Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I regret to report that the conference committee for the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill has been indefinitely postponed. I wanted to take just a few minutes and say from my point of view why it has been postponed and to express my hope that it can be put back on track soon, in the regular order, and that we can move ahead and deal with it. The Commerce-Justice appropriations bill includes funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It includes appropriations for NASA, for the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Here is what has happened. It is important for my colleagues to know this. The reason the Appropriations Committee conference has been postponed is because the Speaker of the House objects to an amendment which I offered in the Appropriations Committee, which was adopted by the committee, adopted by the full Senate, and which the House of Representatives instructed its conferees to approve. I have been told that unless I agree not to bring the amendment up in conference, the conference will not meet. Let me describe the amendment. I believe most Americans will be surprised to learn what its subject is. The amendment I offered in the Senate Appropriations Committee is an amendment to make clear that it is not against the Federal law for an employer to require an employee to speak English on the job. Let me say that again. My amendment, which was adopted by this Senate, was to make it clear that it is not against the Federal law for an employer to require an employee to speak English on the job. That was adopted by the Appropriations Committee. Among those voting for it were the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking Republican member, Senator Cochran. When it went to the House, there were two votes on it, but the second vote had the House, as a majority, instructing its conferees to agree with the Senate position and make it the Federal law. Why did I offer such an amendment? I offered the amendment because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal agency, has determined that it is illegal for an employer in this country to require employees to speak in English while working. As a result, the EEOC has sued the Salvation Army, for example, for damages because one of the Salvation Army thrift stores in Boston required its employees to speak English on the job. The EEOC says this is a discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It says, in effect, that unless the Salvation Army can prove this is a business necessity, it can't require its employees to speak English. In plain English, this means that thousands of small businesses across America--the shoe shop, the drugstore, the gas station--any company would have to be prepared to make their case to the Federal agency--and perhaps hire a lawyer--to show there is some special reason to justify requiring their employees to speak our country's common language on the job. I believe this is a gross distortion of the Civil Rights Act, and it is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be an American. I do not say this lightly. Since the 1960s, in Tennessee, at a time when it was not popular, I have supported, I believe, and voted for, when I have been in a position to do it, every major piece of civil rights legislation that has come down the road from the early days. I believe in that passionately. I remember the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and all those important pieces of Federal and State legislation which have made a difference to equal rights in our country. But I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it is discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee: I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job. That is why I put forward an amendment to stop the EEOC from filing these lawsuits. That is why the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed on June 28 to approve my amendment. That is why the full Senate on October 16 passed a bill including my amendment. That is why the full House of Representatives voted to instruct its conferees to agree with the Senate on November 8. That is why, I believe, that the Senate-House conference on this appropriations bill should include the amendment in the conference report so it can become law. Let me step back for a minute and try to put this small amendment in a larger perspective. Our country's greatest accomplishment is not our diversity. Our diversity is magnificent. It is a source of great strength. Our country's greatest accomplishment is that we have turned all that magnificent diversity into one country. It is no accident that on the wall above the Presiding Officer are a few words that were our original national motto: E Pluribus Unum, one from many, not many from one. Looking around the world, it is worth remembering that it is virtually impossible to become Chinese, or to become Japanese, or to become German, or to become French. But if you want to be a citizen of the United States of America, you must become an American. Becoming an American is not based on race. It cannot be based upon where your grandparents came from. It cannot be based upon your native religion or your native language. Our Constitution makes those things clear. In our country, becoming an American begins with swearing allegiance to this country. It is based upon learning American history so one can know the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The late Albert Shanker, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, was once asked what is the rationale for a public school in America? He answered: The rationale for public schools is that they were created in the late part of the 19th century to help mostly immigrant children learn the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope that they would go home and teach their parents the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration that unite us. Our unity is based upon learning our common language, English, so we can speak to one another, live together more easily, and do business with one another. We have spent the last 40 years in our country celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. It is easy to do that. We need to spend the next