Zell Miller

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I have listened with a grateful heart to the generous words of my colleagues, the Senator from Kentucky and earlier this morning the Senator from Alabama. I will remember and cherish those words as long as I am on this Earth. I thank each of them for their friendship. I see my good friend from Montana on the floor. I thank him, a fellow marine, for his friendship. This means more to me than I have words to express. I did not come to this Senate expecting events to unfold as they have. I guess I am living proof that politics is not an exact science. In Shakespeare's ``Hamlet,'' his friend Laertes is going off to college and his father Polonius is giving him the usual advise that you give when your sons go off to college. After all the words of caution that I hope fathers still give their sons, Polonius ended with these words: This above all: to thine ownself be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. I have always believed that and I have tried to live that. I have had a most blessed personal life--personal and political. Since 1959, voters in Georgia have been putting me in one office or another, and I am deeply grateful to them. God has richly blessed my personal life. My wife Shirley has been the perfect partner for over 50 years. She has been my companion, my critic, my crutch. We have two wonderful sons, Murphy and Matthew, and our daughters-in-law and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. We are very blessed. If he had lived, Paul Coverdell would be ending his second 6-year term. As I told some of my colleagues last night, not a day has gone by since I have been here that I have not thought of this good man who left us so suddenly and so tragically. My most fervent hope during these 4\1/2\ years has been that Paul would be pleased with the way I have served and finished out his term. I know Paul is pleased, as I am, that our mutual friend Johnny Isakson, one of the finest public servants I have ever known, will soon be our successor in this great body. I also wish to say what an honor it has been to serve the last 2 years with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Saxby Chambliss. Now as this page turns on the final chapter of my career as a public servant, I cannot help but remember how it was in that first chapter of my life. Growing up in a remote Appalachian valley, we lived in a house made of rocks my mother gathered from a nearby creek with only an open fireplace for heat, no indoor plumbing, no car, no phone, and no father. On summer nights before the TVA dammed up the Hiawassee River and brought electricity to that Appalachian valley, after the Moon had come up over the mountain, the lightning bugs were blinking, while the frogs croaked down at the creek and the katydids sang, every once in a while a whippoorwill's lonesome cry could be heard. I remember after my mother had finally quit working and was getting us quiet and ready to go to bed, we would play a game. The game would start when the headlights of that rare car would penetrate the darkness, maybe once every half hour or so on that narrow strip of asphalt across a big ditch in front of our house. We would stare at the headlights of the car as it made its way around the steep curves and finally over Brasstown Mountain. We would count and see how long it took from the time it went by our house until its taillights would disappear through that distant gap and was no longer a part of that one and only world I knew. It was often at this time my mother would laugh and say, ``You know what's so great about this place? You can get anywhere in the world from here.'' That world has turned many times since I first traveled that narrow road through that gap and out of that valley. It has been a long road with many twists and turns, ups and downs, bumps, and, yes, a few wrecks, a road that twice carried me to the highest office of the ninth largest State in this Nation, to all the continents and famous cities of the world and, finally, to the Senate. So I leave this Senate, knowing that once again my mother has been proved right. One could get anywhere in the world from that little mountain valley and back again. Everywhere I have ever been really was on my way back home. I thank all of you. I thank my family. I thank my very special staff who has stayed with me through thick and thin. I thank my friends and especially my God. It has been one heck of a ride.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lt. Colonel John McCance, who will complete his 3-year tour of duty with the United States Air Force's Office of Legislative Affairs at the end of this year. Most people don't know that our services have liaison offices within Congress. Even many servicemembers don't know these offices exist. And, yet, they are a vital link between the United States Senate and the Department of Defense. Liaison officers are chosen because of their wealth of knowledge, ability to handle a pressure-packed environment with high-maintenance staffers, and their discernment in making tough decisions. They generally have significant experience and a long track record of outstanding performance. Simply put, Service liaisons are the best of the best. The Air Force has been fortunate to have Lt. Colonel John McCance as a vital member of its liaison team here in the Senate. He has demonstrated the superior caliber and quality of Air Force officers with which we are all familiar. I know I speak for many of my fellow Members in expressing our profound regret at his departure. Yet I know that the Air Force Reserve has many good things planned for John and that our country will surely benefit from his experience in his future assignments. On behalf of the Senate, I thank John McCance for his service to the Nation and to the United States Air Force Reserve, and I thank his wife, Wendy, and his daughters, Lauren and Katie, for their steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty. We in the U.S Senate, and I personally, wish them all the best as Lt. Colonel McCance returns to his civilian career and tackles new challenges.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. This document is not the end of this sorry story, for with these weapons systems clearly in his crosshairs as candidate John Kerry, Senator John Kerry pulled the trigger on them his first year in the Senate in 1985, and then again at every other chance he got. In 1985, the ``series of votes against individual weapons systems'' the Washington Post so snugly swore never took place began. In all, 14 Senate votes took place in 1985 alone on 5 of the specific weapons systems Kerry pledged to cancel. Mr. President, 13 of his 14 votes in 1984 were to cut the defense systems he promised to cancel. Four of those were to cut the MX peacemaker missile; two votes were to cut antisatellite weapons; two votes were to cut SDI; another vote was to restrict SDI's use; another vote was to cut battleship reactivation; and another vote was against binary weapons. Kerry's only vote not to cut a defense program was on SDI. You know why? Because after voting three times to cut SDI by as much as $1.5 billion, Kerry voted against a cut of $160 million because he said it didn't cut SDI enough. So when it comes to the weapons systems that won the Cold War, John Kerry said in 1985 he wanted to cancel them, and then in 1985 he voted against them 13 out of 14 times. There were two other votes to cut back overall defense spending, for a total of 16 votes in 1985 on national defense alone; but the Mr. Magoos down at the pious Post somehow could not locate these facts. In fact, the Washington Post could not only find ``a'' vote--one single solitary vote over 20 years--where John Kerry voted against defense. That single antidefense vote was after the Cold War in 1990 or 1991, depending upon which Washington Post report you read. Judy Woodruff did some better. She found 19 total defense votes over Kerry's 20 years in the Senate. There were 16 votes in 1985 on defense systems and overall spending alone. She also claimed that Cheney voted the same way as Kerry on ``many of those'' 19. Yet how many can ``many'' be if Cheney and Kerry served simultaneously in Congress for only 4 of those 19 annual budget fights? But Wolf Blitzer's defense of Kerry's national defense record was the most interesting. With the wave of a hand, Blitzer dismissed the numerous votes by Kerry against these weapon systems that occurred years before as well as the years after Cheney was Secretary of Defense. Cheney's position in 1990 and Kerry's opposition in 1984 is the difference between opposing the Sherman tank and the B-29 in the year before D-day and then wanting to cut back on them the year after V-J day. Mr. President, you could review the series of John Kerry votes on weapons systems in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989--all that occurred before the Berlin Wall fell. The fact is you can look at Kerry's votes during the cold war, after the cold war, before Desert Storm, after Desert Storm, after the first World Trade Center attack, before the war on terrorism and now during the war on terrorism, and you will find John Kerry was one of the most reliable ``no'' votes against the weapons our soldiers needed to defend this country and keep the U.S. safe. The point is if the media won't tell you what the impact of Kerry's position would have been on the cold war, they sure are not going to tell you what the impact would be today on the war on terrorism. So let me sum up what we can learn from the media's response to my speech at the Republican National Convention on John Kerry's defense record. The media can only find John Kerry opposing defense weapon systems that Secretary Cheney opposed also. The media will only count overall spending bills as a vote against a weapon system, and will not count the numerous votes on the systems themselves nor the overall budget plans as votes on the systems or national defense. And the media can simply find no votes by John Kerry against any weapon systems during the height of the cold war--not a one. Not a single one. What they found, or what they want you to believe they found is that Cheney and Kerry had practically identical national defense voting records during the cold war. And that is flagrantly wrong. Let me take another minute to look at this. In 1985, the House in which Cheney was a Member had a series of votes on 17 specific weapon systems. Seventeen of Dick Cheney's seventeen votes were to protect the defense systems. Seven ayes on seven votes to protect the MX peacekeeper missile; Six ayes on six votes to protect SDI; Another vote to protect the Trident II missile; Another vote to protect binary weapons; Another vote to protect chemical weapons; and Another vote to protect ASAT weapons. During the height of the cold war, essentially every vote by Dick Cheney was the mirror opposite of John Kerry. Where Cheney repeatedly voted for weapon systems, Kerry repeatedly voted against those weapon systems. Where Cheney supported President Reagan's announced position on each vote on these weapon systems, Kerry opposed President Reagan's announced position on each vote. The sole vote of John Kerry against a cut in defense was because he wanted a bigger cut--a cut as much as ten times larger in SDI. So there are differences between Dick Cheney and John Kerry on national defense. It's the difference between the world's biggest and greatest military superpower and, well, spitballs. Mr. President, I probably have wasted my time and just spit in the ocean because we all have learned the hard way that the elite media can do anything it wants and sell anything it wants. We saw earlier this year the New York Times and Washington Post repeat on their front pages false allegations by Ambassador Joe Wilson about Niger uranium and his wife's role in his own activities, but they then buried the correction somewhere in the back pages. We saw Newsweek's Evan Thomas report that: ``The media want Kerry to win'' and that support, in Thomas's words, ``is going to be worth maybe 15 points.'' We see CBS News having to admit they were pushing forgeries about President Bush's National Guard service. The national media's all-out defense of John Kerry's indefensible defense record falls into this same sorry and disgraceful pattern of selling an agenda rather than the facts. What I said in New York was true. It was true then. It is still true now. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER. I thought we were in morning business. If I may now continue. It is also important that those who report the discussion be correct in what they report. From most of the national media, we have not had that correct reporting on John Kerry's national defense record. From the media we have heard, from their review of national defense records, that the liberal Democrat John Kerry and the conservative Vice President Dick Cheney are, in fact, long lost ideological soul mates, separated only by birth and hair. We hear from Wolf Blitzer and Judy Woodruff on CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, Alan Colmes of Fox, and the fact finders at the Washington Post and the LA Times that if you took Dick Cheney and substituted him for John Kerry or if you took John Kerry and substituted him for Dick Cheney the defense votes that occurred in the House and Senate and the outcomes of defense spending bills and Pentagon operations would be virtually identical. They would have you believe that when it comes to national defense records, votes and positions, they say the very DNA of Dick Cheney and John Kerry are practically indistinguishable, that they are doves from the same nest. Or maybe it is hawks now, with Kerry's latest change. As silly as this assertion is, the Democrats are more than happy to make it because many in the media are only too happy to parrot it. There is no better proof of this than the media's response to the speech I made at the Republican National Convention in New York City. Now, I was inclined to let the veracity of an old man soon to be retired just go unanswered, thinking that the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. And I would have, if it had been my reputation at stake instead of the safety of my family. Let me start with the LA Times which bought lock, stock, and barrel the Democrats' official line, and I quote: The Kerry campaign responded by accusing Miller of mischaracterizing the Senator's record, pointing out that Cheney also voted to cut funding for some of those weapons systems while serving in Congress. Others were targeted for cutback by Cheney when he was Defense Secretary in the first Bush Administration. USA Today minimized the negative of Kerry's defense votes this way: . . . Kerry voted against large Pentagon spending bills that include many weapons three times in his 20-year career. And Defense Secretary Cheney recommended ending some of the same systems that Miller cited. CNN's Judy Woodruff said this to me only a few minutes after my speech: John Kerry voted for 16 of 19 defense budgets that came through the Senate while he was in the Senate, and many of those votes you cited, Dick Cheney also voted against. Wolf Blitzer of CNN emphasized the similarity of Kerry and Cheney: When the Vice President was the Secretary of Defense, he proposed cutting back on the B-2 bomber, the F-14 Tomcat as well. I covered him at the Pentagon during those years when he was raising serious concerns about those two weapons systems. . . . And then, that citadel of sanctimony, the home of the whopper, the Washington Post, weighed in with this totally untrue statement: Miller's list was mostly derived from a single Kerry vote against a spending bill in 1991, rather than individual votes against particular systems. Later, a Washington Post analysis added: Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapon systems, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War period. Editorial pages began to chime in, such as the Philadelphia Daily News: Miller charged that Kerry has voted to strip the Armed Services of necessary weapons systems when Dick Cheney, as Defense Secretary, proposed many of the cuts and voted for others. Mr. President, is this true? Are there just a handful of votes by Kerry against weapons systems? Are those votes identical to those by Dick Cheney? Did the media have their facts straight? And even more important, did they really want to have their facts straight? Or did they just simply adopt, without verification, the talking points from the Kerry campaign? Let's start at the beginning. I said in my speech that Kerry ``opposed the very weapons systems that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terrorism.'' I then listed the systems that Kerry opposed, such as the B-1, the B- 2, F-14A, F-14D Tomcats, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagle, the Patriot missile, Aegis cruiser, the SDI, and the Trident missile. Did Kerry oppose the weapons systems that won the Cold War? The answer is yes. In 1984, John Kerry ran for the Senate and built his campaign around the promise to reverse what he called ``the biggest defense buildup since World War II,'' a buildup he considered in his words, ``wasteful, useless, and dangerous.'' In a key 1984 campaign document, Kerry identified 16 weapons systems he wanted to ``cancel.'' All of those weapons systems that I stated that Kerry opposed are found in this 1984 document, except for two--the Trident missile and the B-2 bomber. But Senator Kerry's opposition to those was reported in other press interviews in 1984. Mr. President, this 1984 campaign document is the first, but by no means the last, of Kerry's opposition to these weapons systems. It is strange, but there has not been a single story that I can find in the media about this document. No one wants the American people to see what Kerry was wanting to cancel at the height of the Cold War. This document doesn't exist as far as the national media is concerned. But it is vital to any debate about John Kerry's national defense record because it spells out in Kerry's own words his complete and total opposition to these weapons systems. This document begins and ends with the word ``cancel.'' In his own words, John Kerry says ``cancel'' the MX, the B-1, the ASAT, SDI, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot, the Aegis cruiser, the Harrier, the Tomcat, the Eagle, the Phoenix, the Sparrow, and all of the other weapons systems listed on this chart. If you are like most people, you might read this document and say, if John Kerry wants to cancel these weapons systems, it certainly doesn't mean he is for them. So then he must oppose them. In the name of common sense, could you have any other meaning from this? The media tells us that just because John Kerry wanted to cancel those systems, that doesn't mean he opposed those systems. Such is their strange and twisted logic. Because the media is not convinced John Kerry meant ``cancel'' when he said ``cancel,'' they ignore this document and think the American people should, too. Those who don't ignore this document dismiss it, basically because Kerry opposed these systems 20 years ago. So what is the big deal today? Here is why it is a big deal. This document came out in 1984, when America was in a life-and-death struggle with the Soviet Union. At that time, the Cold War was anything but cold, and it was certainly not over. The premier of the Soviet Union was not Gorbachev but Konstantin Chernenko, an old Brezhnev hard-liner. This document that outlined John Kerry's vision for our national defense, which the media ignores and doesn't want you to know about, came out about 6 months after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines 747 filled with 269 civilians. This Kerry proposal came at a time when Soviet troops were at the halfway point of their armed invasion of Afghanistan. This Kerry proposal came at a time when Cuban troops were in Angola and Kampuchea. This Kerry proposal came at a time when Marxists insurgents had taken power in Nicaragua and were pushing northward into El Salvador. This Kerry proposal came at a time when insurgents and terrorists were on the attack, and the way Kerry wanted to deal with them was by canceling crucial weapons systems. Here, at the height of the Cold War, at a time when we were playing cards with the devil himself, when our own future, the world's freedom, and the fate of half a billion souls from Poland to Siberia, from the Baltic to Crimea, were all in the pot, John Kerry said ``fold them'' to what ultimately turned out to be one of the biggest winning hands ever played for freedom. That is why this 1984 document is a big deal, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, politics is politics. As we all know, it can be a contact sport. While many things can be considered fair or unfair, depending on your outlook, I think most would agree that the voting record and the printed and stated positions of a candidate or elected official are right and proper to discuss. But it is also important that those who report this discussion be correct in what they report.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, as a veteran Marine and friend, I rise today to pay tribute to COL Art White, who will complete his 3- year tour of duty with the United States Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs on December 1, 2004. I have had the pleasure to work with Colonel White on many occasions. In his role as the director of the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office, he has provided tremendous support while acting as the principal conduit for information between the Marine Corps and many Members of this eminent body. His affable personality and attention to duty contributed to a highly successful relationship between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Marine Corps. His dedication to the Members of the United States Senate will be sorely missed. Art White was born and raised in Westchester, NY. After high school in New York, he attended Georgetown University, where he also played basketball for the Hoyas, graduating in 1976. In 1977, Colonel White received a commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps and subsequently reported to Quantico, VA, to take on the challenge of becoming a marine officer. During his subsequent 27-year career in the Marine Corps that included both active and reserve duty, Art served as an infantry officer, aide de camp to the assistant division commander of the 1st Marine Division, a communications officer, a civil affairs officer, a counterintelligence officer, and a reserve mobilization officer. In 1980, Colonel White left active duty and transitioned to the Marine Corps Reserve. He then attended the Seattle University School of Law, graduating in 1983, and began a long, distinguished career in public service. He served as a professional staff member for the Republican Policy Committee chaired by our former colleague from the great State of Texas, Senator John Tower; as a staff member in the U.S. House of Representatives; as the director of legislative affairs for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the Commerce Department; and as the deputy assistant director for legislative affairs for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In December, 2001, Colonel White was ordered to active duty to serve as the director of the Marine Corps' Liaison office in the Senate. Since that time, he has been a key player in maintaining effective relationships between the Marine Corps, my colleagues in the Senate, professional committee staff, and personal staff members. In particular, he responded to thousands of congressional inquiries, ranging from such sensitive issues as notification of combat casualties during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, to providing timely information on the operation, organization and budget of the Marine Corps. He also planned and executed approximately 33 international congressional delegations. I had the pleasure of traveling on several of these congressional delegations with Colonel White and was greatly impressed with his service to the Members of the Senate. His strong acumen for social interaction carried over into Colonel White's ability to represent his service at numerous Marine Corps and Joint Service social events on Capitol Hill. Among others, these events included the Marine Corps Birthday Commemoration, the Joint Services Reception, and several Marine Corps fall and spring receptions--all important events that enabled me and my Senate colleagues to maintain relationships with the Marine Corps' senior leadership. His efforts throughout this period not only communicated the commandant's message to the U.S. Senate, but also upheld the Marine Corps' positive image and professional reputation on Capitol Hill. On behalf of the Senate, I thank Colonel White for his service to the Nation and the U.S. Marine Corps, and I thank his wife, Katherine Ann, and his daughter, Mary Rose, for their steadfast support while he fulfilled this essential duty. We in the U.S. Senate, and I personally, wish them all the best as Colonel White returns to his civilian career and tackles new challenges.