Zell Miller

Mr. MILLER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I, too, rise to talk about prescription drugs and the struggle our seniors face every day. Since April, I have been coming down to this Chamber on a regular basis to speak about the urgency of passing a prescription drug benefit before the August recess. I have spoken about how we have kept our seniors waiting in line for years and how we have bumped them time and time again to debate other issues--other important issues but other issues. Our majority leader, Senator Daschle, has said we will bring up prescription drugs on the Senate floor before the August recess. I and many others are very grateful. As of today, we now have three bills in Congress to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare--two in the House and one in the Senate--the one I am a cosponsor of, along with Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, and about 28 other Senators. This issue is now where it should be; it is front and center. It has more momentum today than it has had in all the years we have been talking about it. Our seniors have finally reached the front of the line. Now it is time to get down to business and have a real debate on the details of these proposals. Make no mistake about it, there are real differences among them. Let's debate those differences. If we can, let's find some common ground. And then let's get something passed because if we fail to do something now, if we just criticize each other's bills for the sake of criticizing, and dig in our heels and refuse to compromise and work something out, our seniors are never going to let us forget it come November. After years of wandering in the wilderness, our seniors are now inside of the promised land. Both political parties have brought them there and have given them a glimpse. We cannot send them away to wander in the desert for another election cycle or who knows how many more years. I urge my colleagues to let us have a healthy debate on these bills. Let us point out the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, but never lose sight of the big picture, as Senator Graham just said at the end of his remarks. This should not be viewed as just an issue for the next election campaign. I urge my colleagues not to look at it in that way. Our goal should be to pass a prescription drug benefit. I will work hard to see that the bill we pass in the Senate offers real help for our seniors, especially for our neediest seniors. As Senator Kennedy said so eloquently last week: The state of a family's health should not be determined by the size of a family's wealth. One way to help our seniors, including the neediest, with prescription drugs is to pass a bill that has no gap in coverage and that places a reasonable cap on out-of-pocket expenses. The Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill offers just that. There is no gap in coverage, and the out-of-pocket maximum is set at $4,000 a year. After $4,000, Medicare would pick up 100 percent of the cost of prescriptions under our bill. But the House Republican bill provides no coverage from the time a senior's total drug costs reach $2,000 to the time they reach $4,900. That is that ``hole in the donut'' Senator Graham was talking about that is so obvious. Who will it hurt the most? The ones who can afford it the least--the low-income seniors. To add insult to injury, the House bill requires seniors to continue paying monthly premiums during this gap, even though they are not receiving a single penny of benefit. Even the neediest seniors would have to pay these premiums during this gap. That is not right; that is just plain unacceptable. I look forward to debating this provision, and many others, when we take up prescription drugs in the next few weeks. I urge my colleagues in both Houses and in both parties to keep the big picture in mind. Our duty to seniors is not just to debate a bill, it is to pass a bill. The final product won't be perfect. It won't include everything that I want, and it won't include everything that some of my colleagues may want. But it will be better than what our seniors have now. And what our seniors have now is nothing.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I am proud to tell America's seniors who have been waiting in line for a long time that, finally, they have reached the front of the line. Their time has come. This Senate is ready to take action on prescription drugs. Our action cannot come soon enough. Most of our elderly in this country are not wealthy. Many live on fixed incomes. They are the ones who are hurt first and hurt most by rising health care costs. Our elderly have been waiting a long time. Waiting for Congress to do something. Waiting for Congress to help them with the skyrocketing costs of their prescription drugs. Our bill provides an affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors for the first time. Coverage begins with the first prescription filled because there is no deductible. For the roughly 12 million seniors in this country who earn less than $11,900 a year, there is no premium and no copayment. For our neediest seniors, our bill gives them their medicine for free. For those who earn more, our plan has an affordable a $25 monthly premium and a copayment of $10 for generic drugs and $40 for brand-name drugs. Also, our bill has no gap in coverage and an out-of-pocket maximum of $4,000 a year. We realize it is a huge, complex and complicated undertaking. And that is why this bill provides that in 2011, we will come back and re- evaluate this program, just like we do with other complicated legislation. We believe that is the wise and judicious thing to do. In fact, if the original Medicare program had required such a reauthorization, we probably would have had a prescription drug benefit added to it long ago. But since Medicare was permanently authorized from the beginning, there was no requirement for Congress to re-evaluate and therefore modernize the program as circumstances changed over the years. And, reauthorization is not anything new or different. We re-evaluate many programs on a regular basis: We just did it with the Farm Bill. Welfare Reform, the Elementary and Secondary Education program, Head Start, all of them are re-evaluated at regular intervals. I hope that all members of the Senate will come together and pass this bill in the next few weeks so that our elderly across this land of plenty, those folks who have played by the rules and worked hard, can have some hope and some dignity in the last few years they are on this earth.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I am proud to tell America's seniors who have been waiting in line for a long time that, finally, they have reached the front of the line. Their time has come. This Senate is ready to take action on prescription drugs. Our action cannot come soon enough. Most of our elderly in this country are not wealthy. Many live on fixed incomes. They are the ones who are hurt first and hurt most by rising health care costs. Our elderly have been waiting a long time. Waiting for Congress to do something. Waiting for Congress to help them with the skyrocketing costs of their prescription drugs. Our bill provides an affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors for the first time. Coverage begins with the first prescription filled because there is no deductible. For the roughly 12 million seniors in this country who earn less than $11,900 a year, there is no premium and no copayment. For our neediest seniors, our bill gives them their medicine for free. For those who earn more, our plan has an affordable a $25 monthly premium and a copayment of $10 for generic drugs and $40 for brand-name drugs. Also, our bill has no gap in coverage and an out-of-pocket maximum of $4,000 a year. We realize it is a huge, complex and complicated undertaking. And that is why this bill provides that in 2011, we will come back and re- evaluate this program, just like we do with other complicated legislation. We believe that is the wise and judicious thing to do. In fact, if the original Medicare program had required such a reauthorization, we probably would have had a prescription drug benefit added to it long ago. But since Medicare was permanently authorized from the beginning, there was no requirement for Congress to re-evaluate and therefore modernize the program as circumstances changed over the years. And, reauthorization is not anything new or different. We re-evaluate many programs on a regular basis: We just did it with the Farm Bill. Welfare Reform, the Elementary and Secondary Education program, Head Start, all of them are re-evaluated at regular intervals. I hope that all members of the Senate will come together and pass this bill in the next few weeks so that our elderly across this land of plenty, those folks who have played by the rules and worked hard, can have some hope and some dignity in the last few years they are on this earth.