Zell Miller

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I yield 41 seconds to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Miller-Gramm-Hutchinson of Arkansas amendment to protect pickup trucks. Our amendment is very simple. In fact, I cannot remember seeing a more simple amendment ever offered on the floor of the Senate. It is easy for all of you to understand. And I will tell you something else that is important, it is easy for the folks back home to understand. Pickups are now required to meet a standard of 20.7 miles per gallon. This amendment simply says that standard cannot be increased. The only thing greater than its simplicity is its fairness. We absolutely should not impose an undue safety risk and extra cost of higher CAFE standards on our farmers or on our rural families or on our carpenters, plumbers, painters, electricians--those small businesses that rely so heavily on the pickup that keeps our Nation moving. These are the hard-working people with calloused hands who build our homes and work our farms. They are the forgotten Americans who work from dawn to dark and then turn on the headlights of their pickup so they can see to work another hour. They never ask us for anything they have not earned. All too often in this great citadel of the people we turn our backs on these folks. They have no lobbyists. They don't have a single one; pickup pops are not organized. No soft money comes from them, and not much hard money. They are too busy working. As the pickup goes, so goes the very heart and muscle of this great country. If you apply higher CAFE standards to pickups, you will make them unaffordable for some and you will make them unsafe for all. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for the working man. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for rural America. A ``no'' vote is a vote against the working man. A ``no'' vote is a vote against rural America. In 1 year alone, the year before last, working people in this country bought 3,180,000 pickup trucks in 29 of our States. Pickups account for between 20 percent and 37.4 percent of all registered vehicles. Folks across this country buy pickups, not just because they are affordable and not just because they are safe. They also buy them because they have to have them. They have to have them to do their work. Pickups are as essential to the carpenter as his hammer; as essential to the painter as his paintbrush. So we must leave this American workhorse, the pickup truck, alone. Don't pick on the pickup.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise today in defense of that great American workhorse: The pickup truck. I am proud to sponsor, along with my friend, Senator Gramm of Texas, an amendment that would exempt all pickup trucks from the higher CAFE standards that have been proposed. This is a very simple and short amendment. Pickups are now required to meet a standard of 20.7 miles per gallon, and our amendment would simply freeze pickups at that standard. All pickups would be exempt from any higher mileage standard proposed in this legislation. Some have said we should only exempt the very largest pickups from the higher standards. That would only cover a small percentage of the pickups that are on the road, and I do not think that is good enough. Our amendment says all pickups will be exempt from the higher CAFE standards. We absolutely should not impose these higher mileage standards on our pickups. We absolutely should not impose the undue safety risk and extra cost of these CAFE standards on our farmers, our rural families, and our small businesses that rely so heavily on the pickup. We have had a lot of conversation about the state of the economy these days, and we hang on every word of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and the like, about the recession and when we are coming out of it. I knew a fellow back in Georgia. He did not have a Ph.D. in economics; he would have thought Ph.D. stood for ``post hole digger.'' But he was one of the wisest men I ever knew. He told me years ago that if you really want to know when times are bad, take notice of the number of people having to sell their pickups. Look at the ads in the paper and the ``for sale'' signs in the yards. The more you see, the worse it is because pickups are the very symbol of the working man. As the pickup goes, so does the working man and the very heart of this country. Madam President, a pickup truck has two ends to it: A working end and a thinking end. Of course, the working end is the engine in the front. I would like to tell you about the thinking end in the back. I submit that the back of a pickup is the think tank of rural America. I suspect more problems have been solved on the tailgates of pickup trucks after a long day's work than have been solved anywhere. I do not rise to speak often in this hallowed Chamber. I am still learning the complexities of being a Senator. I envy my learned colleagues who can speak with such great assurance on so many subjects. But, Madam President, on this one you can trust this man from the mountains of North Georgia. If this amendment fails, the tailgates of rural America are going to drop, and it will be a clank that will reverberate from now through November because then the conversation at the end of the day on the back of a pickup as the Sun goes down will not be about the farm or the family or the State or the Nation; the subject will be how to get rid of us in the next election. Every election year we talk a lot about all those soccer moms out there and how they vote in such high percentages. Well, there is another group out there that votes in a very high percentage. They are the pickup pops. In fact, I would bet pickup pops go to the polls in higher percentages than any other Democratic group out there, and they also have long memories. If these higher CAFE standards are applied to pickups, they will be made unaffordable for many, and