarship, the person who was responsible for its passage and implementation, is Zell Miller. The HOPE Scholarship is a provision in our law which says, if you graduate from a high school in Georgia and you have a B average, you can go to any State institution that you are successful in applying to and getting into, and your tuition will be paid for. As long as you maintain a B average, that tuition will be paid for throughout your college career. It has been one of the best things we have ever had happen in our State. We have been successful keeping our top students at home and attending our State universities. One of the main reasons is the HOPE Scholarship. We have kids who might otherwise go to a school in the Northeast or the West Coast that has a much greater national reputation, but they do not give the scholarships like the HOPE Scholarship to all their students who maintain those averages. So Zell Miller has been primarily responsible for keeping an awful lot of the top kids graduating from our public institutions as well as our private institutions in Georgia at our State institutions. As a result of that, we have seen the average SAT scores at the University of Georgia, for example, rise every single year since the HOPE Scholarship went into effect. I do not know what the exact number is for the entering class this year, but I have confidence in saying the average SAT score for the entering freshmen class at the University of Georgia this year is well in excess of 1250, probably closer to something in excess of 1300. At Georgia Tech it is higher than that. And in other institutions we have seen the same impact. We are simply getting the brightest and the best because of Zell Miller and his commitment to the people of Georgia and his commitment to increasing the quality of education in our State. As Governor, he put into effect a voluntary pre-K program for 4-year- old kids. All of us know that the earlier we involve our children in the education process, the more likely they are to come out, at the end of the day, with a better education. It is one of the best things we ever did from the standpoint of putting our kids in touch with the school system at an early age. And it has worked. I could go on and on talking about the things that Senator Miller did as Governor, but I want to sum it up with two anecdotes. First, again, education-wise, he was committed to ensuring that the education of the children of our State improved every year he was in public service. I will never forget his last 4 years--and I know this; I remember specifically because my wife was a teacher in the public school system at that point in time. We were ranked 49th out of 50 with respect to the average teacher salaries. Zell Miller put into place-- and he made a commitment to the teaching community and made a commitment to the legislature that they were going to have to abide by this. He was going to provide a 6-percent increase in teacher salaries every year for his last 4 years, about a 25-percent increase for teacher salaries across the board. He not only made the commitment, but he did it. We went from 49th in average teacher salaries to somewhere in the high twenties over the 4 years of Zell Miller's last tenure as Governor of our State. He also made a commitment to the people of Georgia that if you elect me for 4 more years, then I am not going to be just your average Governor and put it on cruise control and go out as a popular guy--and he had every opportunity to do that. I will never forget riding back up here on an airplane after one weekend, and I happened to sit beside Zell. This was several years after he had left the Governor's office, but I was a Member of the House. I said: Zell, I guess if there is anything about you, and I were to remember one thing over everything else, it is the fact that in your last 4 years you did what you thought was right, irrespective of the fact that you could allow the legislature to pass whatever they wanted to and you could sign it into law. A lot of the legislation were very popular bills with the people back home, but they simply were not the right thing to do. He would veto them. He would veto them, not because he had anything against the issue or the people promoting the bill, but it was the right thing to do. It was not in the best interest of all Georgians. A lot of people ask me today, Why has Zell Miller changed? Zell Miller has never changed. In his heart, he believes we live in the greatest country in the world. He believes in his heart that he and I live in the greatest State in this great country. He is totally committed to doing what he thinks is right. He did it then when he vetoed a lot of popular bills, and he didn't have to do that; it would have been easy not to do that. That is why today when he speaks it is from his heart because he is doing what he thinks is right. As he closes out his career, he and I are both mindful every day of the fact that Zell Miller didn't want to be here. It was not his wish that he serve in the Senate when he was asked to serve. He ran for the Senate in 1980 and was not successful. But he had no intention of coming back to the Senate. Unfortunately, Paul Coverdell, who was his very close friend and one of my political mentors, passed away in 2000, and our Democratic Governor, Roy Barnes, went to Zell Miller and said: Your State needs you, your country needs you, and I need you to fill the unexpired term of Paul Coverdell. So Zell, after much thought about it, decided to leave the mountains of north Georgia and his hometown of Young Harris and go back into public service, to come to Washington. He and Shirley have been here since July of 2000, when he was appointed to fill that unexpired term. He ran in 2000 and was elected to the remainder of the unexpired term. So it wasn't his desire to come back, but, as always, when he has been called upon to fill a void and to be a public servant for his State and his country, he has answered that call--not unlike when he joined the Marine Corps. As he leaves this great institution at the end of this term in another 6 or 8 weeks, this man is going to be missed by those who have looked up to him from a political perspective. He has been a person that all of us in politics admire because he has always operated in a bipartisan way and made sure he reached across the aisle and brought Republicans into his Democratic administration when he served as governor. Probably one of the highlights of that is the man who is replacing him in the Senate, my good friend Johnny Isakson, who has been a longtime Republican in our State. In Zell's second term as governor, he knew that with education being a priority he needed a top-flight person to head up our State board of education. He reached out to Johnny Isakson, who was then out of politics, and brought him into his administration to chair the State board of education. Johnny did a terrific job. As a result of that, he came on to the House to replace Newt Gingrich, and now he will be replacing Zell Miller in the Senate. That is simply the kind of guy Zell Miller is. So it wasn't politics; it was what was in the best interest of our State, what could he do to continue to improve the quality of the education of our kids. He just did the right thing. It is the same as he did in supporting our Republican President. He knew it was the right thing to do. That is why he was so vocal about it. Irrespective of the consequences politically, he did what in his heart he thought was the right thing to do. So now as Zell goes back to Young Harris, I fully expect him to stay engaged in the process. He is not the kind of guy who is going to wilt away, but he will not be as active as he has been for the last three decades. He will be sitting on his front porch with his two dogs, Gus and Woodrow, playing with his grandchildren, and enjoying his family. I am sure his mind will, at times, wander back to his times in Atlanta at the State capital, and to the days he spent in this institution, and he will have some great memories. But those of us who have had the privilege and the opportunity to serve with him are going to have even better memories. Zell Miller is a great American, a great Georgian, and he is somebody all of us are going to miss in the day-to-day world of politics. But he is somebody who, when we look back and say, you know, if I charted my course the way he did, I can leave this institution with a great feeling knowing that I have done what was in the best interest of my State and in the best interest of my country. So to Zell Miller and to Shirley, I say thank you. Julianne and I have a great appreciation for you and a great friendship with you. We look forward to continuing that friendship. We will miss you here in the U.S. Senate. God bless you. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.