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. After the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I rise to support the American Servicemembers' Protection Act amendment. I am very pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Virginia in support of this legislation, just as I was pleased to join with Senator Helms in working with him and his staff on its behalf. It might be worth noting that Senator Helms made a determined effort and has been making a determined effort to pass this legislation. I think that is very admirable, and I would like to commend him again for his leadership and wish him well. I will not restate the details of this amendment since Senator Warner has already articulated them so well, but I would like to make a few brief points. As Senator Warner mentioned, the Senate passed legislation similar to this amendment as part of the 2002 Defense appropriations bill. The final vote was 78 to 21, which constituted a clear majority of this Senate. Unfortunately, the conference committee missed an opportunity to have this protective legislation in place before the International Criminal Court was ratified earlier this year. Now the International Criminal Court becomes effective on July 1, and American servicemembers, officials, and citizens will then potentially be subject to a court to which we are not a party. That is why, in a nutshell, this legislation is so important. We need some degree of protection for our men and women in uniform and for other officials who sacrifice so much for our Nation. This amendment is appropriately entitled the American Servicemembers' Protection Act because our war on terrorism could put our military at risk of politicized prosecutions by the International Criminal Court. Other brave Americans who serve this country are also at risk, and this legislation will protect them as well. I believe that as elected lawmakers we are obligated to safeguard them from this potential threat just as we would from threats on the battlefield. I also believe it is important for our military to know that Congress will not stand idly by while this questionable Court comes into existence. Make no mistake about it, our servicemembers are very aware of the importance of this pending legislation. We must send them the clear message that they have our full support. I can guarantee that if we do not get this done, and done soon, we will look back and regret our inaction. I, for one, do not want to look a parent in the eye and explain why their son or daughter is being subjected to an international court on a trumped up charge of war crimes. The administration supports this amendment, as Senator Warner said, and so should we. Let us do the right thing again, as we did in December, and pass this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, before we invoked cloture on the supplemental appropriations bill today, it had been my intention to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I believed was a very important statement about our commitment to fiscal constraint and responsibility. Senate rules now prevent my amendment from being considered, so I want to go on record regarding the amendment, our budgetary situation and the need to tighten our belts. The bill we are considering, S. 2551, a bill making supplemental appropriations for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, was scored at $30.9 billion or roughly $4 billion over the President's request of $27.1 billion. While this bill recognizes the need to fund emergency homeland requirements and has many worthwhile things in it, one could argue that some of its contents are questionable at best. Now, I realize that ``pork'' and other unfavorable terms for specific projects are clearly in the eyes of the beholder. But where does it all stop? I am sure that we could all justify, even enthusiastically promote, projects in our own states that most members might think loony or wasteful. Whether it is Federal marshals, summer school, hospitals or jars of alcohol on the Mall, they are all important, but where does it stop? It is one thing to spend money for these types of things when you have money, but quite another when your broke or in debt. That is why we must have strong controls and a cap on what we can spend. I was disappointed that the Senate rejected such controls yesterday voting down the Feingold-Gregg amendment. I haven't been here long, but I do know that if we don't enact some spending controls, things will get out of control quickly. There is a general acknowledgement that a short-term budget deficit may be necessary to provide the appropriate resources to fight the war on terrorism. But at the same time, we need to look at the impact of this very supplemental appropriations bill on our domestic spending and our budget deficit. Therefore, I had intended to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which basically said that the total of the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bills should have been reduced by the amount we spend over the President's request as determined by the Congressional Budget Office. If this supplemental ends up being $3.8 billion higher or $4.2 billion, or whatever the number is over the President's $27.1 billion request, then the Senate should agree that we would reduce our total appropriations figure by that amount in the upcoming appropriations cycle. It is not a scientific formula, just a start down the path of fiscal responsiblity--a concept that seems to have lost its preeminence. So, while I will not offer this amendment today, I will promote this idea in the coming weeks and fight for real progress during the upcoming appropriations process.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, let me read a few recent comments from the media, always a jaded and cynical bunch, but in this case let's hope their pessimism is wrong. Our senior citizens certainly pray that it is. From the National Journal, May 25: It is becoming increasingly unlikely that Congress this year will approve compromise legislation providing prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients. The Wall Street Journal, June 3: President Bush and Congress are unlikely to agree this year on a promised Medicare benefit for prescription drugs. World Market's Research Centre, May 20: Neither party wants the other to be seen by the electorate to have found the solution. Blocking the other's proposals will continue to take precedence in the run-up to November. Cox News Service, June 3: Slim chances for agreement on prescription drugs. And the L.A. Times: Few on Capitol Hill think . . . they'll produce a bill this year. Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch: Time is running out. . . . The legislative year effectively ends when lawmakers leave for the August recess. Madam President, I could go on and on. There are dozens of articles like this, but I think you get the idea. Hardly anyone thinks we are going to do anything serious about prescription drug costs and prescription drug coverage. Let us pray they are wrong--that they are not right. But if the past is prologue, that is exactly the partisan blame game that smells up this place sometimes. I am interested in doing something now. I want results, not a campaign issue. Time is running out, and I hate to tell you but some people want it to run out. That is their game. They want to shuffle and slouch and go through the motions while the clock does run out. That is why I think I am going to bring a calendar in here, and just like we count the shopping days left until Christmas, I am going to count the days left until the August recess. It would look just like this: 39 days left. I don't think we are going to do anything today--another day shot. Madam President, I know some may call that undignified. I hope they do. I would like to get the meaning of dignity into this debate, into this discussion. I will tell you what is undignified--an old woman with trembling hands, trying to cut a pill in half so her medicine will last a little longer. I will tell you about losing dignity--an old man proud and self-sufficient all his life, admitting in whispered tones to his pharmacist: I didn't know it was going to cost that much and I sure don't want my check to bounce. I'll come back later. I will tell you what undignified is--a couple who have lived together for 55 years, using coffee grounds from the day before to stretch it further because mama has to have her medicine. So I don't want anybody talking to me about the loss of dignity, not in this debate. By the way, there is a difference between what is undignified and what is obscene. What is obscene is making an 18.5-percent profit margin--more than four times that of all other industries--and raking in that kind of profit on the backs of our seniors. I will tell you what is obscene--the giant pharmaceutical companies spending three times more on advertising than they do on research. Their ads are everywhere. How many times do we have to watch that woman who has--got to go, got to go, got to go? What is obscene is having 650 lobbyists to make sure we keep shuffling and slouching--650 lobbyists. That is more than one for every Member of Congress. There are towns in Georgia that do not have that big a population. I live in one. I will tell you what is obscene--these lobbyists each make an average of over $12,000 a month. That is three times more than what an average schoolteacher or a registered nurse makes. We talk about predatory lending, predatory lenders--what about predatory businesses that protect their bottom lines at the expense of millions of people who cannot afford drugs they have to have? I know we have been told we are going to take this up sometime-- sometime this summer, sometime after hate crimes, sometime after this bill, sometime after another bill, sometime later. There is an old country saying. Probably nobody in this body has ever heard it, except maybe the senior Senator from West Virginia and the two Senators from South Carolina, somebody like us who has been around chickens in the yard and knows about setting hens. There is an old saying that goes like this: I hear you clucking but I can't find your nest. It means I hear you talking, but I don't see any action. I will tell you this, I don't want to be associated with any political party that cannot comprehend the urgency of this stark need of our seniors; that is unwilling to take some risks and that is unwilling to compromise to get some results. If we fail to get some results on this issue, we should be so ashamed that all incumbents going into November--Democrats and Republicans alike--should have to go around with a paper sack over their heads like sports fans sometimes do when they are embarrassed by their team's performance. We have to do something and we have to do something soon, Madam President, and I know you share those desires.