unsafe for all, and that will hurt those pickup pops. It will hurt the working man. It will hurt rural America. We are big on acronyms in Congress, and quite frankly they can be a little deceiving and confusing. I cannot even keep up with all of them. When we talk about CAFE and CAFE standards, most folks think we are talking about restaurants. People in rural America also understand what an acronym is, and I think on this issue they would say that ``pickup,'' P-I-C-K-U-P, is an acronym for ``People in Congress Keep Us Perplexed.'' Let us not keep them perplexed anymore. One of the first things I noticed when I came to Washington, DC is that you hardly ever see a pickup. They are scarce in Washington, DC, but they are not scarce outside the beltway, out there in middle America. I want to show this chart. In 1999, pickup trucks accounted for almost 18 percent of all registered vehicles in this country. In 29 States, these red and blue States--that is more than half of our States, of course--pickups amounted to as much as 20 to 37 percent of all the registered vehicles. In the year 2000, drivers in this country bought 3.18 million pickup trucks. That makes pickups the third most popular choice of vehicle for American drivers. So pickups may not be prevalent in Washington, DC, but pickups are popular across the rest of America. When all this talk about CAFE started last year, I got worried Washington was going to stick it to the pickup owners of this Nation, so I tried to write a song about it. I am no Orrin Hatch, but I tried to write a song about it with my good friend, Jack Clement, in Nashville. It is called the ``Talking Pickup Truck Blues.'' I will spare everyone the agony of my singing, but I want to share one verse. It goes something like this: Sure, an SUV is classy travel, but it ain't much good for hauling gravel, or hay seed or bovine feces. So please do not make my pickup truck an endangered species. Now, I will be the first to admit that song has not climbed to the top of the charts, but here is the point we are making: Do not mess with the working machine of the American road. Do not mess with pickups. Farmers depend on them. Families in rural America depend on them. Small businesses across this country depend on them, small businesses such as construction companies and home builders. One of the greatest economic engines we have in this country is the housing industry. You can go to any construction site across America and see at least a half dozen pickups. Plumbers drive them. Electricians drive them. Painters drive them. Carpenters drive them. Raise the cost of a pickup truck and more than just pickup owners will be harmed; entire industries will be hurt--the housing industry and others that rely heavily on pickups. Folks buy pickups not because they are affordable and they are safe. They buy them because they get the job done, whatever that job may be, whether it is pulling a trailer full of cattle or hauling lumber to a construction site or driving on gravel and dirt roads in rural America. There are times when only a pickup will do. So I urge my colleagues, who represent the millions of pickup owners across this country, when this amendment comes up at a later date to vote for this amendment. We must exempt the American workers, the pickup truck, from these higher CAFE standards. Like the last verse in my song goes: So help us, Lord, and let there be a little wisdom in D.C.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise to recognize Colonel Phillip R. Hutcherson, United States Marine Corps, on the occasion of his retirement from active duty. Colonel Hutcherson has served our great Nation and the Marine Corps for more than 26 years. Prior to being commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, Colonel Hutcherson attended the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD. Colonel Hutcherson's Military Occupational Specailty was that of a Marine ``Cobra'' pilot. The AH-1 attack helicopter provides the Marine infantry with close air support. It also serves as an armed escort and performs reconnaissance in support of the Marine Air Ground Task Force. Colonel Hutcherson recently concluded his Marine Corps career working in the Marine Corps' Legislative Affairs Office of Headquarters, Marine Corps. For more than four years, he has interacted with the U.S. Congress in order to explain funding requirements to congressional Members and their staffs. His efforts in this capacity were enormously important to educating the Congress on the importance of Marine Corps' aviation in particular. Colonel Hutcherson has performed his weighty and challenging duties with steadfast commitment and unrivaled professionalism. The U.S. Senate has been fortunate to have a Marine Officer of his caliber perform liaison duties with us. The Congress and the Marine Corps have benefited immensely from Colonel Hutcherson's wise counsel and candid nature. I wish him and his lovely wife, Marney, all the best as they enter a new chapter of their lives and pursue interests outside of the Marine Corps. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. MILLER

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

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I lay an amendment on the desk with modification.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, the legislative language of this farm bill explicitly terminates the peanut quota system effective with the 2002 crop. The bill also provides that the Secretary of Agriculture is to enter into contracts that will compensate quota owners for the lost of their quota.

Mr. MILLER. If we end up with a 5-year farm bill as a result of the House-Senate conference, my quota owners would have no problem in having their quota bought our over 4 years. Therefore, I commit to the Senator to work with the House-Senate conferees to ensure that we end the quota owner buy-out contract 1 year shy of any farm bill reauthorization.