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, today I rise to honor Georgia's 116th Air Control Wing (ACW) based at Robins Air Force Base. This week, the wing will be awarded the Spaatz Trophy, which recognizes the Nation's most outstanding Air National Guard unit. For those of you who do not know, the Spaatz Trophy is named for General Carl Spaatz, the first chief of staff of the independent Air Force and is presented annually to the overall outstanding Air National Guard flying unit. Selection of the winner is based on unit combat readiness during the reporting year and the unit's performance with respect to all other Air Guard flying units. More than 90 flying units from across the Nation are eligible to compete. I would like to point out that this year's winner is no ordinary Air Force wing. The 116th ACW made history 2 years ago when it became the first blended unit ever in the Air Force--kicking off an historic transformation of our fighting force. The wing is comprised of both Air National Guardsmen members of the Active Duty Air Force, and is commanded by a member of the Georgia Air Guard--General Tom Lynn. Further, the 116th ACW is the only Air Force unit operating the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, Joint STARS, which is the most advanced airborne ground surveillance and battle management system in the world. During 2003, the year for which this award is presented, the 116th ACW completed the largest deployment in its history as it supported Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom and flew more than 5,000 combat hours. This outstanding achievement occurred just months after the wing's historic transformation. It is a great honor to win the Spaatz Trophy, and this award further illustrates the hard work taking place by the extremely talented members of the 116th ACW. I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to General Tom Lynn and all the members of the 116th Air Control Wing.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, today I wish to pay tribute to BG William P. Kane, who on July 10, 2004, will complete nearly 6 years of command at Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, GA, and who will move on to command at Peterson Air Force Base, CO. When we were young, many of us were exposed to the phrase ``you can do anything that you set your mind to.'' Some of us live out that desire by finding success as academics, others as scientists or politicians. Some of us find passion in the freedom of flight, while some of us thrive in the structure of the military. However, very few of us are able to test our limits and succeed in multiple areas. I stand before you to recognize one such person. BG William P. Kane is the current commander of the 94th Airlift Wing at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, leading both the 94th Airlift Wing and Dobbins ARB. Although Dobbins is a small base in physical size, it also happens to be the largest multiservice Reserve training base in the world. Owned by the Air Force Reserve, Dobbins supports more than 10,000 guardsmen and reservists from the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. It is home to nearly 50 aircraft assigned to different flying units and boasts more than 7,000 takeoffs and landings each month. This enormous flying mission is what General Kane manages on a daily basis, around, I would like to point out, one of the busiest airports in the Nation, Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. After our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, the military had to quickly adapt to a new mission. As operational tempo increased, commanders had to take on expanding roles. General Kane immediately took the necessary and innovative steps to transform the mission of Dobbins ARB and the 94th Airlift Wing. While Dobbins continued to embrace its role in training C-130 crew members and maintaining combat- ready units to deploy on short notice, General Kane had to ``batten down the hatches'' in the heightened security atmosphere. And in typical fashion, General Kane took on his force protection mission with vigor, even relishing in the nickname ``Bunker Bill,'' as he erected sandbags and barriers at the base. General Kane began his impressive Air Force career after graduating from the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1969 with a bachelor's degree in biology. He entered the Air Force soon thereafter and obtained his commission through Officers Training School. After serving 5 years on active duty at Dyess Air Force Base, TX, General Kane joined the Reserves at Niagara Falls International Airport, NY, and served in the 328th Tactical Airlift Squadron while attending graduate school. He completed his graduate work in 1982 and was awarded his Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology. He then went on to conduct basic biological research as a postdoctoral fellow at the Fox Chase Cancer Institute in Philadelphia, PA, and the State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. He then joined the Air Reserve technician program in 1984 at March Air Force Base, CA. General Kane is a command pilot with more than 6,500 flying hours. Looking back over General Kane's illustrious career thus far, I am reminded of a quote by Orison Swett Marden, a famed 19th century thinker. Marden stated that: the greatest thing a man can do in this world is to make the most possible out of the stuff that has been given to him. This is success and there is none other. Officer, pilot, academic, scientist, husband, father. I believe that Marden, were he still alive today, would not hesitate to proclaim GEN William P. Kane a completely successful man. People spend most of their lives attempting to do one thing well. Few and far between are the people who have the courage to try and the determination to achieve success at multiple levels, as General Kane certainly has. And he is not finished. I thank him for his years of service to the Air Force Reserve and to Georgia. I wish him and his family all the best as he continues with his Air Force career in Colorado and with all future endeavors. Georgia will miss General Kane. He is Georgia at its finest.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, D-Day happened when I was 12 years old. But I can remember it better than I can remember some things that happened last week. At that time my mother worked at the old Bell Bomber Plant in Marietta, GA, helping build B-29s or, as they were called back then, ``flying fortresses.'' Sunday before last, I got to realize a lifelong dream, a visit to Normandy. I got to walk around Omaha and Utah beaches. I peered down those steep slopes at Pointe du Hoc. I sat spellbound and misty eyed as I listened to the magnificent speech of our President George W. Bush at that Sunday morning ceremony, amid those nearly 10,000 silent crosses and Stars of David, a sacred spot in the history of freedom, if ever there was one. I got to talk and meet with many of those members who are left of the ``greatest generation.'' One sat in front of me at the ceremony with his two, big, good-looking, husky, raw-boned sons, who looked as if they were a couple of acorns that had not fallen too far from that sturdy oak. He came in with them a little stooped, moving slowly, an infantryman's blue badge and a Bronze Star proudly attached to his shirt. He told me he had come in on the first wave, ``loaded down with grenades,'' and later ``I threw them everywhere,'' he said. Mostly he was quiet, though. When our President began to speak, he almost reverently slightly bowed his head, obviously lost in the memory of that longest day long ago. I sat directly behind him and I couldn't see, but I think his eyes were closed. But he was hearing--no, he was feeling each and every touching word. When our President spoke of ``the whistles of shells from behind them, the white jets of enemy fire around them,'' on several occasions, he would nod softly as if saying to himself: That is exactly how it was. When the President talked of the sound of bullets hitting the steel ramps that were about to fall, he softly but visibly shivered in agreement and then a more vigorous nod, as his old body stiffened and he was once again that young warrior, that soldier of freedom, charging in to face the enemy, ``throwing those grenades everywhere,'' as he had put it earlier. His two big sons--strong men, you could tell--were in tears, unashamedly taking off their sunglasses and wiping their eyes with the back of their hands. They did not have any Kleenex. They were not exactly the tissue-carrying kind. I couldn't help but wonder, when was the last time these men had shown such emotion. How long had they talked and planned with their dad on this important moment in his life and the life of this country? He told me he lived in Florida now, and I am terribly ashamed I did not get his name. But I was hesitant, I was reluctant. I felt like I was intruding on a family gathering. I did talk with many others. I want to mention 2 whose names I did get, 2 who had been among the 100 awarded the prestigious French Legion of Honor: Marvin J. Perrett and Alan F. Reeves. Coxswain Perrett is from New Orleans and helped Stephen Ambrose put together that great D-Day museum located there. By the way, visit it, if you have a chance. It is magnificent. This coastguardsman had brought 36 men on to Omaha Beach in a landing craft on the first wave, after piloting them around for hours, around and around on that rough, choppy sea, but with those thick fumes and their own vomit gagging them. Something I had never known before, he also took a landing craft into Iwo Jima in the first wave and later Okinawa. That is what coastguardsmen did. I met Alan F. Reeves who had been part of General Eisenhower's Supreme Allied Command at one time and is still active with those members who are living. He gave me some insight into that great man who had commanded this greatest of all assaults in world history. He was fascinating and inspiring to talk with. He shared something else with me, a beautiful poem written by his son who once visited the cemetery with his father. I asked Mr. Reeves if I could have a copy of it, and I want to share it with the Senate. By Christopher Bromley Reeves of Delaware: Le cimetiere de St. Laurent, and all it holds Awaits the sixtieth recollection of why it is. Its rows on rows boxed by Austrian black pines, Their fallen cones scattered at the edge Calm, suspended from the world and time It observes the preparations undisturbed. Somewhere near, they'll build a stage For politicians, veterans, other dignitaries. They'll have their say, then wing their way, Adding little, detracting nothing. Fewer seats, more empty chairs, This commemoration. I'd rather wait within the esplanade of trees, Defer the grid of graves behind me, Lift a pine cone from the path, Roll it in my hand, Smell its earth and resin tar, Gaze across the cliff Beyond the beach, Drift the moment, Delay the turn. A weepy rain is in the air, But I can hear the hush press on my back, The quiet murmur of ten thousand Crosses sprung from planted souls, They no longer scream. The gentle yet relentless passage of these sixty years Does not diminish any sacrifice; it has removed the sting. Wounds have eased, their pains appeased. Time deftly folds the space between those lost and left, Eventually to wrap them all in common thought, Collected minds of how this place was wrought Wrap us In the mists creeping up the slopes, Seeping through the burial ground. Make free wind stall, and pine cone fall. Let no shadow touch the mall. The Channel's rough today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Congratulations to the Pistons.