Mr. MILLER

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

Mr. MILLER. I also ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth A. Judge, U.S. Marine Corps, on her upcoming retirement from active duty. Upon her retirement on August 31, 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Judge will have served our great Nation and the Marine Corps for more than 20 years. Lieutenant Colonel Judge is a career public affairs officer, and is known as the preeminent expert within her field. She has been assigned to various locations, bases, and stations in the United States and overseas, to include an extended tour as the 31st Commandant's personal public affairs officer. Most recently, she served as the deputy director of public affairs for the entire Marine Corps, a position normally filled by a full-bird colonel. Lieutenant Colonel Judge's straightforward, no-nonsense approach and uncanny media instincts are renowned throughout the Headquarters Marine Corps Staff, and the Department of Defense public affairs office. There is no doubt that her efforts over the years have been instrumental in helping the news media and the public to better understand the Marine Corps' roles and missions. Although she would be too humble to make this claim, Lieutenant Colonel Judge should justifiably receive a degree of credit for the positive image the Corps enjoys today. The Marine Corps will sorely miss Lieutenant Colonel Judge's unrivaled professional knowledge and superior work ethic. Her steadfast dedication to Corps and country is uncompromising and impressive, and her unique talents will not be easily replaced. I wish Betsy and her husband, Marine Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Judge, all the best as they embark on a new life chapter. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I know the hour is late and the day has been long and the staff and the pages and the Presiding Officer are tired. And so is this Senator. But I would like to take about 7 or 8 minutes to talk about a subject that is very dear to my heart. Mr. President, ``Honor thy father and thy mother'' is the fifth of God's holy commandments. For many of us--especially at my age--we can no longer do that (except in memory). We had our chance, and now they are gone. I never knew my father, and my mother died in 1986 when she was 93. For those of us who have lost parents, we will be forever burdened by the haunting question: Did we adequately fulfill that commandment or could we have done more? And, if one has a heart instead of a stone, we look around and see other living mothers and fathers whom it is not too late to still honor. I know I do. And that is why I rise again--as I will do ad nauseum until something is done--to plead for action on prescription drugs before the August recess. We must attack this problem by addressing both sides of the equation--prescription drug coverage and prescription drug cost. We cannot truly help our senors unless we increase the coverage and lower the cost. Coverage and cost. I am a cosponsor of three bills that would do both those things. First, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and I have introduced a bill that would increase coverage by adding an affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare. For our neediest seniors, those who earn less than $11,900 a year, our bill would cover 100 percent of their prescription drug costs. They would pay no premiums, and Medicare would pick up the entire cost of their prescriptions. About a third of our Medicare beneficiaries fall into this category. That's roughly 12 million seniors. those who earn more than $11,900 would pay premiums of $25 a month or less, depending on their income. And they would pay an affordable share of the cost of each prescription. No senior would have to spend more than $4,000 a year out of their own pocket. Right now, about 3 million seniors are spending more than $4,000 a year out of their own pocket on prescriptions. The two other bills of which I am a co-sponsor deal directly with the cost of prescription drugs. We must bring the cost of these drugs down. A miracle drug can't work miracles if no one can afford it. As many of you know--and as most of the seniors in this country know--you can buy the same drug in the same bottle for a much cheaper price in Canada and other countries than you can in the U.S. In Canada, you can buy Tamoxifen, the drug for breast cancer, for one-tenth what it costs in the U.S. Celebrex, which is used for arthritis, costs 79 cents a tablet in Canada, but $2.20 a tablet in the U.S. Those are two of many examples. A bipartisan group of senators has introduced a bill to let drug stores and medical distributors buy U.S.-made drugs in Canada--where they are sold much more cheaply--and then resell them here in the U.S. If our seniors could buy their drugs at the lower Canadian prices, they could save an estimated $38 billion a year. Our seniors should be able to get their medications at the best price possible, and they shouldn't have to ride a bus to Canada to do it. The other bill I am co-sponsoring that would help bring down the cost of prescription drugs is the Fair Advertising and Increased Research Act of 2002. We have all seen the endless stream of ads on TV about the latest wonder drugs for high cholesterol of arthritis or cancer. I have visions of that purple pill that keeps spinning into my living room and bedroom whenever the TV is on. You can't escape it. You can't escape these ads. They are everywhere. We are drowning in them. And the millions of dollars the drug companies are spending on them is sending the price of prescriptions through the roof. Our bill doesn't ban this TV advertising, but it does say to the drug companies: Spend as much on research as you do on advertising. Our bill would limit the tax deduction a drug company can take for advertising expenses to no more than the amount they deduct for research and development costs. Americans today are being forced to subsidize prescription drug advertising both when they pay their taxes and again when they go to the pharmacy to buy their prescriptions. That's not right, and our FAIR Act would help stop it. We must do something soon. If I were to stay in the Senate as long as Senator Thurmond, I don't believe I would ever figure out how this wonderful place works. I have come to accept that, just as I came to accept that the intricacies of cricket and even hockey escape me. But I have known the infield fly rule since I was 12. And I also know what the men and women my age and a little older in middle America are saying and thinking. What's that Latin phrase--the vox populi? Well, the vox populi of this nation's elderly are discouraged and displeased. But they are not disorganized, and they are definitely not disenfranchised. And if we don't show them some results instead of rhetoric pretty soon, they are going to come after us with their pitchforks and their pill cutters * * * and something we in here fear even more: Their ballots. And who could blame them? In 2000, both parties said prescription drugs was at the top of the list, at the front of the line. Our seniors have been waiting in line for a long time. Waiting as we debated many other worthwhile issues. Waiting, as we keep smiling at them, telling them: Now, be patient; you are next. Do you know what makes people madder than anything? Making them wait in line for a long time and then, when they think they are just about to go to the front of that line, someone cuts in front of them. That is what we have been doing to our senior citizens. Every time we take up a new issue, no matter how good it is, every time we take up a new issue other than prescription drugs, we are bumping our seniors from the front of the line that they have been waiting in for years. We cannot throw this issue into another election cycle. They will not stand for it. We cannot keep our seniors waiting in line through another election. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I thank my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. MILLER. I thank him for that eloquent presentation. He knows these people and he knows this problem so very well. Mr. President, I rise also in support of this country's textile industry, an industry that is in crisis and an industry that needs our help very badly. By the way, it was good to hear that report on Senator Helms. I know, if he possibly could, he would be here speaking with that unique passion that he has on this subject. This industry is suffering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. I realize several factors have contributed to this crisis; most notably is the strong competition of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies. For example, there has been an average 40-percent decline in Asian currencies against the U.S. dollar over the past 4 years. Prices for Asian yarn and fabric have dropped by as much as 38 percent. This has caused a flood of artificially low-priced textile and apparel products into our U.S. markets. At the same time, prices for U.S. textile products have plummeted since 1997 and profits have evaporated. And when prices fall, and profits disappear, plant owners have no choice but to lay off workers and close down plants. And that is exactly what has happened in this country. The Senator from North Carolina gave you some telling statistics. Since the beginning of 2001, 179 textile plants have closed in this country. We have lost 91,000 textile jobs. Bringing it home to my State of Georgia, since 2000, 17 textile plants have closed. That has put more than 19,000 Georgians out of work--19,000 Georgians out of work. This is not just some cold statistic that some member of my staff has researched and come up with. I know many of these workers. They are my friends. They are my neighbors. They have families to care for. They want to work. As the Senator from North Carolina emphasized, they want to work. In my neighboring mountainous county of Fannin County, where the last plant closed in Georgia, we call them the salt of the Earth. My colleague from North Carolina, Senator Edwards, has offered several amendments to provide some assistance to our ailing textile industry and to offer relief to hundreds of thousands of textile workers who have lost their jobs. I am very grateful he has come forward with these amendments--and this amendment. This amendment would help level the playing field for the textile industry in trade negotiations. It spells out for the President the objectives he should seek in any trade agreement that involves the textile industry. I want to be very clear--as the Senator from North Carolina was--we are not seeking special treatment for the textile industry. The objectives we want to include for textiles are no different than the objectives spelled out in trade promotion authority for other industries, such as agriculture. The objectives are simple and broad. We ask that the President seek competitive opportunities for U.S. exports of textile products. Also, we ask that the President reduce or eliminate tariffs or other charges that hurt market opportunities for U.S. textile exports. Again, these are the very same objectives we have listed for other industries in the TPA bill. The textile industry in the United States has a proud history, and it has served this country well. All we are asking for today is a level playing field. All we are asking for is a seat at the negotiating table for an industry that is so important to rural communities across the South and across the Nation. Simply stated, it is a matter of fairness.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for allowing us to work so closely together on this piece of legislation. Like many of our colleagues, I have been reading a great new book by Robert Caro on Lyndon Johnson, entitled ``Master of the Senate.'' I enjoyed the hundred or so pages on the Senate as an institution, and especially the chapters on Senator Richard Russell of Georgia. He is an icon in my State and, of course, one of the greatest Members to ever serve in this body. We remember him mostly for his contributions as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. But another of his great causes was that of the American farmers. When he was a freshman, just in his thirties, he became chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. Now, those were the days. One of the things he was most proud of was his fight for a national school lunch program. Senator Russell would like what is in this farm bill for nutrition, and I think he would like the other parts of it as well. Speaking on the importance of agriculture, Senator Russell once pointed out: Every great civilization has derived its basic strength and wealth from the soil. As I stand behind this desk he once used in this hallowed Hall, and as we deliberate this farm bill, it is well to remember those words: Every great civilization has derived its basic strength and wealth from the soil. I am afraid too many Americans do not understand that today. I strongly support this farm bill conference report, and I thank the members of the conference committee, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, especially our chairman, Senator Harkin, for their good and diligent work. I also thank our majority leader, Senator Daschle, for his exceptionally strong leadership on this bill. We have a farm bill that the President has said he will sign, and I appreciate that. It is a bill that can be implemented this year and, most importantly, it is a bill that is good for all of America's farmers. Farmers, ranchers, dairymen, bankers, equipment dealers, even family grocery store owners can finally breathe a small sigh of relief. With this bill, Congress will finally deliver some help to America's rural communities. Many do not realize it, but these communities are facing their biggest crisis since the Great Depression. One of the most historic changes in this farm bill is the elimination of the Depression-era peanut quota system. Switching from this 80-year- old quota system to a new market-oriented program was not easy. In fact, it has been downright painful for many in my State, but I am confident this new peanut program will benefit not only peanut producers but also American consumers. The new peanut program will allow our farmers to compete on a global scale, just as farmers of other traditional commodities do. It will provide access to new markets and fairer price competition with foreign countries. At the same time, however, the elimination of the quota system will result in financial losses for many of Georgia's family farms. There is no question that this peanut quota is an asset. It is taxed by the IRS. It has been passed down through families from generation to generation. That is why on the Senate side, Senator Cleland and I made sure farm families who have worked hard to purchase this quota over years are fairly compensated for their losses. This bill gives peanut quota holders a fair 5-year buyout. Those who argue that quota holders do not deserve it simply do not understand how many have come to rely on this quota as their retirement. They do not understand how this quota system has helped fuel many rural economies for many years. So when we do away with it, as we are in this bill, in all fairness, we have to have a short transition. We need a bridge from the old system to the new, and this bill provides one. I am very pleased the farm bill we have before us today does not have the lower payment limit that was adopted earlier by this Senate. That lower payment limit would have helped no farmer, but I can guarantee you it would have hurt many. I do not exaggerate. It would have forced many farmers in my State and across the South to put their farms on the auction block. One has to understand the type of agriculture found across the South to realize the ill effect of lower payment limits. The cost of producing traditional commodities in the South often run three to four times higher than the cost of producing corn and wheat in other parts of the country. Also, the size of a family farm in the South can be as large as a few thousand acres, much bigger than in other parts of the country. Our farmers in the South should not be punished because their production costs are greater or because their family farms are bigger. The payment limit the conferees have worked on, a compromise between the House and Senate, closes the loopholes that have received so much public attention in recent years, but at the same time it still allows our farmers to produce the cheapest and healthiest food supply in the world. Producers have the right to pursue efficiency and adapt to a changing world economy. I am pleased the conferees in the end understood the need to develop a final bill that will not hurt American farmers. There are other important pieces of this bill as well. This bill contains an 80-percent increase in conservation spending. That large an increase is unheard of. The increased funding will help with programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. All of these programs are critical to farmers and livestock producers throughout Georgia. These conservation programs help products comply with the costly Federal regulations that the Government continues to throw our way. In addition, this bill contains significant funding increases for research which we do a lot of in our university system in Georgia. I have already mentioned nutrition. Forestry, trade, and rural development programs are all here. Mr. President, our farmers have waited long enough. Our rural communities have suffered long enough. Our previous agricultural policy has failed to provide the backbone needed during these depressed times in rural America. For the sake of those rural communities in Georgia and all across this country, I thank, again, the leadership of the Senate and the House who have recognized this emergency and addressed it head on. I ask my colleagues to vote in support of this farm bill. It is a good one.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I am at heart a teacher. Perhaps it is genetic, for I am the son of teachers. Whatever its source, a commitment to education runs deep in my soul. That is why, when I was Governor of Georgia, I chose to focus on education, for all our other challenges have at their root the same solution: Children who are loved and children who are educated. I believe education is everything. It is the educated individual who makes this Nation stronger. It is the educated individual who adds to its wealth, protects against enemies, carries forward its ideals and faith. The Latin phrase ``alma mater'' means ``nourishing mother.'' That is a pretty good description of what our schools should be for our children. Within those schools, all education starts with the teacher standing at the head of the child's classroom. Teachers are the world's most noble creatures, engaged in the world's most noble profession. Teachers are the architects who guide and shape the building of young lives. Teachers are the ones who call forth the best from our children and inspire them to reach new heights. Teachers, I think we would all agree, are the key ingredient to improving education. So if we are to build a first class education system in this country, we must be able to attract and hold on to good teachers. Right now, we are losing that battle. We are losing that fight badly. Last year we set a new standard in Federal aid for education with the passage of President Bush's far-reaching education reform bill. But while we have made big strides in Federal funding for education, we still have not touched teacher salaries at the Federal level. I would argue that teacher pay is the most important area of all education. Yet our teachers work in sometimes deplorable conditions and for little pay. Public school teachers in America today make an average of $43,335 a year. One would assume that about half of the States have teacher salaries above the national average and the other half have teacher salaries below that level. But actually, only 12 States, plus the District of Columbia, have salaries that are higher than the national average. The other 38 States are below the national average. In fact, the dollar gap between the lowest and the highest average salaries varies greatly from a low of $30,265 in South Dakota to a high of $53,281 in New Jersey. Sadly, our teachers have even lost financial ground over the past few years. In the past decade, teacher salaries rose only one-half of 1 percent when inflation is taken into account. In many States, teachers actually lost ground to inflation. Today in this Nation, teacher salaries account for a smaller proportion of total education spending than they did 40 years ago. In 1960, the average education expenditure devoted to teacher salaries was 51 percent. Today it is 36.7 percent, the lowest percentage since records have been kept. As a result, many of the best and brightest of our young people today steer away from the classrooms to join the ranks of better paying professions. It has become clear that unless we in Congress take some drastic action, and take it soon, this disparity will only get worse because on the horizon ominous storm clouds loom darkly. We must hire 2 million more teachers in the next decade to keep up with new students who are entering our schools. Where are we going to get all those new teachers? Where? Enrollment at our colleges of education is down 30 percent. Among those who are willing to try teaching, 40 percent leave the profession before the end of their fifth year. In some States, almost 20 percent leave after just 1 year. Most, of course, leave to pursue better paying careers. And who can blame them? It is a hollow message when we constantly tell our teachers how invaluable they are and then pay them so little. What can we do, and what can we do quickly, to stop this brain drain from our schools? How can we make teaching more competitive with better paying professionals? I will tell you how we could have an immediate effect. Let our teachers keep more of their hard-earned money. I will be introducing a bill to give our teachers an immediate pay raise in the form of a tax cut. Simply put, teachers would keep more money in their pocket each payday and send less of it to the IRS. They need this money back home more than we need it up here. And I guarantee you they will spend it more wisely than we will. Hard-earned money always goes further in a household than it does in a rathole. I call it the Thank You Teachers Tax Cut. Here is how it would work. It would include every full-time teacher, public and private, in every prekindergarten and K through 12 classroom. This tax cut would start immediately and would increase the longer the teacher stayed in the classroom. Teachers with fewer than 5 years in the classroom, about 900,000 teachers, would get a tax cut equal to one-third of their Federal income tax. Teachers with 5 to 10 years of experience, also about 900,000 teachers, would get to keep two-thirds of what they would normally pay in Federal income tax. Teachers with more than 10 years' experience--about 1.8 million teachers--would have no Federal income tax at all for as long as they stayed in the classroom. The Thank You Teachers Tax Cut would mean immediate pay raises of between 5 and 15 percent. It would put more money into teachers' pockets each and every payday. It would immediately give some equity to this noble profession. But it would be more than just more money. It would be a tangible show of our respect and our gratitude to this profession that is all too often taken for granted. So it would be a huge tax cut, more than $16 billion a year at a minimum--probably more, according to my very rough math. But when we are talking about a projected budget for 2003 of $2.085 trillion, $16 billion is not even 1 percent of that budget. Don't tell me we cannot tighten our belt that little to help our teachers. We all know our teachers are not paid adequately. They are not in my State and they are not in your State. Some need more help than others. Mississippi has the lowest average salary for teachers in the South and South Dakota has the lowest paid teachers in the Nation. I would plead for the leaders of both parties in this Senate to support this tax cut. I also think our Nation's Governors would like this proposal for two reasons: First, it does not interfere with the States' rights to set teacher salaries. But it does boost the bottom line for every State's teachers, and that is what is important. Our Governors will also like it because today, and especially in the next few years, that Pacman called Medicaid is going to gobble up State revenues as never before. I warn you, that will leave a much smaller pot of money available at the State level for teacher pay raises. I realize there are shortages in other important professions that have low salaries and bad working conditions, and I have great sympathy for those workers, too. But the long-term security of this Nation is wrapped up in our schools, and that is why this tax cut for teachers is such an important one now. This tax cut is a chance to really help our children by making sure we put good teachers in their classrooms and keep them there. It is also a chance to help our deserving teachers. It is the fastest, surest way to put more money into their pockets immediately. Finally, this is a chance for the Senate, for the entire Congress, to say thank you to our teachers. I yield the floor.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, there is a little family restaurant in my hometown of Young Harris, GA, that is called Mary Ann's. It is where the locals gather, and often some tourists, to enjoy the north Georgia mountains. It is a good cross-section of folks: Blue-collar laborers who build houses and cut timber; teachers from the little junior college up the street where I once taught, and may do so again; young folks determined to eke out a living without having to move to Atlanta; retired folks who did go to the city to find work and then came back home as soon as they could. There is also a percentage of people from States such as New York and Michigan who dreamed of retiring to the sunshine of Florida, and did. Some found it a little crowded and then came on up to our area in north Georgia. We call them halfbacks. They retired to Florida, then moved halfway back home. Nothing wrong with Florida, mind you. They just enjoy the beauty of our mountains. The point I am making is this is a great cross-section of folks, usually equally divided between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It is where I do my focus groups, for free--or not exactly for free: sausage, a biscuit, and a cup of coffee. I suggest to both parties in Washington who pay those enormous sums of money for focus groups and polling that there is a much cheaper way to do it, and I swear I believe it is just about as accurate. Anyway, the point I want to make is over the recess I was in Mary Ann's a lot, and I processed a lot of information on the cross-tabs of my brain, you might say. One day, an old timer, so thin he was mostly breath and britches, followed me out into the parking lot. That is where you can have real private conversations, usually with one leg propped up on the bumper of a pickup. We have known each other all of our lives. He stared deep into my eyes and he said: Zell, I am worried about Hoyle. Hoyle Bryson is my uncle, kind of like a father since my dad died when I was a baby. Hoyle has always lived next door. When I was a little boy, he played professional baseball in the minor leagues at far-away and exciting places such as Tallahassee, FL; Tarboro, NC; Portsmouth, VA. Most of his life he was a hunter and a trapper and worked as a lineman for the Rural Electric Association. He is 88 years old now, has lived alone for over 20 years since his wife died. Once, a strong mountain man, he now has diabetes, prostate cancer, recently had angioplasty, and this week was bothered with a kidney infection. That once strong body is gradually growing weaker. So I am worried about Hoyle. I am worried about Hoyle, even though he still makes his own garden and keeps a passel of hound dogs, as he always has. I took him to the doctor a few weeks ago and stopped back with him at the drugstore to fill his prescriptions. They came to well over $100 and will only last him a couple of weeks. Hoyle, as do most of our elderly, lives below what statistically is known as the lower poverty level threshold. This is the group that is hurt most by taxes and especially by rising health care costs. They are a valuable human resource that we must be, as my mountain friend said, worried about. It is not always pleasant and uplifting to see this segment of our society. They make us sad. Many of us--too many--even refuse to see them. We refuse to see them because we fear we may see ourselves to be the lonely elderly waiting, waiting for someone, anyone, to knock on their screen door and, as John Prine sings, say, ``Hello in there.'' The elderly are waiting for something else, too. They are waiting for us to do something about their needs. So far, they have waited in vain, each day growing older and weaker and many dying. Do you know who we in Washington are like? We are like those people in the biblical story of the Good Samaritan who passed by the man in the ditch and refused to help him. We are no better than they are. Our elderly have always been the backbone of our society, and if we do not give them some help soon, this Nation is going to get a permanent curvature of the spine. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato said it best: States are as men are. They grow out of the character of man--and woman, I might add. If we in the Senate are to be called civilized, decent, God-fearing and God-obeying, we who are so richly blessed must meet this stark question of human need. We must have a meaningful prescription drug benefit, and we must have it soon. I say to my fellow Senators, let us get our priorities in order. Sure, it was important to pass campaign finance reform, to try to take big money out of the political process. But is there anyone who would argue it is more important than a prescription drug benefit? Election reform, we are going to get back on that. I am for it, too. We need to make the process easier, and we need to make it fairer. Fast-track trade, let's debate it. It is important. These important time-consuming, well-meaning pieces of legislation that will tie this body in knots and run out the clock, are any of them close to dealing with the clear human need of a prescription drug benefit for our elderly? If someone tuned in to the debates in this Senate since Christmas, they would conclude we care more about the welfare reform of the caribou than we do about the welfare reform of our elderly. This is a life-and-death issue about our fellow human beings, for goodness' sake. It is not about the fragility of the tundra in some far away isolated place only a very few people will ever see. It is about the fragility of a human being's last days on Earth. There is absolutely no reason, no reason except cheap political gamesmanship, that we can't have a prescription drug benefit before election day--no good reason, no acceptable reason at all. There are 11 prescription drug bills pending in this Senate today, all of which would be better than what we have. With 54 different Senators listed as cosponsors, that says to me a majority of this Senate wants to do something and do it now. All of the budget proposals floating around out there include money for a prescription drug benefit. Both parties made this promise to our elderly in the 2000 election. So why are we waiting? How much longer must we wait? How long are we going to continue to play this nonproductive, partisan, never ending ping-pong game of retribution and payback that takes up so much valuable time and, frankly, makes us all look silly and petty? How long will we keep using the antiquated rules that slow down everything to a crippled snail's pace, that on a regular basis thwarts the clear will of the majority of this body and instead substitutes the tyranny of a minority? We should stop this dilatory dillydallying and put up a sign around here that says ``No Loitering.'' We should cut down on some of this Presidential candidate posturing. I know you cannot do away with all of it, of course. But you want to be a contender? Quit preaching and preening and produce. You want the well off to show you the money? Show the not so well off a prescription drug benefit. To do that, you will have to say no to some of those high-priced political strategists, those consultants who couldn't get elected dogcatcher themselves, whose advice is always the same: Have an issue, not a result. Never compromise, never accept a half of loaf of anything. Remember 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 Hoyle and all those millions like him in the land of plenty who have played by the rules and worked hard all of their lives to have some peace and hope in the twilight days of their last years. If this so-called center of democracy keeps piddling and procrastinating and postponing this issue, I hope the American people will rise up as did those fans at that football game in Cleveland and run both teams off the field.