Mr. MILLER. Ever-expanding peanut imports are threatening the current and future viability of the peanut industry in Georgia and other peanut-producing and manufacturing states. Peanut growers, shellers, and manufacturers will come under increasing pressure as peanut production and peanut processing infrastructure moves offshore. I am pleased to say that this new peanut program offers a positive resolution for the entire peanut industry, and the new program ensures that the U.S. peanut sector is competitive in the world marketplace.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is an amendment that we believe will help ease the transition from the peanut quota system to the new market-oriented program. This amendment would increase the compensation for quota holders from 10 cents per pound to 11 cents per pound. This amendment that we offer today--the Cleland-Miller-Helms amendment--will go a long way to help citizens in more than 15 States make the transition to the new peanut program. I may be back later, Mr. President, if further debate is needed on this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to further modify amendment No. 2832, offered by Senator Cleland and myself.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Edwards, Warner, Allen, and Sessions be added as cosponsors and that the amendment, as further modified, be agreed to.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous consent to have 2 more minutes.

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues from Iowa, North Dakota, and Indiana. But I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it would not only cripple the agricultural community across this Nation, it would wipe out agriculture as we know it in the South. Passage of this amendment would result in many traditional family farms going out of business in many States. Do you know what this amendment says to the South? It says: Hold still, little catfish, all I'm going to do is just gut you. Hold still. It says to the South: Step right up. Here's a new and improved farm bill. But because you had to expand and because you had to diversify to stay in business, you are not going to be eligible. This is trying to change the rules in the eighth inning. A change in the rules this late in the game would create tremendous strains on producers to meet the new compliance standards. The Farm Service Agency is already going to be overwhelmed by many of the new programs included in this bill. This amendment would result in increased costs, both to the Government and to farmers. Supporters of this amendment say that these payments go to the few and the big. I could not disagree more. This amendment punishes the farmer and his family who depend solely on the farm for their livelihood. In my part of the country, a farmer must have a substantial operation just to make ends meet. Don't let these big numbers fool you; these farmers each year take risks equal to or greater than those of their brethren with smaller operations. In fact, I would argue that they are in greater need of support because they are forced to be big in order to be competitive. Some argue that these payments go to a small number of big farms. Those who say that need to look at the USDA statistics manual. It shows that by far the same big farms produce 80 percent of our agricultural products. We should be supporting those who are fueling this economic engine, not hobby farmers who paint a Norman Rockwell picture of rural America that has passed us by. We pay a lot of lip service to wanting this country to compete internationally. It is wrong to punish those who pursue economies of scale in order to do what we preach in our speeches. I hate to say it, but this amendment is not just about changing farm policy; it is about changing social policy. Unfortunately, there are some organizations that want to intimidate or embarrass family farmers by disclosing personal financial information. Then there are some environmental groups that, I am also sorry to say, release statements that are both overstated and misleading. In the name of common sense, why should anyone want to punish family farmers who have made investments, large investments, in order to become competitive in an international marketplace? Why are we trying to hurt farmers who only wish to provide a decent living for their families, even though they are facing soaring costs of production? They do not deserve that kind of treatment. They are already facing the lowest commodity prices in decades. Why, why, would anyone want to limit assistance during this time, a time when our farmers really need it the most? This is a diverse and distinguished Senate with Members who have all kinds of experience. But I doubt there is a single Member of this Senate who has ever bought a cotton picker. Do you know what a cotton picker costs today? The average price for a new cotton picker off the John Deere lot in Albany, GA, is about a quarter of a million dollars, and if you are an average farmer in south Georgia, you are going to need two of them--and that is just the beginning of the equipment needs. There are tractors and grain carts and trucks--all are needed to get a crop out. By the way, do you know where those cotton pickers are made? In a great State--Iowa. I wonder if those employees of that manufacturing plant support this amendment. The cost of producing crops today is several hundred dollars per acre. Reduced payment limits and increased benefit targeting fly in the face of skyrocketing production costs and record low commodity prices.