several years working hard to build more unity from our magnificent diversity. That is much harder to do. One way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, English. That is why in this body I have advocated amendments which have been adopted to help new Americans who are legally here have scholarships so they can learn our common language. I have worked with other Members of this body on the other side of the aisle to take a look at our adult education programs which are the source of funding for programs to help adults learn English. There are lines in Boston and lines in Nashville of people who want to learn English. We should be helping them to learn English. We could not spend too much on such a program. That is why with No Child Left Behind, one of the major revisions we need to do is related to children who need more help learning English, because that is their chance in their school to learn our common language, to learn our country's principles and then to be even more successful. Not long ago, before Ken Burns's epic film series on World War II came on television, my wife and I went to the Library of Congress to hear him speak and to see a preview of the film. He was talking, of course, about World War II and that period of time. It was during World War II, he said, that America had more unity than at any other time in our history, which caused me to think, as I think it must have caused millions of Americans to think: What have we done with that unity since World War II? Our pulling together since then, our working as one country has been the foundation of most of our great accomplishments. That is the reason we have the greatest universities, that is the reason we have the strongest economy, that is the reason we still have the country with the greatest opportunity. Quoting the late Arthur Schlesinger, in Schlesinger's 1990s book which was called ``The Disuniting of America,'' Ken Burns told us that: Perhaps what we need in America today is a little less pluribus and a little more unum. I believe Ken Burns's quote of Arthur Schlesinger is right about that. One way to make sure we have a little more unum, a little more of the kind of national unity that is our country's greatest accomplishment, is to make certain we value our common language, that we help children learn it, that we help new Americans learn it, that we help adults who do not know it to learn it, and that we not devalue it by allowing a Federal agency to say it is a violation of Federal law for an employer in America to require an employee to speak English on the job. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please let me know when I have 1 minute remaining.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is not too much to say that this vote on this piece of legislation on Head Start is about whose century this century will be. Some say it will be China's century. Some say it will be India's century. I think the jury is still out, but I do believe it can be the American century, and I believe it is up to us to make sure it is. We have the advantages in our country. One of them, of course, is our brain power advantage. We don't have better brains than others, but since World War II, we have spent a great deal of time building our education system, our universities, our research laboratories. We worked together this year to pass the America COMPETES Act, authorizing $34 billion over the next 3 years to step that up. A second advantage we have is the e pluribus unum. We are one country. Where different countries are fractured, we are working here to help our children and our new arrivals learn English, our common language, and to learn our American history so we can stay as one country. That is an advantage we have. The third advantage we have is that we are the only country in the world that believes that anything is possible. We don't say leave just a few children behind, or 80 percent of us are created equal; we set these very high goals. Anything is possible. Most of our politics is about failing to reach the goals, dealing with the disappointment, and then trying again. How do we make sure that the dream that anything is possible is real? Well, No. 1, we keep down taxes and we keep down regulations, and we keep markets free so people can go from the back to the front of the line. The other thing we do is to make sure that all Americans have a chance to get to the starting line ready. Some people need some help, and that is what Head Start is about. I was very pleased to come to this floor in the earlier part of this year with Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Dodd, introducing a piece of legislation that we hoped would get to the point this one has today. I thank them for the way they have worked on this for the last 3 or 4 years. It didn't matter much whether it was a Republican or a Democratic Senate; we all worked together and we are here now with this result. A lot has changed, and there are four major advantages to this bill, in my opinion. No. 1, I call special attention to the 200 new centers of excellence that are created. These are opportunities for Governors to look, say, at Nashville or at Boston or at some place in their State and designate a center of excellence. These would be shining examples of all of the best efforts that are being made for early childhood education. The centers would get up to $200,000 a year for 5 years and would hopefully try to coordinate all early childhood education and development efforts. When I was a child, my mother's preschool class in the garage in our backyard was the only preschool education program in town. In the 1970s, Tennessee adopted public kindergarten for the first time, a few years after Head Start. Well, today, Head Start is a $7 billion program. It has 1,700 agencies, 29,000 centers, but that is far from all the effort we are making. There are 21 billion Federal dollars for early childhood education, and many State and local dollars. They are not always spent in the most efficient manner. The President thought it would be better to give the Head Start funds to the States. I disagree with that. We have disagreed with that, but we have respected his impulse by saying in these 200 centers for the next 5 years, let's see what happens. Let's see what happens when