Zell Miller

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, very shortly we will be back on the subject of homeland security. As this debate on homeland security goes on, I hope no one will forget that it is being held in the shadows of the fallen towers of the World Trade Center. The smoldering fires may have gone out, the acrid smell may no longer burn our nostrils, the strains of ``Amazing Grace'' from the bagpipes may no longer fill the air, but, make no mistake about it, the need to protect this country and prevent this from ever happening again is just as urgent. How does the Senate meet this, one of the greatest challenges of our time? I will tell you. We talk and talk and talk. Then we pause to go out on the steps of the Capitol to sing ``God Bless America'' with our best profile to the camera. Then we come back inside and show our worst profile to the country. I have not seen many cloture resolutions I did not like. I can't remember the last time I voted against one because I am almost always in favor of speeding things up around here. Too often, the Senate reminds me of Will Shakespeare's words: Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day. But the cloture vote that is before us now is one that I cannot support. We have wasted so many precious days, days that we could ill afford to waste, days that gave our enemies more time to plot their next attack. And now, all of a sudden, we want to invoke cloture to stop the debate in its tracks. Well, I will vote ``no.'' Because, make no mistake about it, invoking cloture will prevent this Senate from having a choice, a choice between a bill the President will sign and one that he will veto. We must give the President the flexibility to respond to terrorism on a moment's notice. He has to be able to shift resources, including personnel, at the blink of an eye. So why do we hold so dear a personnel system that was created in 1883 and is as outdated as an ox-cart on an expressway? I will tell you why. Because by keeping the status quo, there are votes to be had and soft money to be pocketed. That is the dirty little secret. When the civil service was established well over a century ago, it had a worthy goal--to create a professional work force that was free of political cronyism. Back then, it was valid. But too often in government we pass laws to fix the problems of the moment and then we keep those laws on the books for years and years without ever following up to see if they are still needed. The truth of the matter is that a solution from the 19th century is posing a problem in the 21st, especially when this country is threatened in such a different and sinister way. Presently, we are operating under a system of governmental gout and personnel paralysis. Despite its name, our civil service system has nothing to do with civility. It offers little reward for good workers. It provides lots of cover for bad workers. Hiring a new federal employee can take 5 months--5 months. Firing a bad worker takes more than a year--if it is even allowable--because of the mountains of paper work, hearings, and appeals. A Federal worker caught drunk on the job can't be fired for 30 days, and then he has the right to insist on endless appeals. Productivity should be the name of the game. And we lose productivity when bad folks hold onto jobs forever or when jobs go unfilled for months. It is no wonder there is resentment among out many good employees. I would be resentful, too, if I watched bad workers kept on the payroll and given the same pay raises by managers who are intimidated by the complicated process of firing or even disciplining them. A few years ago, there was a best selling book entitled, ``The Death of Common Sense,'' written by a man named Phillip Howard. I liked it so well and thought it was so on target that I gave all my agency heads a copy and had them read it. Then, I had Mr. Howard come to Georgia and speak to all of them. Its thesis was that ``universal requirements that leave no room for judgment are almost never fair, even when the sole point is to assure fairness,'' to use his very words. It is still very timely and even more pertinent to the Federal Government than to State government. President Bush has called his efforts to bring security to our Nation and justice to our enemies a ``relentless march.'' This Senator is ready to fall into formation with our President's ``relentless march.'' Because when it comes to protecting the jobs of Federal workers or protecting the lives of American citizens, I know where I stand. This is a country with 8,500 miles of border; a country that 500 million people enter each year; a country where 16 million containers a year enter our ports from foreign countries, and where more than 1.2 million international flights occur. The daunting task of securing this country is almost incomprehensible. Let's not make it more difficult by tying this President's hands and the hands of every President who comes after him. Why are some automatically assuming that the folks who will run this Department will abuse their positions and mistreat Federal employees? Instead of assuming the worst, why aren't we seeking to create the strongest, most efficient Department we can create? And don't forget this: Many previous Presidents--beginning with President John F. Kennedy--have found it necessary to exempt agencies from unionization and collective bargaining systems when it was in the interest of national security. Dozens of Federal agencies are currently not covered by the Federal Labor Management Relations Act: the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the air marshals within the FAA, and the list goes on. And yet the tens of thousands of employees in these agencies have been treated fairly and well. Today, there are some 800 pages in the Federal Code that already generously guarantee rights, benefits and protections for employees-- 800 pages worth. Now, I respect and thank the many good, hard-working Federal employees. And I have tried to imagine