Mr. MILLER. I will close by saying this. We have a pretty simple question here, and it really goes to the heart of this amendment, and it goes to the heart of each individual Senator. Are we going to reduce Government support when farmers need it the most? Today, in this land of plenty, our farmers who produce that plenty are looking into a double-barreled shotgun. I plead with this Senate not to pull the trigger. If you vote for this amendment, you will. In fact, this amendment would give less support to southern farmers than the current farm bill does. It would limit individual rights to pursue an adequate way of life in many regions of the country, and it would result in widespread failure for thousands of American family farmers. Let's face it, this amendment is a poison pill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the sequence of speakers already established, Senator Clinton be recognized following Senator Bond.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I hear today we are about to have a funeral, that the stimulus bill is on life support, and that the plug will be pulled sometime today. The cause of death? Partisan politics. It is a shame, although perhaps the money can now be applied to the deficit, which has concerned some of us, and we will be closer to a balanced budget. The soon-to-be-deceased could have been saved. We had a reasonable compromise right before we adjourned for Christmas. The President supported it. Some Democrats, including this one, supported it. It had a majority of the votes in the Senate. Right now, if it had passed, it could have already been signed, the rebates could be being prepared, a reasonable health care benefit could have been a reality--such promise. Who was it who wrote that the saddest words of word or pen are that it might have been--something like that? This week we could have made the tax cut permanent. We could have added a capital gains tax cut. That is what Senator Gramm and I have advocated for some time. No one ever stated so well how powerful an effect a cut in the capital gains tax could have on the economy as a Democrat, President John F. Kennedy. I quote: The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions . . . the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more dynamic situations . . . the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital . . . and thereby the strength and potential for growth of the economy. That was Jack Kennedy, not the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal or Lawrence Kudlow or Phil Gramm or Bob Novak. That was John Kennedy, a Democrat. Over the years, he was not the only member of my party who advocated cutting the capital gains tax as a good way to stimulate the economy. Senator Patrick Moynihan, that wise and brilliant former Member of this body, consistently advocated it over the years. What history shows is that, once upon a time, Democrats were tax cutters. I wish I could bring that time back. I rise today to strongly advocate making the tax cut we passed last year permanent and to cut the capital gains tax rate. Unfortunately, the tax cut we passed last year, although it was a great tax cut, was compromised on its way to final passage. What started out as a broad, immediate, and permanent tax cut became one where some of the tax relief is delayed by several years. Then to add insult to injury, the whole thing is to be repealed in 2010. We do something that, to my knowledge, Congress never had the gall to do before on a broad basis. We sunset individual tax cuts. We have done that several times with business tax revisions. But to individuals, to families, we have never done it where we gave them their money back and then took it away again later. That is playing games with our taxpayers. We should never do that. Eliminate the uncertainty of this tax cut and you will stimulate our economy. How can anyone make any long-range plans for a business or for a family with a here-today, maybe-gone-tomorrow tax cut, a tax cut that has a perishable date on it like a quart of milk? The fastest way to show taxpayers we are serious about tax relief-- the only way, really--is to make the tax cut permanent. The fastest way to prompt businesses to expand and to invest is to cut the capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent. We are not in a slump just because consumer sales are down. We are in a slump because venture capital fell 74 percent in the past year. Capital spending by businesses is at its lowest in decades. As Senator Gramm said, every time we have cut the capital gains rate--every time--tax revenues have risen, not fallen, and asset values have always shot up. Today a capital gains tax cut would bring even better results because today's stock market is no longer the playground of the rich. Almost half of all Americans now own stock, and almost a third--one out of three--who earn less than $30,000 a year own stock. Aren't those the people whom we Democrats say we want to help? The American middle class has become, for the first time in our history, the American investment class. So as I eulogize this soon-to-be-deceased, I think of the bruised and battered Marlon Brando's ``On The Waterfront''--what could have been. We could have had a contender.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, our farmers are hurting, and they are facing an uncertain future. They desperately need the stability this farm bill will offer them. Because we failed to act in December, many bankers are balking at issuing loans to farmers. The bankers want a guarantee that there will be a new farm bill this season, or, at the very least, a disaster relief package. And our farmers cannot operate without loans. Their livelihood depends on getting that bank loan each season. So, we've left them in limbo, anxiously awaiting our next move. That is why we must pass this farm bill as soon as possible. Remember, the 1996 farm bill didn't pass until April of that year, and it was still able to be implemented for that year's growing season. We will be able to do the same this year if we pass a bill early this spring. I worked hard on the Agriculture Committee to protect the interests of Georgia and the Southeast. The bill we came up with is good for Georgia. It provides more assistance for peanuts and cotton, and most Georgia agriculture groups had displayed a rare unity in rallying around it. We must pass this farm bill and get it to the President as quickly as possible. Our farmers and the rural areas they breathe life into cannot afford for us to put it off any longer.