States work with local governments and put all the Federal, State, and local money together for early childhood education in these centers for excellence. Second, there is a system for renewal for Head Start agencies. There is not an automatic renewal after this time, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will develop a process for that to make sure that for every cycle, the Head Start agency earns its right to continue. Third, there is clear authority to governing boards about the big dollars we are spending here and the big lives we are affecting. We heard eloquent testimony from the mayor of Shelby County, A.C. Wharton, about money that was stolen down there. So we have done a better job listening to Mayor Wharton and to others in making it clear who is in charge of the money, who is in charge of the administration, and at the same time, making sure that the parents, who are the lifeblood of the uniqueness of Head Start, are active and full participants through policy councils. Finally, as the President also recommended, we have worked over the last 2 or 3 years in developing this bill to increase cognitive learning standards. Forty years ago, we didn't know nearly as much about how the brains of very young children work, but we know now that to be ready to learn, to be at the starting line when the time comes to go to school, children need to learn more in their earlier years. So Head Start will provide that opportunity. It is not too much to say that this bill is about whose century this will be. We hope it will be the century of every child in the world, but we like the idea that it could be the American century, and we want to take full advantage of the assets we have. One of the assets we have is the dream that anything is possible, that you can go from the back of the line to the front. We will keep our markets free. We will try to keep our taxes down. We will get rid of unnecessary regulations so people can get ahead. But this bill is a commitment that says we will also make certain we will do our best to make sure every single child has an opportunity to get to the starting line ready to succeed. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would you please let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining. Mr. President, I first congratulate Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their work on the farm bill. I know we want to move toward that as quickly as possible, and I look forward to a successful conclusion of that legislation. But for the next few minutes, I wish to speak on a different subject. (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 2312 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. He has pursued the illegal logging issue in his usual way, with a lot of persistence and in a bipartisan way as well. If he has not already done so, I will ask unanimous consent to list the 22 cosponsors of the Combat Illegal Logging Act he has helped to recruit, and I thank him for including me as a part of this bill. It is important to the great Northwest and it is important to the Southeast, where we have large paper companies, but it is also important to conservation and to the rule of law in our country. The Senator from Oregon made a point that is maybe the central point here when he compared our efforts to stop illegal logging to our efforts to stop the bringing of illegal drugs into the United States. We all know the tremendous amount of effort we go to, for example, to keep cocaine out of the United States. We send millions of dollars to Colombia and to other countries and we try to stop that. But the real problem we have is we are a big, rich country, and there is a big demand for cocaine here. So no matter what we do in the other countries, the cocaine still keeps coming in, and the same with other illegal drugs. Here we have a chance to make a much bigger difference than we can with illegal drugs. We still are creating the demand problem. This is a country that accounts for 25 percent of all the wealth in the world. It is a country that perhaps buys a huge volume of illegal timber from around the world. Well, we can stop that. This is not a drug addiction, this is a business practice, and it is a practice we can stop according to the laws of this country. When we stop it, we will make an enormous difference for our country and for the other countries. Let us be absolutely clear. We are talking primarily about the laws of other countries. We are not talking about imposing American laws on other countries. We are simply saying if you violate the laws of any other country in the world, you can't bring those logs into the United States without violating a criminal law here. If this big economy says that to the world, we will make a dramatic difference in illegal logging. As the Senator from Oregon said, it is an estimated $1 billion a year in depressed prices and reduced exports. It depresses prices $500 million to $700 million annually. It means the people who play by the rules in the United States are having money taken from them by criminals who don't play by the rules in other countries, with the rules set by other countries; not by us, by other countries. There are other ancillary benefits--climate change, for example. There is a lot of talk about that here in the Senate. We are all looking for ways to deal with that. It may be expensive to deal with, it may be inconvenient to deal with, but some estimates are that 20 percent of climate change is caused by deforestation. According to the World Bank, illegal logging accounts for 10 percent, or $15 billion, of the world timber trade. So if we are able to slow down illegal logging in other countries, we will be making an inexpensive contribution, from the American taxpayers' point of view, to dealing with climate change, and at the same time we will be putting money in the pockets of those who work in this country in the timber and timber products business. This is a rare intersection of the rule of law, of good conservation practices, and of keeping jobs in the United States. I salute the Senator from Oregon for his leadership, and with his permission I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the ``Dear Colleague'' letter which he and I sent to our colleagues, resulting so far in 22 Members of the Senate cosponsoring the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the next Democratic speaker in order be Senator Stabenow.