myself in these workers' places at this particular time in history. I am an old believer in that line by that wonderful Georgia songwriter, Joe South, ``Before you abuse, criticize or accuse, walk a mile in my shoes.'' But perhaps it is because I have worked for $3 a day and was glad to have a job that I find their union bosses' refusal to budge for the greater good of this country so surprising. Union politics may be important, but it should never take the place of national security. We are at a most serious time in the history of this land. Our country, our people are in mortal danger. And as I look at what is transpiring around me, this old history teacher cannot help but think about what the timid and indecisive Neville Chamberlain was told by a Member of Parliament as he was being dismissed as the Prime Minister of Great Britain. ``You have sat too long for the good that you have done,'' the Member told him. ``You have sat too long for the good that you have done.'' I am sorry to say it, but on this question of homeland security, I believe that most Americans think that this Senate has sat too long for the good that we have done. And as Chamberlain slunk away that historic day, the crowd shouted after him, ``Go, go, go.'' Then, you remember, Winston Churchill, who had been a voice in the wilderness warning for years about the threat of Hitler, became Prime Minister. And in that famous speech to Parliament in May of 1940, he uttered those famous words, ``I have nothing to offer but blood, tears, toil, and sweat.'' Madam President, what does this Senate have to offer? What do we have to offer in this time of crisis? How about a little bipartisanship, perhaps? That is not too much to ask, is it, compared to blood, tears, toil, and sweat? Because, as Churchill continued in that speech, ``We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind.'' We certainly have that today, an ordeal of the most grievous kind. Churchill went on: We have before us many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word-- victory--victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. Without victory, there is no survival. And then Churchill said this: At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say ``Come, then let us go forward together with our united strength.'' Then, Clement Attlee, the leader of the opposing Labor Party, joined with Churchill as his Deputy Prime Minister and they worked together during the course of the war. Why can't we have something like that around here now? Is that too much to ask when we are in a death struggle for the soul of mankind? So, Madam President, I have made my choice. When it comes to choosing between an aged, arthritic civil service system filled with stumbling blocks and booby traps, or an agile agency that is nimble and responsive on the other, this American stands with his President. I have made my choice. When it comes to choosing between real homeland security that protects somebody's life or homebound insecurity that protects somebody's job, this American stands with his President. Deep down, I know that I am not the only one on my side of the aisle who feels this way. And I hope that I will not be the only one on my side of the aisle who votes with the President. Seldom has there been--on any issue--a greater need for united, bipartisan support to make that ``relentless march'' to bring security to our Nation and justice to our enemies. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise today to remember a great Georgian, a 35-year veteran executive of the media industry and a staunch leader in the fight against prostate cancer. William A. Schwartz died today at the age of 63 from the disease that he fought so tirelessly to defeat. His endless passion, devotion, drive, and caring for his family, friends, and community, along with his unwavering commitment to save lives from cancer, will always be remembered. After being diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1994, Bill dedicated himself to fighting the disease by bringing national attention to it and by lobbying for crucial research dollars. Bill served as vice chairman and volunteer CEO of the National Prostate Cancer Coalition and president of the Prostate Cancer Research Political Action Committee. His work also included cancer projects for the Department of Defense and the National Dialogue on Cancer. His work will continue to benefit countless men and families for many years to come. Bill was the former president and COO of Cox Enterprises and held various executive positions with the company in New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta between 1973 and 1987. In the 1990s, he served as president and part owner of Cannell Communications and First Media Television and was chairman, CEO, and partner of Capital Cable. A native of Detroit, Bill received a BS degree from Wayne State University in 1961 and did graduate work at Baruch College. After his military service in the Army Security Agency, he began his broadcasting career in New York with NBC. He eventually moved to Cleveland, OH, and helped put WUAB-TV on the air, and many years later purchased the station with several partners. Always a music lover, Bill was a professional drummer, playing in jazz trios throughout college and his time in the Army. He marched in President John F. Kennedy's inaugural parade in college, and toured the Mediterranean with the USO. An Atlanta resident for 23 years, Bill was also a philanthropist who generously donated his time as well as financial support. I send my heartfelt sympathies to Bill's wife of 39 years, Marlene, and to their children and grandchildren.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I would be happy not to make any remarks and we vote right now. I am not anxious to follow Senator Hollings in this debate. But if we are not going to have a vote right now, then I think I will make some remarks.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I believe that my timing could have been a little better.

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, as I started to say, my timing could be somewhat better than following my good friend from South Carolina. No one in this body or outside of this body has more respect, more admiration, and more downright affection for someone than I do for the Senator from South Carolina. His record as Lieutenant Governor, as Governor, and as Senator for 35 years is stuff of which legends are made. On this issue, unfortunately, I disagree with him, because I rise today in support of this amendment. Our airline pilots are among the most highly trained professionals in all of the American workforce. Every day millions of Americans put their lives in the hands of airline pilots, and we have great reason to give them our trust. Thanks to literally thousands and thousands of hours of training, commercial airline pilots have made aviation our Nation's safest form of public transportation. But since September 11, our Nation's pilots are faced with a grave new danger: Homicidal fanatics who think nothing of using our airplanes to kill themselves and as many Americans as they can. With these new threats, the American public has uniformly called for giving the pilots every measure of protection possible in order to make our skies safer. But there are some folks who are leery of putting their trust in our Nation's pilots. I cannot understand the logic that says we can trust someone with a Boeing 747 in bad weather, but we cannot trust that same person with a Glock 9 millimeter. The folks who oppose arming pilots say we should put our trust elsewhere. We have heard about making the doors stronger. We have heard about security screeners. The Senator from California talked about the recent examples in the airports in New York where so many went through with things that they should not have had in their luggage. We all know how that is. We travel. We see it. Deep down we know it is a screening process that our Nation's Transportation Security Administration's own studies show fails one out of every four times. So let's face it, if our pilots were failing one out of every four landings, America would not be putting our trust in them to keep us safe. Our Nation's air safety plan has multiple levels, from little steps such as banning nail clippers, all the way up to authorizing military fighter aircraft to shoot down a commercial jetliner filled with innocent passengers. Why is there not--somewhere between banning nail clippers and shooting down the plane, somewhere between those two extremes--some room for allowing a trained pilot to use a handgun to defend the cockpit? Some critics have worried what might happen if terrorists got hold of the gun, to which I would answer: Nothing worse than if terrorists got control of the aircraft. Others wonder what happens if a bullet goes astray in the fight with a terrorist. Could it damage the aircraft? I would answer: Yes, but not nearly as much as a missile that would be fired at the aircraft if terrorists took control. If you have any doubts about how the American public feels about this subject, ask them this question: If you had to choose between flying on an airline with pilots who were armed to protect the cockpit and an airline whose pilots were unarmed, which would you choose? I am convinced they would overwhelmingly choose to fly with armed pilots, and I am just as convinced that terrorists would prefer to fly with defenseless pilots. That is why I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment to train and arm our Nation's airline pilots. I, for one, trust our Nation's pilots to keep me safe when I fly. But I want to give them more than just my trust. I want to give them the training and the tools they need to keep all Americans safe in the air. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, today I share with my colleagues a resolution that calls on the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to exert its best efforts to cause the Major League Baseball Players Association and the owners of the teams of Major League Baseball to enter into a contract to continue to play professional baseball games without engaging in any coercive conduct that interferes with the playing of scheduled professional baseball games. Folks don't agree on much around this place. But, I think we can all agree that baseball as we've known it, is in deep trouble. Billion dollar owners and multi-million dollar players refusing to come together and do what's right for the game. Steroid use rampant, according to an article in Sports Illustrated. And the best Senator Dorgan could get out of a June hearing from the Players Association Executive Director was for him to say ``We'll have a frank and open discussion'' on the topic. But the big problem is that the player's labor contract expired last year and the negotiations on a new deal are going nowhere. There have been eight different labor agreements and each time there was a work stoppage. The last time the owners and players tried to renew their contract back in 1994, it took a 232-day shutdown of the game, including canceling the World Series for the first time in 90 years, to finally get an agreement. Hall of Famer and U.S. Senator Jim Bunning has an op-ed piece in this morning's New York Times. He writes, ``The last strike nearly killed the game. I am afraid the next one will.'' There are many problems. Only five out of thirty teams made a profit last season. That means 25 ended up in the red. The extreme ran from the Yankees collecting $217.8 million and the Montreal Expos $9.8 million. The average player today, the average player, makes more than $2 million a year. Ever since Abner Doubleday invented the game, a game is played until one team wins. That was part of the enchantment of the game: theoretically it could