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I, too, will have a few remarks on the economic stimulus bill. I think a decision not to have a straight up- or-down vote on it and let the majority of this Senate prevail, regardless of the makeup of the majority, is a mistake. I know it is a loss for the country and the folks who need our help and need it immediately. Why do we always have to act as if we are in a football game where one side, one team, has to win and the other team has to lose? Why can't we have both parties the winners, along with the American people? Myself, when it gets down to the block, I am kind of a half-a-loaf man. Whether it is 75 percent, 65 percent, or 50 percent, when you get right down to it, that is always better than zero percent. You can eat half a loaf. Having no loaf at all may make a political point, but in the end somebody goes hungry. This is not the House bill. I could never have supported that bill. I would never have voted for it. This compromise package does not include everything either side wanted. Instead, it represents a reasonable compromise. Some say speeding up the reduction of the tax rates from 27 percent to 25 percent is just helping the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The folks who benefit from this are folks who earn as little as $27,000 a year, going up to $67,000 a year. For married couples, this rate reduction would help those who earn between $47,000 to $120,000 a year. Those are not the wealthy or the rich. Those are middle-income Americans. Many are our friends and organized labor. This bill also includes a $300 rebate for those who did not get anything from the earlier tax cut. On the health insurance area, we recognize the need to help the unemployed by providing health insurance for them. This is a very significant change. This is a dramatic change and should be welcomed by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Some argue that the best way to give laid-off workers access to health care is to provide a 75-percent subsidy for COBRA premiums, as well as access to State Medicaid Programs. Others disagreed and preferred a broader tax credit for health insurance premiums. This package falls somewhere in between, providing a 60-percent advanceable, refundable tax credit for all health insurance. It is not a whole loaf for anyone, but it represents a practical solution, and it is the best way to do what we all want; that is, to help the workers and help them before it is too late. The package also includes help for State governments, something our Governors and legislators desperately need right now. It provides almost $5 billion in payments to State Medicaid Programs. This does not represent everything States or many of us wanted. I was hoping to get a fix for the upper payment limit but, again, it is half a loaf. As it is, we have no loaf. We have no loaf at all. We do not even have a slice. Who was it who said, Let them eat cake? I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice of support to this amendment by Senator Helms. I would like to thank the distinguished senior Senator from North Carolina for his leadership and dedication in crafting this important legislation. I am proud to cosponsor it with him. He has worked hard with the Bush administration to write a bill that meets the President's approval, and I commend him for doing so. Senator Helms outlined the details on what this legislation is intended to do, so I will just make some brief comments on why I believe it is so important. As Senator Helms stated, this legislation is designed to protect American troops and officials from the potential of illegitimate and politicized prosecutions under the auspices of an International Criminal Court. When just 13 more nations ratify the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court will be empowered, and Americans could be subject to its prosecutorial authority. This could happen even though the United States has not ratified the treaty. We ask a lot of our military. They are at risk right now in Afghanistan. They are stretched to the limit, and are engaged in missions around the globe that include peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. In the conduct of these missions, we must provide them the tools to succeed. Exposing our troops to ICC prosecutions is tantamount to not adequately equipping them for the mission. Rules of engagement for many military missions are complex enough--our military doesn't need to be further burdened by the specter of the ICC when making critical deadly force decisions. I have heard some of the arguments against this legislation. Some think it demonstrates U.S. arrogance and a unilateralist attitude. Others believe it somehow compromises our commitment to the promotion of human rights and the prosecution of war crimes. I appreciate those concerns, but in my opinion, the well-being and protection of our military trumps those arguments every time. We should be concerned over world perception in terms of our commitment to addressing war crimes, genocide, and other human rights issues. However, I don't believe any reasonable government could accuse us of not being the world's leader in all of these areas. The suggestion that the United States is not supportive of human rights because we refuse to ratify a questionable treaty just doesn't compute. Some would advocate that we should ratify this treaty and try to fix its deficiencies after the ICC is created. That is laughable to me. How many of us would sign a contract for anything before negotiating the details? It makes more sense to have this proposed legislation as an insurance policy and then negotiate, rather than negotiate without it and potentially place our people at risk. I remind my distinguished colleagues of the concern we all had when the Chinese held our EP-3 crew for 11 days. And they were only detained--not prosecuted. Now image American service members being subjected an unfair ICC prosecution without U.S. consent. This cold happen to some those brave troops that are eating dust and risking their lives in Afghanistan to protect America. I would never want to look a family member in the eye and know that I did not do everything possible to prevent such a prosecution because of concern over world perception, or offending their governments. This legislation seeks to provide that much-deserved protection. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. As responsible lawmakers, we are obligated to provide them this legislative protection. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Kay, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges.