Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3884, H.R. 3147, and H.R. 2523, and that the Senate proceed to their immediate consideration en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3734 and H.R. 3124, en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 478, H.R. 620.

I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the amendment to the title be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2119, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3242, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1521) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the Edward H. McDaniel American Legion Post No. 22 in Pahrump, Nevada, for the construction of a post building and memorial park for use by the American Legion, other veterans' groups, and the local community.

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives:

I ask unanimous consent the Senate concur in the House amendment, with an amendment which is at the desk, concur in the House amendment to the title, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following revision transmitted to the Senate on December 7, 2004, by the President of the United States: 1995 Revision of Radio Regulations (Treaty Document No. 108-28).

I further ask that the revision be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed, and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a few words before we adjourn for the holidays. This isn't the first year that there will be a lot of empty places at our holiday dinner tables. Even if our own table doesn't have a missing spot, we know a neighbor or a friend whose brother, mother, or husband is away fighting to keep us safe at home. These empty places remind us of the generations of men an women who have sacrificed to keep us free so that we can, in freedom, celebrate those holidays that are important to each of us.

Today I rise to honor the service of the family of Arles Greene of Hendersonville, TN. Arles's family has a lot of empty places around their dinner table in the Second World War. Arles's father Eugene W. Greene, his uncle William Edwin McDavid and friend Ed Gallbreath, Jr., all served some 60 years ago.

Ed Galbreath, Jr., a friend of Arles's family, joined the Air Force in February 1944, during his senior year of high school. He flew 23\1/ 2\ missions as a gunman, operated a VHF radio, and worked the radar jammers. He survived four crashes. In his last crash, out of a B-24 Tiger Shark, he landed in Berlin where he was taken prisoner. He spent months in confinement with some 6,000 other prisoners of war until he was liberated by the Russian Army. For his bravery, Sergeant Galbreath received many awards, including the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Purple Heart, the P.O.W. Medal, and the Parachute Club Medal. His understanding of those prisons shaped his many future contributions to his community of Goodlettsville, TN.

In October of 1943, Arles's uncle, PVT William Edwin McDavid, left Moccasin Gap, Virginia, to serve in the 38th Infantry Division. Private McDavid was just 18 years old when he served in Normandy, the Rhineland, the Ardennes, and northern France. While fighting in the Battle of the Bulge on New Year's Eve of 1944, McDavid suffered frostbitten hands that ended his infantry

career. Private McDavid's service and bravery was recognized with the award of a European-African Theatre Ribbon with four Bronze Battle Stars, a Bronze Star Medal, and a Purple Heart.

Arles's father, Eugene Greene, began his career with the U.S. Army in July 1944. The oldest of 12 children, he enlisted at 18 years old with the Hancock County Draft Board. He served with the U.S. Army infantry, 2nd Division, 9th Regiment that assisted in the liberation of Nazi concentration camps in the spring of 1945. Greene and his unit liberated the death camps at Dachau. He remembers finding only 25 people alive at the sub-camp where he shot a lock off a prison gate setting them free. Those prisoners rushed to drink the milk of Holstein cattle pastured nearby.

Eugene met General Patton shortly before his death. He says of Patton, ``He was over there to get a job done, and that's what he did.'' Eugene Greene returned with may memories of the war. Most of these he buried in the fields of his Tennessee farm, but some lived on--the faith he had in his fellow soldiers, in his family, and in God.

I have had a lot to say about the importance of teaching American history and civics to help our children grow up understanding what it means to be an American. The teacher in me thinks of this tribute as an assignment. I hope when we gather around our holiday tables this season we pause to take stock, like Arles did, to answer what our own families have contributed to America's history and to answering the question of what it means to be an American.

Thank you for allowing me to honor my friend Arles Greene and his family.

Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Virginia for his leadership on telecommunications policy. Over the last 2 years, I do not know any Senator in the Chamber, other than the Senator from Virginia, who has been more active, who has been better informed, and who has been more vigorous on the principles in which he believes. He was the leading Senator in advancing a compromise. It was his legislation, S. 150, which a number of us cosponsored, which the House has accepted, which has taken the next step in how we deal with the so- called Internet tax moratorium.

I was glad to have a chance to hear his remarks today as he talked about that and as he looks to the future, and I would like to add my own thoughts because during this past 2 years we have had pretty vigorous debate as we have made our way toward a compromise. It has been a debate in the best traditions of the Senate. We have had it on the floor. On one occasion the Senator from Virginia and I took our points of view to a forum off campus, so to speak, went over to the Heritage Foundation and had a debate. In that debate, we actually learned some things from each other, which shows that when Senators debate and speak, we find some points of common agreement. I think that debate itself helped lead toward the compromise we have made.

I believe the compromise, S. 150, of which Senator Allen is the principle sponsor, is important. No. 1, it is temporary, not permanent. This is a fast-moving technology and field. As Senator Allen pointed out in his remarks, the 1996 Telecommunications Act in some ways is obsolete today because high-speed Internet access, or broadband as we call it, was barely even known in 1996. It is no insult to the Members of the Senate to say I doubt if many Senators ever heard of it in 1996, because most Americans had not heard of high-speed Internet access. Very few people were using it.

So the legislation did not contemplate this rapidly growing new technology we have. That is one reason why I felt in the debate that it was good to have a temporary, rather than a permanent, moratorium on what States may do about applying their taxes to Internet access so that the Commerce Committee of the Congress could consider a long-range permanent policy.

S. 150, which has passed this year, this compromise, as the Senator from Virginia said, allows States to continue collecting taxes on the Internet and to continue to do so for 2 to 4 years, depending on the type of access.

One other important thing it does is it makes clear that State and local governments can continue to collect taxes on telephone services even if telephone calls are made over the Internet.

Now, that is a very important development. Most observers believe that certainly most businesses--and maybe most all of us--will soon be making our telephone calls over the Internet. That is a wonderful opportunity and a great advance. I believe there is general consensus among all of us who debated this issue over the last 2 years that in order to make sure that happens, the Government needs as much as possible to get out of the way. That means a different kind of regulation than we now have for what we call traditional telephone services, the plain old telephone.

Where I was concerned about the legislation that was going through the Congress was not about whether we should lighten up on regulation-- I believe we should--the question was whether from Washington, DC, we should tell State and local governments that they may not apply the same sales taxes and other use taxes to telephone calls made over the Internet that they apply to other telephone services. We did not change that with the temporary legislation we passed this year, but it is bound to be a big subject of discussion in the new Congress.

Now here is why it is so important: I believe gradually we are making it more difficult for State and local governments to do the things we want them to do. The Senator from Virginia and I are both former Governors. We know many of the things Americans want most from their government, they want from their State and local government. They do not want decisions made up here. So one of my goals is to make sure we do no harm to State and local governments while at the same time we are trying to make sure we do no harm to this exciting new technology, broadband, high-speed Internet access.

My fear was we might unwittingly in this legislation stop Texas, Tennessee, or Florida, for example, States that have no State income tax, from using their sales tax on telecommunications services. Last year, Texas collected $1 billion on sales tax on telecommunications services. Florida collected about $1 billion. Tennessee, according to the Department of Revenue, collected $361 million on sales taxes on telecommunications services.

Now, not all of that is threatened by telephone calls over the Internet that might not be subject to the same taxation, but gradually, and it may come very rapidly--actually, we hope it comes rapidly--and if people move to this new technology, make their telephone calls over the Internet, and suddenly the Texas State budget has a $1 billion hole in it or a $750 million hole or a $500 million hole, what do they do about it? Well, they raise tuitions at the University of Texas or University of Tennessee, they reduce services, or they raise other taxes.

So my primary reason for becoming involved in the Internet tax debate, so-called, was to try to make sure we did not do here what I never did like when I was a Governor, which was to look up to Washington and see Members of Congress coming up with a good idea, passing it, taking credit for it, and sending the bill to me when I was Governor. I did not like that.

My whole point was if we are going to stop States from collecting a source of revenue they are now collecting, then we should pay the bill from Washington. In other words, that is an unfunded Federal mandate, in my opinion. We did not get to that problem because we reached a compromise for now, but that is the debate coming up in the future.

Will we take some action in the name of making it easier for high- speed Internet access that does real, serious harm to State and local governments by depriving them of billions of dollars of revenue, which in turn could cause the sales tax in Blunt County, TN, to go up, or the property tax to go up or, heaven forbid, Florida, Texas, or Tennessee to have to put in a new State income tax because Washington has told us we cannot have a sales tax on telecommunications services and we still like to have universities, parks, roads, and the other services States are supposed to provide.

So now how do we go from where we are today, which Senator Allen has helped to craft a compromise we have all supported, and which is a very excellent piece of legislative work by him and by others, and what is the next step? He has offered a few suggestions about telecommunications in general. Let me reiterate a single suggestion I have about this specific issue about whether State and local governments will be permitted to tax telephone calls made over the Internet.

I would like once more to encourage the Governors, the mayors, and the county executives to meet with the telecommunications industry and suggest to us in the Congress a way to do

this. This is a highly technical subject. It has many moving parts. This is not the best place to come up with a complex reaction to a complex problem. We would like to see some options, or at least I would.

The option I would like to see would have basically two parts. One would be lighten up the regulation on high-speed Internet access. There is a broad consensus about that. But do it in a way that does no harm to State and local governments, that does not have Senator Feinstein from California standing up in the back with letters from 130 cities and counties saying this could take away 5 to 15 percent of their local tax base. I do not think we need to go through that again. I think we need to find a way to do no harm to high-speed Internet access. Let it flourish. Let it grow. Let it move. And do no harm to State and local governments. Those are the principles.

I understand there may be some discussions already beginning to go on and I want to encourage those, and I pledge I will work with Senator Allen and others in this Chamber and State and local governments and the telecommunications industry to try to get a commonsense exclusion so the technology can grow and so States can continue to have an adequate tax base to support universities, schools, and the other things we expect from State and local governments.

The guidelines that I suggest for this discussion that I hope is being held outside the Halls of the Senate are, No. 1, separate the issue of taxation and regulation. Let's go ahead and figure out a way to lighten up regulation of high-speed Internet access. I think there is a broad consensus for that. Separate the issue of what do we do about the fact that States and local governments are depending on these revenues. What do we do about that? Second, I agree with the Senator from Virginia that our goal should be simplicity, simplicity both in regulation and in any rules about taxation.

Finally, I believe that a goal should be, in addition to simplicity-- certainty. If you are in business, you want some certainty. If you are a State treasurer, you want some certainty. You have budgets to make up. So we need some certainty. We do not need a situation where thousands and thousands of local jurisdictions tax new telecommunications technology in such a confusing way that it creates uncertainty, litigation, and lots of paperwork and slows down the economy. We fail if we have that. In searching for simplicity, there is no need for us to create an unfunded Federal mandate that tells State and local governments they have to give up part of their tax base without reimbursing them for it.

While we can debate it at another day, I do not believe that high- speed Internet access needs a Federal subsidy or State subsidy. It is the fastest growing new technology we have seen. It is growing faster than the cell phone did at this stage of its development.

We are talking about an exciting new technology. We are talking about real dollars. We are talking about a bipartisan disagreement and a bipartisan consensus that we have been able to come to this year about what to do, at least temporarily. For those who say the Senate is not capable of working in a bipartisan way, I think they are wrong because we have had bipartisan agreement and we have disagreement, and we have had some bipartisan agreement.

I see the Senator from New Hampshire is also in the Chamber, and the Senator from Delaware. I have some other remarks I would like to make, but I imagine they both would like to say something about this same subject.