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, in our formative years, many of us were exposed to the phrase ``you can do anything that you set your mind to.'' This cliche is symbolic of the optimism embodied in the American Dream. Across the width and breadth of this great land, we see countless examples of people who exemplify that spirit. Some of us live out that dream by finding success as teachers, others as doctors. Some of us find passion in the freedom of flight, while some of us thrive in the rigid structure of the military. Very few of us are able to test our limits and succeed in multiple areas. I stand before you to recognize one such person. Dr. John Burson is a shining example of what a human being is capable of if one has the will and the focus to reach for the stars. He has spend the last 25 years serving the citizens of Carroll County, GA, as an ear, nose, and throat specialist. All the time and effort required to become a practicing physician is a lot to ask of anyone, however it is merely the tip of the iceberg fo Dr. Burson. Before pursuing a career in medicine at the age of 37, Dr. Burson spent his time acquiring a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, as well as a Ph.D. in Engineering, from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Upon completing his doctorate, he continued to pass on his knowledge to others for several years as a professor at Georgia Tech. Dr. Burson obtained his post-graduate degrees and professorship while simultaneously serving as an officer and pilot in the Army Reserves, where Dr. Burson rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Only after achieving all of this, at the age of 37, with a wife and children, did John decide it was time to pursue a career in medicine. Twenty five years later, John has found a way to impress us all again. In a short time, he will be heading to a field hospital in Iraq to relieve an active duty physician for 3 months, allowing that physician 3 months back home with his or her family. While many his age are beginning to look towards quieter days, John Burson is once again serving his country, as well as providing a most precious gift to a person that he has never met. Orison Swett Marden, a famed Nineteenth Century thinker, stated that ``the greatest thing a man can do in this world is to make the most possible out of the stuff that has been given to him. This is success and there is none other.'' Soldier. Scholar. Doctor. Husband. Father. I believe that Mr. Marden, were he still alive, would not hesitate to proclaim John Burson a successful man. People spend most of their lives attempting to do one thing well. Few and far between are the people who have the courage to try and determination to achieve success at all. Dr. John Burson is one of those few and I am proud to call him a fellow Georgian and a fellow American, and I thank him for his years of service to our country, to the State of Georgia, and to his community.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to honor an extraordinary marine, LTC Willie J. Brown. Lieutenant Colonel Brown has served for 29 years, 4 months and 4 days in service to our Nation. He began his military service as an ensign in the Navy and later earned a commission as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has served in times of war and peace, and throughout he has given a full measure, as marines are renowned for doing. His awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, the National Defense Service Medal with two stars, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. During Lieutenant Colonel Brown's last active duty assignment, he served as a legislative liaison officer in the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs. That office supports Members of Congress and the congressional committees on issues relating to the Marine Corps and the security of our Nation. In this position, Colonel Brown played a vital role in ensuring that responses to all inquiries and congressional requests for information and inquiries were provided quickly, accurately, and completely; thereby, allowing Members of this body the ability to readily address issues of national importance. Some of Lieutenant Colonel Brown's many responsibilities included expert preparation of Marine Corps leadership for congressional testimony on high-interest military programs and assisting Members on congressional travel to visit military installations throughout the continental United States. His attention to detail in all matters was unsurpassed, and his complete grasp of the facets of naval warfare helped to ensure a bright future for our Marine Corps. Prior to joining the Office of Legislative Affairs, Lieutenant Colonel Brown spent the majority of his Marine Corps career in the aviation field. He started as a second lieutenant with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing and continued to rise through the ranks. He went on to become the commanding officer of Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 26. Under his superb leadership, that squadron won the wing's ``Squadron of the Year'' award for three consecutive years. The commandant also recognized his squadron with the Marine Corps Quality Improvement Award for Excellence. Lieutenant Colonel Brown is a learned, professional marine, as evidenced by his attendance at the School of Advanced Warfare, and the Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Further, he is a well-rounded, native Georgian who willingly serves his fellow man. While assigned as the special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, he was awarded the Roy Wilkins Distinguished Service Award by the NAACP. This award is granted each year to one marine who has made personal sacrifices resulting in significant contributions in the areas of civil and human rights. As a leader of marines, Lieutenant Colonel Brown has made a lasting contribution to the Marine Corps and will be sorely missed by those who have had the opportunity to serve with him. I join with his friends and family as he celebrates this richly deserved retirement. I wish him, his wife Cynthia, and their family my best as he enjoys every day of this new journey. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in celebrating this anniversary. In 2001 and again in 2003, Congress had the wisdom to pass two bold tax cut plans. I firmly believe they were the key to turning around this economy. When the President came to office, the economy was already taking a turn for the worse. Job growth was slowing down, the stock markets were moving in the wrong direction. A dose of strong medicine was needed. Our President came up with a bold plan for tax relief, to get more money out of Washington and put it back into the pockets of workers and the small business owners who earned it. President Bush knows, as President Kennedy knew, and as President Reagan knew, the best way to jump-start the economy is to leave more money in the hands of the American people. When people and businesses can keep more of their own money in their own pockets instead of having to send it to the ``National Center for Income Redistribution on the Potomac,'' it follows they will spend more and they will invest more and they will expand their businesses more. When that happens, the result is new jobs and a growing economy. That is exactly what has happened. I was proud to be a cosponsor of those tax relief plans which lowered the tax bills for 111 million taxpayers, including 25 million small business owners. Americans have been using this extra money to pay their bills, get the kids in new clothes, or start a saving plans for themselves. Small businesses are investing in new equipment and expanding their operations. Workers are opening their 401(k) statements to see the numbers are going up instead of down. As a result, our economy is on the upswing. We have had 10 consecutive quarters of economic growth. In the last 3 quarters, the economy has been stronger than any 3 consecutive quarters in nearly 20 years. Jobs are coming back, too. More than 1.1 million jobs have been created since last August and more are on the way. Manufacturing activity is picking up, and the business community is more confident than ever that they feel this turnaround taking root. President Bush has done an outstanding job shepherding our economy through these tough times. I have one wish as we celebrate this anniversary. I wish this Congress would take one more step with these tax cuts. I wish we would do what we should have done in the first place, make these tax cuts permanent. I have asked this question before and I will ask it again: How can anyone, how can any business, make any long-range plans for a business or for a family with a ``here today, gone tomorrow'' tax cut, a tax policy that has a perishable date on it, like a quart of milk? The fastest way to show our taxpayers we are serious about tax relief, the fastest way to ensure this economic growth continues, is to make the tax cuts permanent. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, today I honor a fellow Georgian, Mrs. Jane Hinton Hart. Mrs. Hart is retiring after more than 30 years of service in the U.S. Government. She was raised in Thomson, GA, where she graduated from Thomson High School in 1966, and Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, TX, in 1970. She returned to Georgia and taught school in Augusta from January 1970 to June 1973. Mrs. Hart began her Federal Government career on the staff of former Senator Sam Nunn, where she served the people of Georgia from 1973 to 1991. During her 18 years of service in Senator Nunn's office, Mrs. Hart worked the full spectrum of positions found in a congressional office. She began as a staff assistant and became a senior legislative assistant to the Senator and the liaison between the Senator's office and the military installations in the State of Georgia. In 1991, Mrs. Hart moved from the Hill to the Office of Legislative Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps, where she has served four commandants, Generals Mundy, Krulak, Jones, and Hagee. As a legislative specialist, she has been responsible for reviewing and researching numerous legislative issues to determine their impact on the U.S. Marine Corps. She has provided guidance and drafted legislative proposals for inclusion in the Department of Defense omnibus legislative packages. She works closely with the Legislative Affairs Offices of the Department of the Navy and Department of Defense. In addition to Mrs. Hart's Government service, she has been an active education advocate through various PTAs in Arlington County, VA, a volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America, a Sunday school teacher, and she reads monthly at a homeless shelter. She will complete her masters in reading education this fall and plans to return to the classroom and teach. I wish Mrs. Hart, her husband, Jim, and their son, John, all the best. I am delighted that she came here from Georgia seeking to serve our Nation, and has done so with distinction for more than 30 years. Georgia is proud of Mrs. Hart's dedication, hard work and patriotism, and I wish for her many more years of continuing success.