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Madam President, certainly I will wait.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn one of this body's greatest giants--Herman Eugene Talmadge. The tallest tree in all the Georgia forest has fallen. And we will never see another one that stood so tall and had such strength. All of us in Georgia politics who came after him have worked in his shade. My heart grieves for his wife Linda, his family and his legion of loyal friends. Without question, Herman Talmadge was Georgia's greatest governor of the 20th Century. He proposed and passed Georgia's first sales tax, and that ushered in a new day of State services. Nowhere was the impact greater than in education. When Herman Talmadge became Governor in 1948, Georgia still had more than 1,750 one-room school houses. Many other school buildings were in a dilapidated State. The major school construction program he launched was badly needed. It changed the state of education in Georgia. But he did more than just construct new school buildings. Governor Talmadge also implemented Georgia's first statewide effort to reform education. It was called the Minimum Foundation Program for Education. The result was dramatic improvement in public education in Georgia-- increased funding, better-trained, higher-paid teachers, finally, a 9- month school year, and bus service in rural areas that gave every Georgia child the opportunity for an education. And one other thing I can say personally concerning education: Senator Talmadge certainly educated me. He beat the tar out of me when I ran against him for the Senate in 1980. And I have often said I learned more from that losing race than I did in all the others that I won. This Senator has a Ph.D. from ``Herman Talmadge University.'' Although it took me a few years to realize it, I have been a better man and a better Governor and a better Senator because of what he taught me. For example, I never proposed a program or let anyone else propose some ``pie in the sky'' without asking, How much does it cost and how are we going to pay for it? But we are not here to talk about what he taught me. We are here to pay tribute to a Georgia icon, a giant political leader, the likes of which we will never see again. A man who gave and did so much for our State, our Nation, and our people. The Talmadge Administration also left Georgia an economic development legacy, an unprecedented highway construction program was undertaken. The Ports Authority and our network of State farmers' markets were expanded. And the forestry industry benefited from his statewide program of protection and reforestation. Governor Talmadge also built a network of hospitals and health centers throughout Georgia. And he doubled State funding for mental health. Two years after he left the Governor's office, he was easily elected to the U.S. Senate in 1956 to replace the legendary Walter F. George upon his retirement. Those were big shoes to fill. But Herman Talmadge immediately established himself as an authority on agricultural programs. In fact, he chaired the Agriculture Committee for a decade--from 1971 through 1980. I will never forget the day I went to my first meeting as a member of the Agriculture committee. I sat down at the table and right behind me was the huge magnificent portrait of Senator Talmadge. I wrote him a note saying that ``he was still in Washington looking over my shoulder.'' Senator Talmadge was a primary sponsor of the modern School Lunch Program, and of the 1972 Rural Development Act, which created a system of rural hospitals. In welfare reform, Herman Talmadge was ahead of his time. His Talmadge Work Incentive Training Act provided tax credits as an incentive to hiring welfare recipients. In its first two years, this law took more than one million people off the welfare rolls nationwide. It resulted in a savings of $4 billion dollars. Georgia alone saved more than $400 million. Without a doubt, his service together, with Senator Richard B. Russell, who chaired the Armed Forces Committee, gave Georgia the most powerful presence it has ever had in the U.S. Senate. I will close with this last observation. The ultimate test of any statesman is to have a combination of insight and courage. Herman Eugene Talmadge always possessed both in abundance.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. MILLER. I ask to be recognized for up to 5 minutes to speak on the legislation.

Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I will be very brief. I rise in support of the Kyl/Miller amendment on the renewable portfolio standard. As a Governor and now a Senator, I have always been sensitive to the real-world effects of policy. I want to tell you about some of the real-world effects of the issue before us today, the issue of renewable fuels. I commend the majority leader and the Senator from New Mexico for including the subject of renewable fuels in the debate on the comprehensive energy bill. I think it is very important for us to be able to enjoy the comfortable life we all expect and still leave a clean planet to our children and our grandchildren. Using renewable fuels helps our society to fulfill these goals. But when I read the original provisions on renewable fuels in S. 517, they give me pause. I understand Senator Bingaman's intent in putting a renewable standard in this bill. I think that is good. With all due respect, however, I believe he is going about it in the wrong way. Perhaps it is because of my previous life, but I trust State governments. I trust the people who run them, and I think we need to trust the States to create a renewable standard that meets both their needs and their capabilities. We do not need to hand them an expensive Federal standard that they will not be able to meet. Fourteen States already have renewable programs in place, and this amendment would preempt them. It would be saying to them: We are smarter. We know better. States would be forced to pass renewable legislation to meet conditions mandated by the Federal Government. I don't think that is how it should work. These blanket conditions do not take into account the needs and requirements of each individual State, and they are different. What works in Georgia might not work in New Mexico, and vice versa. My State of Georgia, I am proud to say, has been a leader in the production of reliable low-cost energy. If the underlying amendment is enacted, consumers in Georgia could end up paying for credits to subsidize renewables in other parts of the country. Georgia would be forced to pay for a benefit that it will never receive, and I do not think that is right. In my State of Georgia, the Governor has commissioned an energy task force to examine current and future needs for energy generation in the State. This will include a formal study and recommendations for how to use renewable fuel sources, and how to best take advantage of Georgia's available natural resources. The task force will also assess the demand for renewable energy to determine if the cost and benefit will be supported by electricity users in the State. These are the people who know and understand Georgia's energy needs and capabilities. These are the people who should be in charge of regulating Georgia's renewables. That is why Senator Kyl and I have introduced this amendment. That is why I urge my fellow Senators to support it. Our amendment encourages the use of renewable fuels, but it lets the States decide how to do this. This Nation can attain the goal of cleaner energy, but we must do it in the right way. We must let the States decide for themselves the level of renewable fuel that works best for each of them. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition and honor of my friend and an outstanding public servant, Mr. Duane Harris of St. Simons Island, GA. Duane will be retiring on April 1 of this year from his position as the Director, Coastal Resources Division, of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. His retirement comes after some three decades of service to the people of the State of Georgia and this Nation. Duane has served in the very important position of Coastal Director since 1982, during a time of extraordinary challenge for the Department of Natural Resources. The Coastal Division encompasses all of our beautiful Golden Isles where we take great pride in our magnificent beaches, salt water and fresh water wetlands, and the living creatures that depend on those ecosystems for life itself. In Georgia, as elsewhere in our Nation, the coastal area is where we find some of the greatest pressures for development and population growth, and the inevitable confrontation between those pressures and environmental protection. And in this difficult arena, Duane Harris has served with remarkable distinction. Duane joined the Georgia DNR on July 1 of 1970. His service to the State's coastal resources through the years has been diverse and distinguished. In his initial job of Wildlife Biologist he worked in developing the baseline characterization of marine fisheries resources in Georgia, including assessing shrimp and blue crab stocks and formulating management decisions regarding harvest seasons in specific areas. He conducted a coast-wide inventory of Georgia's oyster resources and was one of the founders of Georgia's very popular Artificial Reef Program in the 1970's. He has championed that program's growth to a system that now consists of more than 30 inshore and offshore reefs, providing an essential marine habitat. Duane was instrumental in the establishment and expansion of the Coastal Division's 24-hour on-call network, which has provided round- the-clock response to fish kill, sea turtle and marine mammal strandings since the 1980's. He has personally responded to numerous situations involving strandings and injured birds, sea turtles, and porpoises. Duane is the contact that local officials, the Coast Guard, Law Enforcement, and coastal citizens call upon when no one can be reached. He has also worked tirelessly as a volunteer for DNR's annual Weekend for Wildlife celebration since its inception in 1989. Let me also note that Duane is not simply someone who works to enforce a rulebook. He is an innovative and thoughtful planner who helps shape new policies. For example, during the 1990's, he played a pivotal role in the passage of far-reaching legislation to benefit Georgia's unique coastal environment when he spearheaded the successful regulatory implementation of The Protection of Tidewaters Act, O.C.G.A. Sections 52-1-1 through 52-1-10, and the Right of Passage Act, O.C.G.A. 52-1-30 through 52-1-39, in 1992, culminating in the removal by 1999 of the last remaining river houses that were causing environmental degradation and other problems. Duane worked very hard to provide information to local municipalities and county governments about the benefits of a federally-approved Georgia Coastal Management Program, and has assisted in the development of the Georgia Coastal Management Act, O.C.G.A. Section 12-5-320, in 1997, and its very successful implementation since that time. Over the past 4 years, Duane Harris spearheaded the efforts to regulate driving on Georgia's remote barrier island beaches in a manner consistent with the Shore Protection Act. Duane took the lead on all required administrative procedures, facilitating a lengthy citizen advisory process initiated in August 1998. He formulated the resulting regulations to afford the needed protection to shorebirds, nesting sea turtles, and the fragile dune environment while accommodating the interests of legally-recognized property holders. This was a sensitive and controversial issue, for which he forged a reasonable system of regulation. Following adoption of these rules in December 1998, he worked to implement them prior to the onset of the 1999 sea turtle nesting season. Duane recently led the deliberations of a diverse Marsh Hammocks Advisory Council in an examination of the issue of development of coastal marsh hammocks and back barrier islands. His regional and national conservation service includes serving as chairman of both the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. At the State and local level, he has brought a marine conservation perspective to the numerous boards, steering committees, task forces, civic and service organizations on which he has served, including the Leadership Georgia Board of Trustees, the Brunswick Rotary, the Brunswick-Golden Isles Chamber of Commerce, and the Keep Brunswick- Golden Isles Clean and Beautiful Board. In recognition of his marine conservation expertise and contributions, he is member of the Skidaway Foundation Board. This outline of Duane's career gives us an appreciation of his professional record, but it does not come close to illuminating the strength of his career. It takes a leader of special qualities to meet the challenges of administering the laws and regulations that govern coast areas. It takes a person of accomplishment in scientific skills, but it also takes a person of patience, honesty, and integrity. And it takes a person who can deal directly and effectively with immediate and difficult problems. That is why Duane, in my mind, embodies the special qualities of public service that are so important to this Nation. I know that many of my colleagues have had distinguished careers of service to local and State governments prior to their election to the Senate. Service in the Senate is an extraordinary honor and an extraordinary responsibility and opportunity. At the same time, we are in many ways insulated from the direct consequences of policies on the lives of people. As Lieutenant Governor and then Governor of Georgia, I had the privilege of face-to-face contacts with citizens in need, and I struggled with the difficult task of solving real and immediate problems. I learned that it is men and women like Duane Harris who are truly the ``hands-on'' public servants throughout this great country. They must, on a daily basis, operate the enforcement programs that transform laws and regulations into action. They must make quick decisions that affect people's lives and livelihoods. I am proud to have known Duane Harris for many, many years as both a dedicated public servant and a friend. I will also add that he is one of the best fishermen you will ever have the opportunity to meet, and I understand that after some 30 years of service to the State of Georgia, that is exactly what he plans to do, go fishing. Except that he will be doing that as a professional fishing guide with his own boat. Duane is still a young man, and I know that as a private citizen he and his accomplished wife, Carol, will continue to be a source of great strength and leadership to their community. He is the kind of man who will always carry out his work with unselfish energy and sound values. On behalf of all of my colleagues in the United States Congress, I would like to thank Duane Harris for his devotion to his duty and express my heartfelt thanks for a job well done.

Mr. MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the contributions an extraordinary organization has had on the lives of young women in America. In 1912, the Girl Scouts of America was founded in my home State of Georgia by a visionary young lady named Juliette Gordon Low. Juliette's hope was to bring girls together in the spirit of service and community. Within a few years of the establishment of the first troop, the Girl Scouts had expanded to many different cities across the country, and had opened their doors to girls of all races and backgrounds. Since that time, the Girl Scouts have been a symbol of leadership in this country, from their involvement in relief efforts during the Great Depression to their activism for civil rights and environmental responsibility in the turbulent 60s and 70s. The Girl Scouts have celebrated traditional values like volunteerism and have taught young women the importance of leadership, financial literacy, good health, and global awareness. Today, Girl Scouts organizations across America play a role in the lives of over 3.7 million young women. On this, the 90th anniversary of the creation of the Girl Scouts in Savannah, GA, I wish to recognize the vision of Juliette Gordon Low and the contributions of the Girl Scouts of America to the development of the intelligent, self-confident young women who play such an important role in America today.