My further remarks have to do with other legislation. What I would like to do at this stage is to yield the floor in just a minute and listen to what they have to say, in the hopes that we may be advancing toward some consensus. Now that we have a consensus about what to do for the next 2 to 4 years, maybe we can take some steps about advancing toward a consensus about the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say a few words about the legislation passed last night that we call IDEA, to help children with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which we have enacted is critical for the approximately 6.5 million children with special needs across the country, 125,000 of which I've in my home state of Tennessee.

The bill makes a number of substantial reforms. I would like to highlight two that I think are particularly important:

No. 1, the bill clarifies the definition of a highly qualified teacher, and

No. 2, the bill also creates a seamless early childhood program for children from birth until school age.

Research has shown that students taught by effective teachers greatly outperform those taught by ineffective teachers. That's why it is a priority for me to ensure that students have a highly qualified teacher in their classroom, especially special education students.

I am grateful language was included to clarify for schools what the definition of a highly qualified teacher means. This is particularly important for the 6,037 Certified Special Education teachers employed by Tennessee's public schools, especially for middle and high school teachers.

After the passage of No Child Left Behind, many middle and high school special ed teachers were concerned that they would have to become highly qualified in every subject--reading, math, history, science. The language in the Conference Report allows states to develop a Highly Objective Uniform State System of Evaluation, HOUSSE, for special ed teachers teaching multiple core subjects. Teachers can also be deemed highly qualified if they meet the educational requirements for each subject under NCLB test or degree. This important flexibility gives states more options to determine what makes a special education highly qualified so that we can keep veteran teachers in these classrooms and enable new teachers to become highly qualified and dedicate their careers to these special children.

I am a strong supporter of early intervention to help children with special needs before they reach school age, so that when they enter school they can succeed. I'm pleased by the changes to the Part C early intervention program included in the conference report. This program has enabled millions of infants and toddlers with disabilities to enter school with the skills they need to learn, grow and prosper. The bill before us today makes two needed changes to Part C.

First, it allows States to give parents the option of either (a) keeping a child in the Part C program until reaching school age, or (b) having their child transferred to the pre-school program at age three. This provides a comprehensive and fluid system of services for special needs children from birth to school age.

Second, it provides incentive grants to States that choose to give parents that option. Under the conference report, 15% of appropriated funds in excess of $460 million for Part C will be dedicated to these incentive grants.

In Tennessee, about 5,730 children participate in the Part C program. One of these children is Kaylie, a little girl who was born with Down Syndrome. The hospital referred her family to the Kiwanis Center for Child Development for services as part of the Part C early childhood program. At the Kiwanis Center, Kaylie receives physical, occupational, and speech therapy--there is even a therapeutic pool. She is provided with child care where she interacts with other children her age. All these services are provided through various federal and state programs, but the Part C program was the critical link that coordinated these programs so she can receive them all at one site. Kaylie was only 8 months old when I told this story at our Senate HELP Committee mark-up of this bill; today she's about two years old. Under the current Part C system, when Kaylie turns 3 she will no longer be able to continue to receive this seamless system of services at Kiwanis. She will have to attend the half-day pre-school program at the local elementary school. That date is fast approaching. But the changes included in this Conference Report, that we are about to ratify, will allow the state of Tennessee to give Kaylie's family the option to stay in the Part C program and continue receiving services at the Kiwanis Center until she goes to Kindergarten. Any fees that Kaylie's family currently pays they will continue to pay. If Kaylie's family would like her to attend the local public school for pre-school they still will have the opportunity to send her. We ought to give her parents that choice, and I'm grateful we're acting in time to make that possible.

This is one more example of the Senate working in a bipartisan way.

This is a complex bill. It affected 6.5 million children with special needs across this country, and 125,000 of them were in Tennessee.

Again, I want to focus on two aspects of it, especially how it affects teachers and children and families all across the country.

First, it clarifies the definition of a highly qualified teacher. That is important because of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Second, it allows children with special needs who are receiving services in

the community to continue to do that after age 3 all the way up to the time they enter school. Today, those children may be provided one service here and one service here and one service here. When they get to age 3, they suddenly have to go into a certain preschool program. This gives more parents more choices, more flexibility, and it is a great advantage.

One very important aspect of the bill--it is the first thing I mentioned--is the definition of highly qualified teacher. This may not sound very important to people who aren't teachers with special needs children, but this has been a source of a lot of anxiety for teachers.

In elementary schools, in early grades, teachers teach a lot of subjects. If you are certified to be an elementary school special needs teacher, then you can be a highly qualified teacher. But when you get to the middle school and high school level, you will be teaching special needs children in math, science, English, history, and geography. The original legislation said a special needs teacher in Shawnee, KS, or Fort Dodge, KS would have to be qualified in special needs in English, in math, in science, history, and geography. That is quite a burden for a special needs teacher in high school in some districts. This legislation creates some flexibility. It creates a way for States to look at this in a practical way, and says in middle schools and high schools across this country when teachers are teaching special needs children, we are going to come up with a commonsense way to make sure they are highly qualified because these children deserve that, too, but to take into account the reality. We are talking about maybe 100,000 teachers in the middle and high schools, maybe 15,000 or 20,000 schools.

We have to be careful when we write a sentence about elementary and secondary education in America. We are not the national school board, or at least we shouldn't be. We need to make sure it is practical and realistic and gives as much flexibility as possible to communities and States to come up with what actually works with an individual child in an individual classroom. This is one disappointment I have with the bill.

Senator Sessions from Alabama and I tried to change the effective date of the definition of a highly qualified teacher for middle and high school. We said it ought to be a year from now. But the majority felt this new requirement should go into effect in August of next year, which is 6 or 7 months from now. I think that is a mistake.

What has to happen is the President has to sign this bill in December. Then the U.S. Department of Education has to interpret its regulations--that is January or February. Then the States have to come up with their new, flexible ways of determining what ``highly qualified teacher'' is. Then the teachers have to read it. They have to perhaps do some professional development. They have to become certified. And all of this has to be done by July or August.

This is the kind of thing that does not build support for the No Child Left Behind Act. I think it very important that we remember while we may have a very good idea, we are not a national school board of the small school districts. This is a massive country with many different parts to it. We are dealing in this case with probably 100,000 teachers.

Overall, this is a very important bill and I am delighted to be a part of it. I commend especially Senators Gregg and Kennedy for their leadership.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss H.R. 5360, the American History and Civics Act of 2004.

I support H.R. 5360, the American History and Civics Education Act of 2004. The bill represents an important step forward in the teaching of these critical subjects. The Senate acted last year on an earlier version of this bill that I sponsored along with the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. I introduced that bill in my Maiden Speech before the Senate, and we later voted 90-0 in support of its passage. The House has now passed its version of the bill, under the leadership of Congressman Roger Wicker from Mississippi. Senate passage of the bill today will be the culmination of nearly two years of work on this important piece of legislation.

National exams show that three-quarters of the nation's 4th, 8th and 12th graders are not proficient in civics knowledge and one-third does not even have basic knowledge, making them ``civic illiterates.''

Children are not learning about American history and civics because they are not being taught it. American history has been watered down, and civics is too often dropped from the curriculum entirely.

It is time to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. This act does precisely that. It establishes Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics and Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics. Their purpose would be to inspire better teaching and more learning of our history and way of government. The Secretary of Education is authorized to provide grants to universities, libraries, museums, or other non-profits that demonstrate expertise in the core subjects of history and civics and government. For example, the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, which operates and maintains the home of our first President, might apply to host an academy at their historical site, focusing on the history of the founding of our nation and the principles upon which it was founded.

Additionally, the bill allows the Secretary of Education to provide grants to the National History Day program, a year-long national program that trains teachers and sponsors a national competition among junior high and high school students, who produce dramatic performances, imaginative exhibits, multimedia documentaries and research papers based on research related to an annual theme.