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan, by unanimous consent, is to follow me. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be recognized for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Casey for up to 15 minutes, following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The value of this letter is to highlight the organizations endorsing the bill, ranging from the American Forest & Paper Association, to Defenders of Wildlife, to the Friends of the Earth. That is pretty good company in which to be. Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I hope very much that the Senate will agree to this amendment. It may seem like a small step, but it will put money in the pockets of American workers. It will help with climate change. It will uphold the rule of law in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, although I may not need it, I be granted an additional 5 minutes for my remarks to complete my speech, and that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize No Child Left Behind. That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards. In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are being left behind in their academic progress. So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them for doing things wrong. Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their standard-setting process, and reporting requirements. Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be seeking to achieve. Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time; and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student progress. First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the American way to set high goals and then to attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us. Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve them. I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those 21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of students. The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15 percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127 didn't do it because of one subgroup. Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress. Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority schools. Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and more innovation. I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years. This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap. In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.'' In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract, the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards, assessments, and expectations of students. Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact, only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal Government. So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results. Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement for State standards and reporting disaggregated results. But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It ought to be the other way around. Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded. One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a major part in this law. Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers. David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA. Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently, the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a 10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States, which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history. A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math, for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools, for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping outstanding classroom teachers. Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy. I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that appropriations for this program continue. Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware. Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced placement biology class. What was special was these children had come from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school days, Saturdays, and from special teachers. The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage, rather than discourage, such public charter schools. Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods. In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of these things to cause that to happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senators Kennedy and Enzi have recently said that early in 2008 the Senate will consider whether to authorize No Child Left Behind. That law, which was enacted in 2001 as a part of the regular 5-year reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, required every State to set standards for math and reading and to test each child once a year in grades 3 through 8, and once in high school, in order to measure their progress toward meeting these State standards. In addition, the law requires States to report the results in a disaggregated way, meaning according to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status, disability, and limited English proficiency, report the status of the children so it would be clearer whether groups of children are being left behind in their academic progress. So my purpose today is, first, to announce my support for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act but ask that we find a better way to do the job of reporting results. We should be trying to catch schools doing things right rather than seeming to penalize them for doing things wrong. Second, to introduce legislation providing for greater flexibility in administering the law for up to a dozen States, if those States agree to maintain a high level or increase the rigor of the program, their standard-setting process, and reporting requirements. Third, to express my concerns about early drafts and proposals of reauthorizing legislation that seem to require more Federal control and less State responsibility for results--the reverse of what we should be seeking to achieve. Finally, I wish to call attention to several