go on forever. Unless, that is, a commissioner calls it off and goes to dinner. Ever since baseball was declared as entertainment instead of a business in a 1922 Supreme Court decision that gave the owners exemptions from laws against collusion and other monopolistic activities, we have probably been headed to this day. These anti-trust exemptions give owners tremendous power and any proposals to change it, like Rep. John Conyers tried to do not too long ago, have gone nowhere. And, we're not proposing that today, I'm not even sure I'm for that. I happen to think that it would kill the minor leagues. And right now, these 160 teams are playing some of the purest baseball being played today. So what do we do? Here's how I see it. What would any of us do if we saw a loved one, someone you grew up with and loved like a member of your family, with a pistol in his hand, loaded with the safety off and aimed at their temple? What if you had only a few seconds before that close personal friend blew his brains out? I'd try to stop him. And I think you would too. I'd lurch for the pistol and try to take it away from him by whatever force necessary. I'd do just about anything to save his life. I could go on with this analogy, but I think you get the picture. For sixty summers I've followed the game of baseball. I live for the early days of February when the catchers and pitchers report for spring training. And when the World Series ends in the late fall, I might as well be hibernating in a cave during the winter, or serving in the Senate, because my life is so empty. But, I digress. Back to saving the life of that good friend about to blow his brains out. That's what this resolution attempts to do. Its purpose is to inject the Federal Government, with all its persuasive powers, into this dispute. Hopefully, with the end result of preventing the baseball players from striking and shutting down major league baseball. I want to save this game for those who love it as I do and for those who will come after us. I do not want to see our national pastime become our national once-upon-a-time.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, first I want to quickly make a point about a matter that has been raised on the provision in the Graham-Miller- Kennedy bill that says we take a second look at this legislation after a few years. That is not a weakness. It is one of its strengths, and it is nothing new. That is what we did with welfare reform, and that is what we did with the farm bill. I submit to the Chair, if we had that provision in the original Medicare bill, we probably would have had a prescription drug benefit years ago. Back in April, right after the Easter recess, I came to the Senate floor and talked about the urgency of passing a prescription drug bill. I spoke then of my 88-year-old Uncle Hoyle who lives next door to me in the mountains of North Georgia. He has been like a father to me in many ways. Once a very strong mountain man, Uncle Hoyle now suffers from diabetes, prostate cancer, recently had angioplasty, and also suffers from a kidney infection. Although he still makes a great garden--and I had tomatoes and corn out of it this last week--that once strong body is growing frail. I cannot get Uncle Hoyle, or millions like him, off my mind. Many--too many--refuse to see these elderly waiting, waiting for someone, anyone, to knock on that screen door and say, as John Prine sings: ``Hello in there.'' The elderly are waiting for something else, too. They are waiting for us to do something about their health needs. So far, they have waited in vain, each day growing older, growing weaker. Now it comes down to us on this July afternoon 2002. If we do not do something, you know who we are going to be like? If we do not do something, we are going to be like those who pass by that man in the ditch on the side of the road in that Biblical story of the Good Samaritan: Passed him by, tried not to look at him, refused to help him. We will be no better than they were and should be remembered in the same negative way. We must come to the aid of our seniors by adding a meaningful prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill would do just that. I believe and, more importantly, the AARP believes that our bill offers the best value for seniors. We deliver our prescription drug benefit through the tried and tested Medicare system. We provide extra help for our neediest seniors. We guarantee coverage 24 hours a day in every corner of this country, including that tiny rural town that the Presiding Officer knows, where I and my Uncle Hoyle live. Remember what FDR once said: Try something; if it doesn't work, try something else. But for God's sake, try something. That is what I am trying to say. I want Uncle Hoyle and all those millions like him in this land of plenty who played by the rules, raised their families, and worked hard to have some hope and dignity in their twilight years. Is that really too much to ask? Mr. President, I do not think so. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to urge the Senate to let us try to come together on a prescription drug bill in these next 2 weeks for the sake of America's seniors. Our seniors are up against a rich and powerful drug industry--an industry that, obviously, will fight tooth and nail against anyone who seeks to meddle with its obscene profit margin or its astonishing salaries for its CEOs or its TV media blitz. Our seniors cannot fight this battle alone. Goliath is too big. Congress must step in immediately and help America's elderly in their day-to-day life and death struggle with prescription drugs. This Senate has already taken a very big step toward helping seniors get their medicine at lower prices by passing the reimportation amendment. Now it is time to give some more help. It is time to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. I was very glad to hear this week that the Nation's largest advocacy group for seniors, AARP, has declared the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill as the one that, in their opinion, offers the very best value for seniors. Let me take just a few minutes to tell you why they think and why I think this bill is better than the rest. First, we use a system that is now in place--a system that is now in place for most working Americans, a system that the Federal Government and most employers use right now for their own workers. This new benefit is too important to risk using an untried, experimental delivery system; but the competing bills do just that. Under our bill, every beneficiary will know how much their premium will cost each month and how much they will have to pay for each drug they buy. We guarantee seniors an affordable premium, while the Republican bill allows private insurers to set the premium cost. That means insurers would be free to charge seniors whatever premium they want, whenever they want. It is simply a fact that seniors who live in rural America are often older, often sicker. Under the Republican bill, insurers would be able to charge them even higher premiums than those who live in urban areas. That would hurt the very people I call my friends and neighbors back home, and that is unacceptable. The private insurers that are the centerpiece of the Republican bill will make profits based on managing drug care for beneficiaries, just as HMOs make their profits on managing care. That would result--it could not help but result--in fewer drugs being available to our seniors. That is not the kind of benefit our seniors need. That is not the kind of benefit they deserve. Our bill uses a system that is already up and running in every ZIP Code in the United States. We guarantee that services will be available to seniors 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for any emergency that arises. The competing bills offer no such protection. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill is also the best plan out there because it has no gaps in coverage. That is very important to me, and to AARP, and to every senior in this country. We help seniors pay for the very first drug they buy each year. That coverage continues with no interruption through the last day of each year. No other bill makes the same guarantee. There are two gaps in the competing bills. First, under the House Republican plan, all seniors would have to pay a $250 deductible. That means they would pay premiums but would get no coverage for the first $250 of their drug bills. Then, once drug costs reached $2,000, coverage would be cut off altogether. Seniors would get no help from the program until their out-of-pocket spending hit the $4,800 mark. During this huge gap in coverage, seniors would still be required to pay their monthly premium even though they were not receiving a single penny of benefits from the program. And every beneficiary would experience that first gap in coverage because every senior would have to spend $250 before they saw the first dollar of benefit. Then, almost half of all the beneficiaries would fall into the second coverage gap. Sixty percent of them would never climb back out of that gap to receive coverage again. Let me say that again. Nearly two-thirds of seniors who ran up drug bills of $2,000 would never see another penny in benefits for the rest of the year. Because of these gaps, the typical beneficiary--let's say an elderly woman whose prescriptions run $2,400 each year--would still have to cover 71 percent of her drug bill each year. Beneficiaries with higher drug bills are even worse off. Take an elderly man whose drug expenses run $400 a month, or $4,800 each year. He would have to pay 85 percent of his drug costs each year under the Republican bill. That is not much of a lifesaver to be throwing a drowning man. Once again, there are no gaps of any kind in the Graham-Miller- Kennedy bill. Coverage continues every day, every week, every month, all year long, regardless of how high a senior's drug bill is. Once drug costs have reached $4,000, the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill says that we will pick up the entire bill for the rest of the year. It is what our seniors need. It is the least they deserve. Mr. President, the time has come. It is just like back in 49 B.C. when Caesar had to ask himself a question: ``Do we cross this Rubicon?'' Do we make the commitment? Do we take this risk? You know, we throw around the term ``It's a matter of life or death'' pretty lightly. Seldom is that really the case. But this time it really is. Many seniors--our mothers, fathers, grandparents, and other loved ones--will live or they will die because of this vote. Are we going to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit as we have been promising and talking about for years? Are we going to go home and face the seniors of this Nation without doing diddly squat? We have had a lot of sound and fury in this Chamber. Will it signify nothing, just a big fat zero? It isn't enough to have just good intentions, Mr. President. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It isn't enough to promise good deeds. We must do them. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to acknowledge President Reagan's designation of July 16 as National Atomic Veterans' Day. Between 1945 and 1963, the United States conducted over 235 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and the American Southwest. At least 220,000 American servicemembers participated in these tests, or were stationed near Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately following World War II. While they served our country patriotically, loyally, and proudly they were not informed of the dangers from exposure to ionizing radiation. For 50 years, these veterans have been one of the most neglected groups, even though they risked their lives for our freedom. Despite their valuable contributions to the United States, these veterans have not received the recognition they deserve. It is only appropriate that the American people remember the service of these dedicated veterans today, National Atomic Veterans' Day.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleague from North Dakota on that very timely and very compelling message he has just given. I rise today, also, to speak, once again, about prescription drugs and the struggle our seniors are facing each and every day. We are on record as saying we will have a vote in this Senate before the August recess on a prescription bill. I have always hoped that meant adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. We must stick to that schedule. We must honor that commitment. We have kept our seniors waiting in line for too many years, and we have bumped them too many times in the past. We have disappointed them time and time again. We cannot make them wait through another election cycle for who knows how many years. If that happens--and a lot of political pundits are predicting it will--then we should be ashamed of ourselves. I am telling you, our seniors are not going to accept just a shrug of the shoulders and a ``well, I tried'' explanation. I don't think that is going to get it this time around. There is a lot we can do to help seniors with the cost, as the Senator from North Dakota has discussed, and also about the coverage of their prescription drugs. I will work hard to make sure the bill we pass in the Senate offers real help for our seniors, especially our neediest seniors. I recently saw the results of a new study that were shocking to me. It said nearly 1 in 5 American women ages 50 to 64 did not fill a prescription for needed medication because they could not afford it. That is ages 50 to 64. Think what the number must be for those over 65. Those are our mothers and our grandmothers. They are those women who gave us life and tended to our needs who are now foregoing their needs because they cannot afford medication. They are putting their health in jeopardy. Their very lives are being endangered. Their years on this Earth are being cut short. Make no mistake about it, if we allow that to continue, this Congress is an accessory to that crime. I believe the bill I am a cosponsor of, along with Senator Graham and Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle and the senior Senator from Georgia who is presiding, and about 30 other Senators, fulfills our promise to all seniors and offers the most for our neediest seniors. Our bill gives our neediest seniors their medicine for free. For those who earn less than $11,900 a year--and that is about 12 million seniors out there--there is no premium, there is no copayment. They receive 100-percent coverage from the first prescription filled. To that widow with trembling hands who is trying to cut that pill in half so her medicine will last a little longer, I hope the Senate will send a message to her that help is on the way. To that old man, proud and self-sufficient all his life, who has to whisper to his pharmacist that he doesn't have quite enough in his checking account and he will have to come back later, I hope the Senate will send the message to him that help is on the way. I look forward to debating this provision of our bill and many others when we take up the prescription drug legislation next week. I urge my colleagues in both Houses and in both parties to keep this in mind: Our duty to seniors is not to just debate an issue. They have heard all that before. Our duty is to pass a bill, a meaningful bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, this amendment is only three lines long. Let me read them to the Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that the Federal income tax return of a corporation shall be signed by the chief executive officer of such corporation. Believe it or not, that is not in the law right now, and it should be. The average wage earner on his 1040 form has to sign it. We require it of him. That is what we should require of the CEO of a corporation, just treat them the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Miller amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. MILLER. I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be laid aside so I may offer an amendment, and that there be a time limitation of 2 minutes on my amendment, with no amendments in order to my amendment. This amendment has been agreed to by both managers.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Texas. Madam President, there is a good old boy from down in Georgia named Jerry Reed, who went to Nashville several years ago and made it big as a tremendous guitar picker, singer, and songwriter. He had a big hit a while back. Maybe some of you remember it. It was called ``She Got the Gold Mine and I Got the Shaft.'' I thought about that song of Jerry Reed's as I watched what has happened lately on the corporate scene. The big shots of Enron and WorldCom and others, they got the gold mine while the poor employees and the innocent stockholders got the shaft. If a picture is worth a thousand words, take a look at this gold mine. It was built partly on the backs of those Georgia schoolteachers who, each month, put their hard-earned money into the Georgia teachers' retirement fund. The fund in Georgia lost $78 million from Enron and another $6 million from WorldCom. Think how many monthly contributions by how many struggling teachers that represents. And think about those other thousands of employees