I want to extend my gratitude to the Senators who have supported the bill here in the Senate: Senators Frist, Reid, Gregg, Kennedy, Stevens, and Byrd, among many others. And I want to thank our colleagues in the House who worked so hard on the bill, including Congressmen Boehner, Miller, Castle, Woolsey, Blackburn, and especially Congressman Wicker who was the lead sponsor.

A strong, bipartisan team of players stood up for the future of our children and this nation by working on this legislation. With Senate passage, today is a great victory for everyone working to improve the teaching of American history and civics so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American.

This bill will be coming, hopefully, before the Senate later today. It passed the Senate unanimously last year. Now it has passed the House and is coming back in an amended and improved version. I believe it has full support. The lead sponsor is the new Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid. It is also sponsored by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd, who testified for the bill. Most of the Republican Senators have cosponsored it.

This is a bill very simply to put teaching of American history and civics back into its rightful place--in schools where our children can grow up learning what it means to become an American.

It takes a modest step to establish Presidential Academies for Teachers of American History and Civics in the summer and the Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics. They are modeled after the very successful Governor's Schools that are in many States across the country where students and sometimes teachers go for 2 weeks or 4 weeks to learn particular subjects.

The reason for it is that high school seniors in the United States make the lowest scores of any subject on U.S. history. The lowest scores of any subject, according to the National Assessment for Educational Progress of America, for high school seniors are on U.S. history. That is absolutely disgraceful.

Here we are a nation at war, our principles are being attacked, and we are not teaching our children those principles. Here we are a nation that celebrates itself for being one for many with more new Americans coming than

ever in our history, and we are not teaching what it means to be an American.

You don't get to be an American by the color of your skin or where you come from. You get to be an American by understanding what we believe in. The common school itself was created 150 years ago, according to the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, Albert Shanker. He said the public school was created to help immigrant children learn the three Rs, and what it means to be an American, with a hope they would go home and teach their parents. The civic purpose of the public school is being fundamentally ignored in many parts of our country and this is one small step in that direction.

I am delighted that a bipartisan group of Senators and House Members--Mr. Boehner, Mr. Miller, Representative Blackburn from Tennessee, and the principal sponsor, Roger Wicker of Mississippi-- played a role. I thank them for that.

Mr. President, I mention one other piece of legislation that may have a chance of passing. At least I can report there are now 68 U.S. Senators who have agreed to sponsor S. 2889 which will celebrate the recovery and restoration of the American bald eagle by making $5- and $10- and 50-cent commemorative coins.

Very often these so called coin bills are especially parochial. That is why we are required to have 67 Senators agree before we do one; usually by practice, nearly 300 House Members. Well, 300 House Members have agreed and nearly 70 Senators. That is because in 1782 the Founding Fathers established the bald eagle as the national emblem of the United States. Since then, the bald eagle has come to represent the spirit of American freedom, democracy, and strength.

It is my hope before we finish our business today we will honor and protect the symbol of America and cosponsor and enact the American Bald Eagle Commemorative Coin Act.

One reason Senators have signed on is that the eagle has been roaming the Halls with its handler, going into different offices. A number of Senators have called me from their office with the eagle perched in front of them. The eagle is a very successful lobbyist for himself.

If we cannot get the commemorative coin enacted today before we adjourn, I am sure we will be able to do so early next year.

I thank the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Ohio for giving me an opportunity to conclude my remarks.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I came here primarily to listen this afternoon and show my respect for the Senator from Oklahoma.

My remarks will be very brief.

I want to begin with a story that I told the Senator from Oklahoma before. My mentor in politics is former majority leader of this body, Howard Baker. I got involved in politics because of him in the 1960s, when we were building a two-party system in Tennessee. I remember the campaign of 1980. Senator Baker was the Republican leader. He changed the name on the door from ``Minority Leader'' to ``Republican Leader'' because he didn't want the Republican Party thinking of itself as a permanent minority. Many people thought he was just whistling, ``Dixie,'' so to speak.

At that time, there were 37, 38, or 39 Republican Members, and no one saw much prospect of getting much further ahead of that.

Then came a tidal wave in 1980 with the election of President Reagan and 13 or 14 new Republican Senators. It went from fewer than 40 to more than 50. Senator Baker had predicted that. I had learned to pay attention to him.

I saw him after the election. I said: Well, you were right about that. You were about the only person who was. He said: I will tell you one thing.

I said: What is that?

He said: Pay attention to Nickles.

I said: Who is Nickles?

He said: He is this young, 32- or 33-year-old new Senator from Oklahoma, and he is going to be a real force to deal with.

I have paid attention to Senator Nickles ever since then. I have served in the Senate with the Senator from Oklahoma, and during that time I have seen him a lot. We have known each other. I think Senator Baker was correct. A lot of people have paid attention to Don Nickles ever since 1980. I am delighted to have had the privilege of serving 2 years with him in the Senate.

In my experience, I have found him highly intelligent. He has been a big help with the complex issues that we have here. He is principled. That is important. And he has been easy to work with from the point of view of a colleague.

I heard his remarks to the new Senators that he was meeting with; he and the Senator from Louisiana spoke to them as they were stepping down. He was suggesting that even though he is known as a principled, effective, and conservative Senator, he reminded them that in order to get things done in the Senate there has to be a consensus. And that usually means finding ways of dealing across the aisle with colleagues we respect.

I am simply here today to show respect, not to make a speech.

I am glad to have that opportunity and finally to say something that may be a little different from what some of your other colleagues have said.

I admire your decision, and from my perspective I think it is the right one. Life is big. It is more than politics. It is more than government.

This is a big wonderful world in which we live. We live in a magnificent country. There is a lot to savor.

For example, when I have been in and out of public life at different times and leaving the Governorship, going into the private sector was liberating. I found that my focus had been narrow and that there were a great many things about my personal life, about my family's life, about my country's life, and about the private sector that I could get involved in and found very interesting. Over time I found I could come back to the public sector with a new energy, a broader experience and a different perspective.

I don't know what the future may hold for you.

I think it is wise to make such an enormous contribution here, and at the peak of that, to step out and take that to other places. For one, I hope the future will include, in some way, a contribution in the public arena. But you certainly deserve a chance to explore the private arena.

It has been my privilege to know you and to serve with you, and to know, once again, that Howard Baker was right in 1981 when he said, ``Pay attention to Nickles.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the increasing number of babies born too early. The March of Dimes has designated November as Prematurity Awareness Month to draw attention to the growing, costly and serious public health problem of preterm birth. My colleague, Senator Dodd, and I have introduced a resolution supporting this effort and look forward to swift approval in the Senate.

Nationwide, over 480,0000 babies were born prematurely in 2002. In my own State of Tennessee, one of every seven babies born in 2002 was born preterm, and the rate of preterm births in Tennessee has risen more than 9 percent since 1992.

Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I chair, held a hearing to learn about the devastating effects of preterm birth and what our government agencies and private organizations are doing to combat this crisis. We heard the inspirational story of Kelley Bolton Jordan and her daughter, Whitney, from Memphis, Tennessee. Whitney was born 3\1/2\ months early and weighed just 1 lb. 10 oz. Imagine a leg so small it could fit through a wedding ring.

Whitney spent 3 grueling months in intensive care. She is now a healthy, happy 3 year-old and has no repercussions from her early birth--other babies are not as lucky. Preterm birth takes a severe toll on America's families and strains our health care system. Each year, 100,000 children develop health problems because of their early births, including cerebral palsy and vision and hearing loss. And preterm birth is the leading cause of death in the first month of life.

With over half the causes of preterm birth unknown, more research is desperately needed. That's why I plan to re-introduce ``the PREEMIE Act'' and hope that the Senate can pass this legislation in the 109th Congress.

I commend the March of Dimes for its dedication in working toward a day when babies and their families no longer have to face the devastating consequences of premature birth. If we work together to focus public and private resources on this problem, we can decrease the number of premature births in every state.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes in morning business.