parts of the legislation that need to be strengthened and expanded: Support for teaching American history; the Teacher Incentive Fund; charter schools, which I know the Presiding Officer has been very interested in for a long time; and State collection of data to aid States in measuring student progress. First, support for reauthorization. I have decided to cosponsor the No Child Left Behind Act of 2007, which has been authored by Senators Burr and Gregg, because I believe it represents a sound foundation for eventual reauthorization of the legislation. This legislative draft leaves in place the framework of the 2001 law: high goals, State standards, and disaggregated reporting of results, and it addresses some obvious deficiencies in the existing legislation, including more flexibility in helping children learn English, in measuring the progress of children with disabilities, and in how to report the progress of children who make great progress but still fall behind their goals. This bill--the Burr-Gregg bill--does not retreat from the bold goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math according to each State's standards by the 2013-2014 school year. Some have argued that sets schools up for failure. I would argue it is the American way to set high goals and then to attempt to reach them. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for 80 percent of us. Our national character is not that some things are possible. Rightly or wrongly, we Americans uniquely believe that anything is possible for all of us, and much of our politics and debates in this body are about dealing with the disappointment of not reaching high goals that we set for ourselves, and then, of course, we set out and try again to achieve them. I do think we would be wise to find a different way to talk about the progress of schools in reaching those high goals. Most schools, at least today, are succeeding in reaching their State's No Child Left Behind standards. There are more than 100,000 schools in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education, over 20 percent of those--21,000--did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those 21,000 schools, about one-fourth missed their goals by one subgroup of students. The same is true in Tennessee. According to our Department of Education, there are 1,710 public schools. There were 245--or 15 percent--which did not make adequate yearly progress. Of those, 127 didn't do it because of one subgroup. Therefore, I suggest we find a different way to talk about progress. Schools that reach their goals might be called ``high-achieving schools.'' Schools that do so for more than 1 year in a row might be called the ``highest achieving schools.'' Schools that, on the other hand, miss their goal by only one subgroup might be called ``achieving schools,'' and those that do not do as well might be called priority schools. Second: A new State contract for flexibility. I am introducing today the State Student Achievement Contract which I will work to make a part of No Child Left Behind. The idea is simple: Now that we have 5 years of experience with No Child Left Behind, we should toss the ball back to at least some States and see whether those States can implement the law with at least as much rigor in reporting, more flexibility, and more innovation. I know if the Presiding Officer and I were still Governors of our respective States, we would want to try that over the next 5 years. This proposal would allow up to 12 States to negotiate with the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into a State student achievement contract, which would permit States to improve their own systems of accountability, and in exchange, receive the necessary flexibility to innovate on finding ways to close the achievement gap. In other words, instead of saying: ``Do it exactly this way'' to the States, the Federal Government would be saying: ``Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.'' In determining which States would be eligible for this new contract, the Secretary would expect States to increase their standards, assessments, and expectations of students. Washington, DC, itself is not going to make schools better in Wilmington, Maryville, Kansas City, and Sacramento. This can only happen locally, when parents, teachers, communities, and State officials take charge. In fact, No Child Left Behind is simply an extension of the State standards movement that began in the 1980s in most States. While it requires the setting of standards and requires public reporting, the solution to the problem of low-achieving students is left in the hands of communities, where it must be left. In fact, only 8 percent of funding of public schools comes from the Federal Government. So this proposal seeks to recognize that solutions are local, to encourage those States that are trying the boldest programs, and to permit the flexibility needed to achieve those results. Third, creeping Federal control. One reason I have introduced the State contract proposal is I don't want the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind to become a vehicle for increased Federal control of local schools. In fact, now that the first 5 years of confusion and learning the new law are completed, there ought to be fewer Federal requirements, not more. After all, the law is essentially a requirement for State standards and reporting disaggregated results. But, unfortunately, Washington doesn't work that way. Our motto seems to be: Once we have stuck our noses into something, we will meddle with it forever. In some of the early drafts of No Child Left Behind, I have seen examples of increased Federal regulation that in my view offer the prospect of more Federal control and less local accountability. It ought to be the other way around. Finally, there are three special provisions of No Child Left Behind that, based upon the first 5 years' experience, need to be expanded. One, teaching American history. The late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said the rationale for a public school is to teach immigrant children the three Rs and what it means to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Yet the lowest test scores for American high school seniors is not math or reading or science, it is U.S. history. Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and I have worked to create some new provisions for this reauthorization which would encourage putting the teaching of American history back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. These provisions include: The teaching traditional American history provision. That was put in 5 years ago. It is a program of grants to school districts to encourage professional development and teaching of American history. It has been very successful. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have had a major part in this law. Next, Presidential and congressional academies. The pilot programs for these summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history have been low cost and very successful. It is my hope that in a partnership with States and the private sector, these can be expanded to a total of 100 each summer. They are very much similar to the Governors' schools many States have for students and for teachers. David McCullough has suggested perhaps we can match up the 10-year centennial program for national parks with these summer programs for students and teachers of U.S. history. Imagine what it would be like for a group of U.S. history teachers to spend a week with David McCullough at the Adams House in Quincy, MA. Finally, a 10-State pilot program in U.S. history NAEP. Currently, the National Assessment of Education Progress--the Nation's report card--only measures student achievement in history every 4 years. We don't get State-level data; only a national sample of student achievement. Senator Kennedy and I have offered legislation to create a 10-State pilot program so there can be State-level data for 10 States, which will reflect the importance of this subject to our Nation and call attention to student progress or lack thereof in American history. A second area of special emphasis that ought to be considered when we reauthorize No Child Left Behind is the Teacher Incentive Fund. After parents, nothing is more important to a child's success than the classroom teacher. In every hearing we have in the Senate, a witness emphasizes the need to attract specially equipped teachers for math, for science, for children with disabilities, for inner-city schools, for gifted students, and other special needs. Yet we struggle in this country with an across-the-board pay mentality that will not allow schools to lift themselves up when it comes to attracting and keeping outstanding classroom teachers. Finding fair ways to pay teachers more for teaching well is not easy. I have tried it. But during the last 5 years, the Teacher Incentive Fund has helped at least three dozen cities, usually working with local teachers' unions, to find new ways to train and reward outstanding teachers and principals. We need to do as much of this as we possibly can. I wish to thank and acknowledge Senator Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, for working with me to make certain that appropriations for this program continue. Then, charter schools. I mentioned earlier the Presiding Officer was a national leader on charter schools when he was Governor of Delaware. Last year, I visited a charter school in Memphis. It was the Easter holiday, except those ninth graders weren't on vacation, they were in class. To be specific, they were in a ninth grade advanced placement biology class. What was special was these children had come from so-called low-performing schools. To be blunt, they were labeled the least likely to succeed, except they were succeeding. This was because they were getting extra help during holidays, longer school days, Saturdays, and from special teachers. The idea of a public charter school is simply to give teachers the freedom to use their common sense and their skills to help the children who are presented to them--freedom from Federal, State, and union rules so they can do it. It is nonsensical to me that we don't encourage, rather than discourage, such public charter schools. Most of our children are learning, but for the 15 percent or so who are having genuinely special challenges in learning, it will take different kinds of schools, even better teachers and different methods. In this reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, we must do all of these things to cause that to happen. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter addressed to Senator Kennedy be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to say a word about tax fairness. Last week, I joined Senator Hutchison, who has been the leader on this issue, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Corker from my home State of Tennessee in introducing S. 2233. Our goal with that legislation is to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. As a former Governor, I know States and cities have many different ways to raise revenues to support the services they provide. States usually provide about half the funding for elementary and secondary education. They are the principal funder of community colleges and universities. They pay for a good part of the roads and all the prisons. So most States have pretty big bills to pay, and they have a variety of taxes to raise the money to pay for those bills. Some States levy an income tax. Some use a sales tax. Some use a combination of the two. Some use some other taxes. In Tennessee, we have had a pretty good debate about this issue, and we have decided we don't want an income tax. I looked at the options myself when I was Governor in the mid-1980s and considered an income tax for Tennessee but decided it would be the wrong thing to do, to put a tax on work. We have done pretty well with low taxes and without an income tax. Americans who pay State and local income taxes are able to claim a deduction for those amounts on their Federal income tax, and before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to claim a deduction on their State and local sales taxes. But this deduction for State and local sales taxes was repealed in 1986. Congress temporarily reinstated that State and local sales tax deduction for 2004 and 2005 and then extended it again for 2006 and 2007. I was a part of the effort in this Chamber to do that. It was a bipartisan effort. So taxpayers today who itemize on their Federal income tax returns