who have lost their life savings, not even to mention the thousands of employees who have lost their jobs--at least 450 jobs were wiped out in Georgia alone so far. Yes, a few big shots got the gold mine and a lot of little folks got the shaft. I am as probusiness as anyone in this body. I yield to no officeholder when it comes to supporting business issues. As Governor and Senator, I have worked to give tax cuts and tax incentives and pay for the training of their employees--all to provide a probusiness environment in which the entrepreneurial spirit can thrive and prosper and create jobs. But, folks, there comes a time when so much greed and so many lies become so bad--even if it is only by a few--that something meaningful has to be done. We must act quickly to protect the investor, provide some security for the worker, and restore confidence in the marketplace because, make no mistake about it, today we have a crisis in the integrity of corporate America. That is why I have worked with Senator Sarbanes in perfecting his bill, and I strongly support it. I am pleased that it is before us this week. I also commend President Bush for making the strong recommendations he is going to be making in New York. But I think we need to do at least one other thing, so I have a simple amendment. It is only two short paragraphs in length, but it goes to the very essence of fairness. It simply says that, when the taxman cometh, we all--workers and high-dollar bosses alike--must face him just alike, without any go-betweens or liability firewalls or corporate veils. This is how it would work. There is a standard tax form called 1040. I know there are more sophisticated ones for big business, but the principle I am getting at is the same. This is what it says: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief they are true, correct and complete. And then it is signed here by Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack of America signs those kinds of forms. There were more than 14 million of those forms filed in April. If Joe Sixpack is required to sign this oath for his family, why shouldn't Josepheus Chardonnay be required to sign that same oath for his corporation? So my little amendment simply requires that henceforth the chief executive officer of all publicly owned and publicly traded corporations must sign the corporation's annual Federal tax return. Currently, there is an IRS rule that corporations can designate any corporate officer to sign their tax return. That will not get it. Let's be specific. Let's put it into law: The CEO is the one who is to sign the tax return and must be accountable for it. Where I come from it is expected that those being paid ``to mind the store'' should at least know whether the store is losing or making money. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said, ``The Buck Stops Here.'' For Truman, it meant that he was accountable. He took the blame. He suffered the consequences when things went bad. For some of today's CEOs, it is just the opposite. They want no accountability. They shift the blame to others. They hide behind that corporate veil. And, it seems, they rarely if ever pay the consequences. Their former workers cancel plans for their children to go to college while they sip from champagne flutes in their mansions in Boca and Aspen. For these CEOs, Truman's famous sign has changed from ``The Buck Stops Here'' to ``The Bucks Go Here.'' Our system of collecting taxes is based upon the premise that individual taxpayers will take all steps necessary to ensure that the financial information in the tax return is accurate. If Joe Sixpack fudges the numbers, he doesn't get a pass from paying penalties or going to jail. I find it outrageous that the same is not a part of the mind set for those in the corporate culture. If any CEO is not willing to sign the company tax return--if they are not willing to take steps to satisfy themselves that their corporation is accurately reporting financial information--then those CEOs have no right to the prestige and respect that goes with the position they hold. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So I urge my colleagues to simply hold our CEOs to the same standard that we now impose upon our average wage earners. Treat them the same, ``Treat 'em'' the same. That is the American way. That is what the voters out there want us to do and that is what they expect us to do. ``Treat 'em'' the same. And you can take that back home this summer and explain it. Some of these other reforms, I fear, will be more difficult to explain. Treat 'em the same. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so I be allowed to offer an amendment.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator from Kentucky is correct. I would like to get in the queue somewhere along the line.

Mr. MILLER. I was going to send an amendment to the desk but I understand there is one pending. I ask unanimous consent I have up to 8 minutes to discuss this amendment now, which I will send later.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, recently, ABC canceled country music singer Toby Keith from its July Fourth TV special. They did not want him to sing his song about the September 11 attacks. ``Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American).'' Earlier, a similar thing happened with PBS and Charlie Daniels. This is a disgrace and the rankest kind of hypocrisy from these advocates of free speech. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the lyrics of these two patriotic songs by Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels be entered into the Congressional Record. And just for good measure, I also ask to include the lyrics of another great patriotic country song from my generation, ``Fightin' Side of Me,'' by Merle Haggard.