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, here we go again, rushing to give aid and comfort to our enemies--pushing, pulling, shoving, and leaping over one another to assign blame and point the finger at ``America the terrible,'' lining up in long lines at the microphones to offer apologies to those poor, pitiful Iraqi prisoners. Of course, I do not condone all the things that went on in that prison, but I for one refuse to join in this national act of contrition over it. Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for heads to roll over this seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that someone's head has rolled, that of another innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists. Why is it there is more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all? Why is it some in this country still do not get it, that we are at war, a war against terrorists who are plotting to kill us every day, terrorists who will murder Americans at any time, anyplace, any chance they get. Yet here we are, America on its knees in front of our enemy, begging for their forgiveness over the mistreatment of prisoners, showing our enemy and the world once again how easily America can get sidetracked, how easily America can turn against itself. Yes, a handful of soldiers went too far with their interrogation. Clearly some of them were not properly trained to handle such duty, but the way to deal with this is with swift and sure punishment and immediate and better training. There also needs to be more careful screening of who it is we put in these kinds of sensitive situations--and no one wants to hear this, and I am reluctant to say it, but there should also be some serious questioning of having male and female soldiers serving side by side in these kinds of military missions. Instead, I worry that the HWA, the ``hand wringers of America,'' will add to their membership and continue to bash our country ad nauseam and, in doing so, hand over more innocent Americans to the enemy on a silver platter. So I stand with Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma who stated that he is more outraged by the outrage than by the treatment of those prisoners. More outraged by the outrage, that is a good way of putting it. That is exactly how this Senator from Georgia feels. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Commanding General, United States Army Forces Command, General Larry R. Ellis. General Ellis has served as the Commanding General of U.S. Army Forces Command from November 19, 2001, to May 7, 2004. General Ellis, an outstanding American Soldier from the great State of Maryland, will soon complete over 35 years of selfless service to this great Nation in the United States Army. General Ellis' dedication to our Soldiers, commitment to excellence, and performance of duty has been extraordinary throughout his career, a lifetime of service culminating in an assignment as the Commanding General of the largest major command in the United States Army. He will retire on July 1, 2004. During more than 35 years in uniform, General Ellis served in a succession of command and staff positions worldwide. As a junior officer, he served in combat in the Republic of Vietnam, and subsequently with troop units in positions of increasing responsibility throughout the continental United States, Europe, and the Republic of Korea. While the Deputy Director for Strategic Planning and Policy at U.S. Pacific Command, and as the Assistant Chief of Staff, J3, for United States Forces Korea, General Ellis supervised the training and performance of American military forces throughout the Far East. He commanded units at every echelon of the Army, including the First Armored Division in Germany and when deployed as the Multinational Division (North), in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a combined task force that included units from 13 nations. In this capacity General Ellis coordinated European military and civil efforts to implement an extensive array of operations and programs to provide stability and restore favorable economic and political conditions in that war-torn region. As the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, General Ellis oversaw multi-year, multi-billion dollar programs supporting United States Army budget strategic objectives, and executed annual operating budgets of more than $15 billion across 16 major subordinate organizations. He directed the development of comprehensive strategic plans supporting the Army's continued success across the next three decades by resourcing plans through decisive application of deliberate management systems, strategic planning processes, environmental assessments, and periodic situational appraisals to ensure full integration and compliance with strictly defined performance objectives. He spearheaded the Army's effort to translate the senior leadership's Strategic Vision into an executable Transformation Campaign Plan. Soon after the United States went to war in 2001, General Ellis assumed command of U.S. Army Forces Command, the Army's largest major command. He aggressively orchestrated the training, mobilization, and deployment of more than 500,000 Soldiers and more than a million tons of equipment to locations worldwide which represents the largest mobilization since the Korean War. In addition to providing resources and directing long-range planning to move Army forces, he maintained close operational control of ongoing events to ensure his subordinate units could respond to emerging trends and circumstances. The strategic communications plan he instigated to engage disparate and complex audiences to include academia, Congress, local public officials, industry, and members of the Department of Defense, ensured that his commands' operations were understood and supported. General Ellis holds degrees from Morgan State University, B.S., 1969, and Indiana University, M.S., 1975. His honors include the NAACP National Service Award, 1999; Honorary Doctor of Law, Morgan State University, 2000; Honorary Master of Strategic Studies, U.S. Army War College, 2001; Distinguished Alumni Service Award, Indiana University, 2003. His military awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. His three and a half decades of service earned for General Ellis a reputation as one of the Department of Defense's most forward thinking and insightful leaders. General Ellis represents the epitome of what Army leaders, Soldiers, and the country expect from our officers. He is a sterling example for young Soldiers to emulate . . . well known as a ``Soldiers' General.'' His service to the Nation has been exceptional, and General Ellis is more than deserving of this recognition. General Ellis will be sorely missed by those who have had the opportunity to serve with him over these many years. I join with his friends and family as he celebrates this richly deserved upcoming retirement and wish him my best as he enjoys everyday of this new journey.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, we live in perilous times. The leader of the free world's power has become so neutered he cannot, even with the support of the majority of the Senate, appoint highly qualified individuals endorsed by the American Bar to a Federal court. He cannot conduct a war without being torn to shreds by partisans with their eyes set, not on he defeat of our enemy but on the defeat of our President. The Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests, and so impotent an 18-wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good. Andrew Young, one of the most thoughtful men in America, recently took a long and serious look at the Senate. He was thinking about making a race for it. After visiting Washington, he concluded that the Senate is composed of: A bunch of pompous, old-- And I won't use his word here, I would say ``folks''-- listening to people read statements they didn't even write and probably don't believe. The House of Representatives, theoretically the closest of all the Federal Government to the people, cannot restrain its extravagant spending nor limit our spiraling debt, and incumbents are so entrenched you might as well call off 80 percent of the House races. There are no contests. Most of the laws of the land, at least the most important and lasting ones, are made not by elected representatives of the people but by unelected, unaccountable legislators in black robes who churn out volumes of case law and hold their jobs for life. A half dozen dirty bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens and bring this Nation to its knees at any time, and yet we can't even build a fence along our border to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will cause erosion. This Government is in one hell of a mess. Frankly, as Rett Butler said--my dear, very few people up here give a damn. It is not funny. It is sad. It is tragic. And it can only get worse-- much worse. What this Government needs is one of those extreme makeovers they have on television, and I am not referring to some minor nose job or a little botox here and there. Congressional Quarterly recently devoted an issue to the mandate wars, with headlines blaring: ``Unfunded Mandates Add to Woes, States Say; Localities Get the Bill for Beefed Up Security; Transportation Money Comes With Strings, and Medicare Stuck in Funding Squabbles,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. One would think that the much heralded Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 never passed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has set the unfunded mandate figure for the States at $33 billion for 2005. This, along with the budget problems they have been having for the last few years, has put States under the heel of a distant and unresponsive government. That is us. And it gives the enthusiastic tax raisers at the State level the very excuse they are looking for to dig deeper and deeper into the pockets of their taxpayers. It is not a pretty picture. No matter who you send to Washington, for the most part smart and decent people, it is not going to change much because the individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a Republic. It is the system that stinks, and it is only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists. Perhaps, then, the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function. Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders, some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. The line on that monitor went flat some time ago. You see, the reformers of the early 1900s killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators. Up until then, Senators were chosen by State legislatures, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had so carefully crafted. Direct elections of Senators, as great and as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations. The State governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with that popular fad at the time. Today it is heresy to even think about changing the system. But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the States or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if Senators were still chosen by and responsible to the State legislatures? Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect Senators and then hold them in bondage forever. In the past five election cycles, Senators have raised over $1.5 billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the daily business of the Senate in fact is scheduled around fundraising. The 17th amendment was the death of the careful balance between State and Federal Government. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of Senators by the State legislatures was the lynchpin that guaranteed the interests of the States would be protected. Today State governments have to stand in line because they are just another one of the many special interests that try to get Senators to listen to them, and they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC. You know what the great historian Edward Gibbons said of the decline of the Roman Empire. I quote: ``The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished.'' That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the State legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special-interest tyranny and a blow to the power of State governments that would cripple them forever. Instead of Senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds as they did during the Senate's greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, we now have too many Senators who are mere cat's-paws for the special interests. It is the Senate's sorriest of times in its long, checkered, and once glorious history. Having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go splat, I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th amendment. I use the word ``would,'' not ``will,'' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single cosponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own. Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, IL, in which he called our founding principles ``a fortress of strength.'' Then he went on to warn, and again I quote, that they ``would grow more and more dim by the silent artillery of time.'' A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well the fate of our republican form of government. Too bad we didn't listen to him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak up to 12 minutes as in morning time.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, we live in perilous times. The leader of the free world's power has become so neutered he cannot, even with the support of the majority of the Senate, appoint highly qualified individuals endorsed by the American Bar to a Federal court. He cannot conduct a war without being torn to shreds by partisans with their eyes set, not on he defeat of our enemy but on the defeat of our President. The Senate has become just one big, bad, ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests, and so impotent an 18-wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good. Andrew Young, one of the most thoughtful men in America, recently took a long and serious look at the Senate. He was thinking about making a race for it. After visiting Washington, he concluded that the Senate is composed of: A bunch of pompous, old-- And I won't use his word here, I would say ``folks''-- listening to people read statements they didn't even write and probably don't believe. The House of Representatives, theoretically the closest of all the Federal Government to the people, cannot restrain its extravagant spending nor limit our spiraling debt, and incumbents are so entrenched you might as well call off 80 percent of the House races. There are no contests. Most of the laws of the land, at least the most important and lasting ones, are made not by elected representatives of the people but by unelected, unaccountable legislators in black robes who churn out volumes of case law and hold their jobs for life. A half dozen dirty bombs the size of a small suitcase planted around the country could kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens and bring this Nation to its knees at any time, and yet we can't even build a fence along our border to keep out illegals because some nutty environmentalists say it will cause erosion. This Government is in one hell of a mess. Frankly, as Rett Butler said--my dear, very few people up here give a damn. It is not funny. It is sad. It is tragic. And it can only get worse-- much worse. What this Government needs is one of those extreme makeovers they have on television, and I am not referring to some minor nose job or a little botox here and there. Congressional Quarterly recently devoted an issue to the mandate wars, with headlines blaring: ``Unfunded Mandates Add to Woes, States Say; Localities Get the Bill for Beefed Up Security; Transportation Money Comes With Strings, and Medicare Stuck in Funding Squabbles,'' et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. One would think that the much heralded Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 never passed. The National Conference of State Legislatures has set the unfunded mandate figure for the States at $33 billion for 2005. This, along with the budget problems they have been having for the last few years, has put States under the heel of a distant and unresponsive government. That is us. And it gives the enthusiastic tax raisers at the State level the very excuse they are looking for to dig deeper and deeper into the pockets of their taxpayers. It is not a pretty picture. No matter who you send to Washington, for the most part smart and decent people, it is not going to change much because the individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a Republic. It is the system that stinks, and it is only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists. Perhaps, then, the answer is a return to the original thinking of those wisest of all men, and how they intended for this government to function. Federalism, for all practical purposes, has become to this generation of leaders, some vague philosophy of the past that is dead, dead, dead. It isn't even on life support. The line on that monitor went flat some time ago. You see, the reformers of the early 1900s killed it dead and cremated the body when they allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators. Up until then, Senators were chosen by State legislatures, as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton had so carefully crafted. Direct elections of Senators, as great and as good as that sounds, allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations. The State governments aided in their own collective suicide by going along with that popular fad at the time. Today it is heresy to even think about changing the system. But can you imagine those dreadful unfunded mandates being put on the States or a homeland security bill being torpedoed by the unions if Senators were still chosen by and responsible to the State legislatures? Make no mistake about it. It is the special interest groups and their fundraising power that elect Senators and then hold them in bondage forever. In the past five election cycles, Senators have raised over $1.5 billion for their election contests, not counting all the soft money spent on their behalf in other ways. Few would believe it, but the daily business of the Senate in fact is scheduled around fundraising. The 17th amendment was the death of the careful balance between State and Federal Government. As designed by that brilliant and very practical group of Founding Fathers, the two governments would be in competition with each other and neither could abuse or threaten the other. The election of Senators by the State legislatures was the lynchpin that guaranteed the interests of the States would be protected. Today State governments have to stand in line because they are just another one of the many special interests that try to get Senators to listen to them, and they are at an extreme disadvantage because they have no PAC. You know what the great historian Edward Gibbons said of the decline of the Roman Empire. I quote: ``The fine theory of a republic insensibly vanished.'' That is exactly what happened in 1913 when the State legislatures, except for Utah and Delaware, rushed pell-mell to ratify the popular 17th amendment and, by doing so, slashed their own throats and destroyed federalism forever. It was a victory for special-interest tyranny and a blow to the power of State governments that would cripple them forever. Instead of Senators who thoughtfully make up their own minds as they did during the Senate's greatest era of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun, we now have too many Senators who are mere cat's-paws for the special interests. It is the Senate's sorriest of times in its long, checkered, and once glorious history. Having now jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality, before I hit the water and go splat, I have introduced a bill that would repeal the 17th amendment. I use the word ``would,'' not ``will,'' because I know it doesn't stand a chance of getting even a single cosponsor, much less a single vote beyond my own. Abraham Lincoln, as a young man, made a speech in Springfield, IL, in which he called our founding principles ``a fortress of strength.'' Then he went on to warn, and again I quote, that they ``would grow more and more dim by the silent artillery of time.'' A wise man, that Lincoln, who understood and predicted all too well the fate of our republican form of government. Too bad we didn't listen to him. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, after watching the harsh acrimony generated by the September 11 Commission--which, let me say at the outset, is made up of good and able members--I have come to seriously question this panel's usefulness. I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops. After being drowned in a tidal wave of all who didn't do enough before 9/11, I have come to believe that the Commission should issue a report that says: No one did enough. In the past, no one did near enough. And then thank everybody for serving, send them home, and let's get on with the job of protecting this country in the future. Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time looking backward instead of looking forward. Can you imagine handling the attack on Pearl Harbor this way? Can you imagine Congress, the media, and the public standing for this kind of political gamesmanship and finger-pointing after that day of infamy in 1941? Some partisans tried that ploy, but they were soon quieted by the patriots who understood how important it was to get on with the war and take the battle to America's enemies and not dwell on what FDR knew, when. You see, back then the highest priority was to win a war, not to win an election. That is what made them the greatest generation. I realize that many well-meaning Americans see the hearings as democracy in action. Years ago when I was teaching political science, I probably would have had my class watching it live on television and using that very same phrase with them. There are also the not-so-well-meaning political operatives who see these hearings as an opportunity to score cheap points. And then there are the media meddlers who see this as great theater that can be played out on the evening news and on endless talk shows for a week or more. Congressional hearings have long been one of Washington's most entertaining pastimes. Joe McCarthy, Watergate, Iran-Contra--they all kept us glued to the TV and made for conversations around the water coolers or arguments over a beer at the corner pub. A congressional hearing in Washington, DC is the ultimate aphrodisiac for political groupies and partisan punks. But it is not the groupies, punks, and television-sotted American public that I am worried about. This latter crowd can get excited and divided over just about anything, whether it is some off-key wannabe dreaming of being the American idol, or what brainless bimbo ``The Bachelor'' or ``Average Joe'' will choose, or who Donald Trump will fire next week. No, it is the real enemies of America that I am concerned about. These evil killers who right now are gleefully watching the shrill partisan finger-pointing of these hearings and grinning like a mule eating briars. They see this as a major split within the great Satan, America. They see anger. They see division, instability, bickering, peevishness, and dissension. They see the President of the United States hammered unmercifully. They see all this, and they are greatly encouraged. We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that. We are playing with fire. We are playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become. Dick Clarke's book and its release coinciding with these hearings have done this country a tremendous disservice and some day we will reap its whirlwind. Long ago, Sir Walter Scott observed that revenge is ``the sweetest morsel that ever was cooked in hell.'' The vindictive Clarke has now had his revenge, but what kind of hell has he, his CBS publisher, and his axe-to-grind advocates unleashed? These hearings, coming on the heels of the election the terrorists influenced in Spain, bolster and energize our evil enemies as they have not been energized since 9/11. Chances are very good that these evil enemies of America will attempt to influence our 2004 election in a similar dramatic way as they did Spain's. And to think that could never be in this country is to stick your head in the sand. That is why the sooner we stop this endless bickering over the past and join together to prepare for the future, the better off this country will be. There are some things--whether this city believes it or not--that are just more important than political campaigns. The recent past is so ripe for political second-guessing, ``gotcha,'' and Monday morning quarterbacking. And it is so tempting in an election year. We should not allow ourselves to indulge that temptation. We should put our country first. Every administration, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, bears some of the blame. Dick Clarke bears a big heap of it, because it was he who was in the catbird's seat to do something about it for more than a decade. Tragically, it was the decade in which we did the least. We did nothing after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and injuring more than a thousand Americans. We did nothing in 1996 when 16 U.S. servicemen were killed in the bombing of the Khobar Towers. When our embassies were attacked in 1998, killing 263 people, our only response was to fire a few missiles on an empty tent. Is it any wonder that after that decade of weak-willed responses to that murderous terror, our enemies thought we would never fight back? In the 1990s is when Dick Clarke should have resigned. In the 1990s is when he should have apologized. That is when he should have written his book--that is, if he really had America's best interests at heart. Now, I know some will say we owe it to the families to get more information about what happened in the past, and I can understand that. But no amount of finger-pointing will bring our victims back. So now we owe it to the future families and all of America now in jeopardy not to encourage more terrorists, resulting in even more grieving families--perhaps many times over the ones of 9/11. It is obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps--the wimps and the warriors: the ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us. In case you have not figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter. This is a time like no other time in the history of this country. This country is being crippled with petty partisan politics of the worst possible kind. In time of war, it is not just unpatriotic; it is stupid; it is criminal. So I pray that all this time, all this energy, all this talk, and all of the attention could be focused on the future instead of the past. I pray we would stop pointing fingers and assigning blame and wringing our hands about what happened on that day David AcUology has called ``the worst day in all our history'' more than 2 years ago, and instead, pour all our energy into how we can kill these terrorists before they kill us--again. Make no mistake about it: They are watching these hearings and they are scheming and smiling about the distraction and the divisiveness that they see in America. And while they might not know who said it years ago in America, they know instinctively that a house divided cannot stand. There is one other group that we should remember is listening to all of this--our troops. I was in Iraq in January. One day, when I was meeting with the 1st Armored Division, a unit with a proud history, known as Old Ironsides, we were discussing troop morale, and the commanding general said it was top notch. I turned to the division's sergeant major, the top enlisted man in the division, a big, burly 6-foot-3, 240 pound African American, and I said: ``That's good, but how do you sustain that kind of morale?'' Without hesitation, he narrowed his eyes, and he looked at me and said: ``The morale will stay high just as long as these troops know the people back home support us.'' Just as long as the people back home support us. What kind of message are these hearings and the outrageously political speeches on the floor of the Senate yesterday sending to the marvelous young Americans in the uniform of our country? I say: Unite America before it is too late. Put aside these petty partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people. Argue and argue and argue, debate and debate and debate over all the other things, such as jobs, education, the deficit, and the environment; but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point. I yield the floor. (Mrs. DOLE assumed the Chair.)

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise today to honor the 175th anniversary of the Fayetteville First Baptist Church, which has faithfully served the spiritual needs of its congregation since its humble beginnings in 1828. The church's mark and influence on the community is evident by the good works that her congregation has taken part in over the last 175 years. Fayetteville First Baptist's commitment to worship the Lord and serve the public has established it as a beacon of hope to the surrounding community and has held it in high standing among the churches of the South Metro Baptist Association. Fayetteville First Baptist's message has found its way out of the present chapel, built in 1939, and in to the greater community through its missionaries and ministers, through the sister churches that it has established, and through the spiritual and social opportunities that it has brought to so many. Our places of worship are vital to the social fabric of our Nation, and Fayetteville First Baptist is no exception. It has taken on this responsibility and remained steadfast in its mission for the last 175 years. I am proud of this wonderful church and ask that my colleagues join me in wishing its congregation a happy 175th anniversary.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I want to speak about a great veteran of the U.S. Army, Mr. Lynn Austin Monroe. Mr. Monroe is a World War II veteran who honorably and proudly served his country in the European Theater as a mess sergeant in the Sixth Field Hospital. Prior to his overseas duty, he was an instructor in the Bakers and Cooks school at Camp Pickett, VA. Major Reiber said Sergeant Monroe was the best instructor he ever had. From there he was sent to be the first mess sergeant to open the Finney General Hospital, Thomasville, GA. His next assignment was the transfer to England to serve as mess sergeant for the Sixth Field Hospital. He remained in that capacity until the war's end. Oftentimes he had to prepare meals without notice to feed a company of soldiers instead of a squadron. On one occasion, a hungry soldier came to Sergeant Monroe, who asked for a second helping of meat, which was chicken that day. The soldier said, ``The chicken is so good, it ain't nothing but a Georgia bird, anyway.'' Wish granted. That was one happy soldier. In emergency situations, the Sixth Field Hospital kitchen staff would help unload patients who were flown in from the combat zone. Sergeant Monroe's joy as a serviceman in ``The Greatest Generation'' was feeding the Army of our great country as they fought to save freedom and democracy for future generations.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. The Old Testament prophet, Amos, was a sheep herder who lived back in the Judean hills, away from the larger cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Compared to the intellectual urbanites like Isaiah and Jeremiah, Amos was just an unsophisticated country hick. But Amos had a unique grasp of political and social issues, and his poetic literary skill was among the best of all the prophets. That familiar quote of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Justice will rush down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream. . . . Those are Amos's words. Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal God and not just some tribal deity. He also wrote that God demanded moral purity, not rituals and sacrifices. This blunt-speaking moral conscience of his time warns, in Chapter 8, verse 11 of the Book of Amos, as if he were speaking to us today: The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread or of thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. ``A famine in the land,'' has anyone more accurately described the situation we face in America today? A famine of ``hearing the word of the Lord.'' Some will say Amos was just an Old Testament prophet who lived 700 years before Christ. That is true. So how about one of the most influential historians of modern times, Arnold Toynbee, who wrote the acclaimed 12-volume ``A Study of History.'' He once declared: Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them have collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today. Toynbee died in 1975, before seeing the worst that was yet to come. Yes, Arnold Toynbee saw the famine, ``the famine of hearing the word of the Lord,'' whether it is removing a display of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse or of a nativity scene from a city square, whether it is eliminating prayer in the city schools or eliminating ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance, whether it is making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman, or, yes, telecasting around the world made-in-the-USA filth masquerading as entertainment. The culture of far left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show, a show brought to us on behalf of the Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom- Babylon. I asked the question yesterday: How many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I know the President has, somewhere over there around Frog Hollow. I have, many times. I can tell you that the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a carwash and it is still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America. I am not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really, no one should have been too surprised with that. Wouldn't you expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled ``I'm Going To Get You Naked'' to end that way? Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I would quote you some of it, but the Sergeant at Arms would throw me out of this Chamber, as well he should. Then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy, evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But, then, maybe there is a culture of crotch grabbing in this country I don't know about. But as bad as all that was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing this ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having ``a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.'' Think about that. This is the same flag to which we pledge allegiance. This is the same flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors, killed while protecting Kid Crock's boney butt. He should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of this country on a rail. You talk about a good reality show? That would be one. The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about any of these so-called social issues is nonexistent and embarrassingly disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with us. They want something done. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 26, along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage; and S. 1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. Today, I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain ways. In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder, not only with my Senate cosponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, but more importantly with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us. Everyone today seems to think the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. I guess you could ask any 10 people if that is not so and I will bet you most of them will say, well, sure that is so. And some would point out that is in the First Amendment. Wrong. Read it. It says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Where is the word ``separate''? Where are the words ``church'' and ``state''? They are not there; never have been, never intended to be. Read the Congressional Record during the 4-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was anglican or Catholic or some other. I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton. It really gets into how the actual Members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it. It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that ``judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty.'' ``Bound down.'' That is exactly what is needed to be done. There was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in 1962. These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush. When Rush was elected to that First Continental Congress, his close friend Benjamin Franklin told him ``We need you . . . we have a great task before us, assigned to us by Providence.'' Today, 228 years later there is still a great task before us assigned to us by Providence. Our Founding Fathers did not shirk their duty and we can do no less. By the way, Benjamin Rush was once asked a question that has long interested this Senator from Georgia in particular. Dr. Rush was asked, Are you a democrat or an aristocrat? And the good doctor answered, ``I am neither''. ``I am a Christocrat. I believe He, alone, who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.'' That reply of Benjamin Rush is just as true today in the year of our Lord 2004 as it was in the year of our Lord 1776. So, if I am asked why--with all the pressing problems this Nation faces today--why am I pushing these social issues and taking the Senate's valuable time, I will answer: Because, it is of the highest importance. Yes, there is a deficit to be concerned about in this country, a deficit of decency. So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed--and with my time running out in this Senate and on this Earth--I feel compelled to speak out for I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not golden. It is yellow. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I stand here proudly next to a copy of the U.S. Constitution. It is a document that has stood the test of time. It is a document that is revered throughout the world. As a history professor, I have read it many times. But I need to know tonight where in the U.S. Constitution does it say the President's nominees for the judiciary must have a supermajority to be confirmed? Where does it say that? I have searched high and low for that clause and that provision. I cannot find it. Maybe these old 71-year-old eyes are getting kind of dim. Perhaps I need a magnifying glass. I seek. I search. I hunt in vain. For is it not there. Even if I had the eye of an eagle I could not find it because it is simply not there. No, the U.S. Constitution says only the Senate is to advise and consent on the President's nominees. Somehow that has been twisted and perverted into this unmitigated mess we have today where 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass anything because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat anything. Explain that to Joe Sixpack in the Wal-Mart parking lot. Explain that to this man, James Madison, who wrote that Constitution. He predicted and he feared some day someone would try to finagle this system, that they would try to plot and conspire and pervert the process in just the way they have. James Madison warned about this in Federalist Paper 58. He said: If that should happen, ``The fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule. The power would be transferred to the minority.'' But don't just take my word for it. Look at others who are far smarter, far wiser than I will ever be and how they have expressed the kinds of things that are going on around here. On June 1, 1950, a brave woman who was then the Senator from the State of Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, gave one of the most courageous speeches ever given on the floor of this Senate. It has been called the ``declaration of conscience'' speech. Senator Smith questioned what was happening at that time in the Senate. It was not about filibusters but, make no mistake, it was about intrigue, and it was about character assassination. Let me give you a few excerpts from Senator Smith: The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity. She went on: It is ironic that we senators can during debate in the Senate [and in committee], directly or indirectly, by any form of words, impute to any American who is not a Senator any conduct or any motive unworthy or becoming an American-- and without that nonsenator American having any legal redress against us. She went on: It is strange that we can verbally attack anyone without restraint and with full protection, and yet we hold ourselves above the same type of criticism here on the Senate floor. Surely, the United States Senate is big enough to take self- criticism and self-appraisal. Surely we should be able to take the same kind of character attacks we dish out to others. She continued: I think it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some real soul searching and to weigh our consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our duty for the people of America and the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges. I think it is high time we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation. So said Margaret Chase Smith in 1950. Let me tell you what Thomas Sowell, in his recent book ``The Quest for Cosmic Justice'' writes about the role of a judge: The traditional conception of the role of judges was expressed thousands of years ago by Aristotle, who said that a judge should ``be allowed to decide as few things as possible.'' His discretion should be limited to ``such points as the lawgiver has not already defined for him.'' A judge cannot ``do justice'' directly in the cases before him. This view was strongly expressed in a small episode in the life of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After having lunch [one day] with Judge Learned Hand, Holmes entered his carriage to be driven away. As he left, Judge Hand's parting salute was: ``Do justice, sir, do justice.'' Holmes ordered the carriage stopped. ``That is not my job,'' Holmes said to Judge Hand. ``It is my job to apply the law.'' Elsewhere Holmes wrote that his primary responsibility as a judge was ``to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.'' Lastly, I want to quote a Georgian named Phil Kent. In his book ``The Dark Side of Liberalism,'' he takes the liberal argument in this controversy and states it. He says: The United States [according to the liberals, according to the Democrats in this debate we are in today] comprises diverse people and cultures. As such, judges should have the power to change laws when circumstances dictate. The U.S. Constitution is a document in flux, and is many times irrelevant in modern society. Therefore, federal judges should be chosen on the basis of their views or the positions of their issues and should be tested on their ideologies. That is what the Democrats have been saying to us in all this debate. Then Kent answered that premise: We are a nation of laws, not of men. Our government is constitutional, not political. Our highest court is the arbiter of constitutional controversies, and the protector of unalienable rights. As former President Ronald Reagan underscored, ``Freedom is indivisible--there is no ``s'' on the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and choose to keep some freedoms while giving up others.'' Ignoring the law, whether seen as politically expedient or ideologically sound, suggests that the courts are merely devices to be used to change policy. The courts, however, are partners with specific duties separate and apart from lawmaking and law execution. We've missed that point as a nation for too long, to our great peril. That brings me to this map of the United States. I ask you to look at the faces on this map. They are the faces of America. These are the faces of America. There is Miguel Estrada, who spoke little English when he came to this country as a teenage immigrant from Honduras. But a few years later, this immigrant graduated magna cum laude from Columbia College in New York and from Harvard Law School. He clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy on the highest court in this land, the U.S. Supreme Court. He continued to soar with a very distinguished law career. Yet the Democrats in this Chamber have decided this man could not even have an up-or-down vote. It is a shame, and it is a disgrace. There is Bill Pryor, a devout Catholic and a southerner who grew up in a house where both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were revered. He graduated magna cum laude from Northeast Louisiana University and Tulane University Law School. He also has had a very distinguished law career, including winning statewide election twice as Alabama's attorney general. Yet the Democrats in this Senate will not give him an up-or-down vote. Then there is Charles Pickering, another southerner, a grandfather, a courageous and a deeply religious man. He graduated at the top of his law school class at the University of Mississippi, served in elective office for 12 years, practiced law for 30 years, and has served this country ably on the U.S. District Court since 1990. Yet the Democrats in this Senate refuse to give Judge Pickering an up-or-down vote. There is Priscilla Owen, who grew up on a farm in rural Texas and later rose to win election to the Supreme Court of Texas. Along the way she graduated in the top of her class at Baylor University Law School and practiced law for 17 years. In her successful reelection bid to the Supreme Court in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed her. Yet in this Senate, this woman cannot get an up-or-down vote. Finally, there is Janice Rogers Brown. I have spent a lot of time with this woman. I have read dozens of her speeches. I love and admire her. The daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who rose to serve on the California Supreme Court, she attended segregated schools until she was in high school and decided to become a lawyer after seeing African- American attorneys in the civil rights movement praised for their courage. In 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted to retain Justice Brown, an approval rating most of us can only dream of. Yet this African-American woman will not be given an up-or-down vote because the Democrats in this Chamber refuse to let her do it. They are standing in the doorway and they have a sign: Conservative African-American women need not apply, and if you have the temerity to do so, your reputation will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded. Gal, you will be lynched. These are the faces of America, men and women who pulled themselves up, who worked hard, who played by the rules, and excelled in the field of law, and now all of their hard work and success has landed them in the doorway of the Senate, and each one of them is having that door slammed in their faces. The very least they deserve, the very least they deserve is an up-or-down vote. Surely, in the name of all that is fair and reasonable, surely, in the name of James Madison, surely in the United States of America in 2003, that is not too much to ask, just an up-or-down vote, just an up-or-down vote, just an up-or-down vote. The majority of this Senate deserves to have its voice heard.