can deduct either State and local sales taxes or State income taxes. Yet, unless Congress takes further action, this sales tax deduction will expire at the end of December of this year. This is not about cutting taxes; this is about tax fairness. It is not fair for States without income taxes to subsidize tax deductions for States with income taxes. Why is it our business in Washington, DC, to prefer an income tax in the various States? Nine States, including Tennessee, do not impose a State income tax. They are Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming--States from across the country, some big States, some middle-size States, some of our smallest States. These States shouldn't be treated differently. If Congress doesn't act, they will be by the end of December 2007. I am here today to urge this body to make permanent the deduction for State and local sales tax. At the very least, we need to temporarily extend the deduction, as we have done in the last two Congresses, before it expires on December 31 so that taxpayers in those nine States are not forced to pay an unfair share of taxes. We are talking about large amounts of money. Nearly 600,000 Tennesseans itemized their taxes and claimed the State and local sales tax deduction last year. This benefit put an average of $400 in the pockets of hard-working Tennesseans. Therefore, losing this deduction would cost Tennesseans nearly a quarter of a billion dollars right out of their pockets each year. Extending the State and local sales tax deduction is the fair thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hutchison, Senator Cornyn, Senator Corker, and me in enacting S. 2233 before the end of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator and the Presiding Officer. Maybe the next thing we can do as a Senate is take up the Senator from Colorado's legislation that I cosponsored, and a number of others have, on an honorable conclusion to the war in Iraq, and pass that. And then the American people might notice that with public transportation, with the Internet, and with the war in Iraq, the Congress was actually working together on issues that make a difference to them and is acting like grownups and achieving results. This has been a good several months' work. I thank you for the privilege of working with you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. He has provided extraordinary leadership as a former chairman of the National Governors Association on the legislation that was passed. Let me be specific about what has been done. Last Thursday, the Senate worked out a compromise and passed legislation to extend for 7 more years the moratorium on the taxation of access to the Internet. That was called the Sununu-Carper amendment, the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Delaware. It was an amendment to the 4-year extension that the House of Representatives passed on October 16 by a vote of 405 to 2. I was glad to be a cosponsor of the Sununu-Carper amendment. Hopefully, the House will vote on that legislation today, if it has not already, so the President can sign it into law before the moratorium expires on November 1, which is this Thursday. At the invitation of the Senator from Delaware, let me try to put this accomplishment into a little larger perspective. Above the Senator from Colorado, who is the Presiding Officer, is a few words that have been our country's national motto, ``E Pluribus Unum,'' one from many. How do we make this country one from many? Not by race or not by descent but because we agree on a few principles. We have a common language, and we have a common history. A very wise professor, Samuel P. Huntington, at Harvard, who was a former President of the American Political Science Association, said: Much of our politics is about conflicts between principles with which all of us agree. For example, if we were debating immigration, we might say ``equal opportunity'' on the one hand, ``rule of law'' on the other. We all agree with both principles, but they conflict so we have an argument. That is what happened with the question of whether the Federal Government should pass a law to extend a moratorium that says States, cities, and counties cannot tax access to the Internet. On the one hand, if you have been a Governor, as Senator Carper and I have been, nothing makes you madder than for Members of Congress to stand up with a big idea and say let's put this into law; let's take credit for it and send the bill to the Governors, to the States and cities and the counties--because usually we find that Senator or Congressman back home in our States making a big speech about local control at the next Lincoln Day or Jackson or Jefferson Day dinner. That is the principle of federalism on the one side: No more unfunded Federal mandates, is what we Republicans like to say. In fact, a whole bunch of Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, stood up on the U.S. Capitol steps in 1994 and said: No more unfunded mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out. The New Republican Congress passed a law in 1995, S. 1 it was called, no more unfunded mandates, that is the law of the land. If Congress wants to order States and local governments to do it, Congress should pay for it. That was the principle of federalism. But on the other hand, we had the principle of--let's say laissez faire, for lack of a better word. If you have been in business or helped to start a business, as I also have, you want as little taxation as possible and as much certainty as possible. As the Internet grows and develops, from the very beginning, it was thought it ought to be as free as possible from multiple regulations and taxes from State and local governments. So that produced the kind of debate that often comes to the floor of the Senate, those saying on the one hand: Wait a minute, let's leave the Internet alone. Let's let it grow. Let's keep the State and local governments from taxing it, or at least from taxing access to it. And on the other hand, the States, the Governors and the mayors and the city councilmen--many of us have been in those positions before-- saying: Wait a minute, it is not the job of Congress to say to Colorado or Delaware or Tennessee: You must have this service or you can't tax food or you can't tax income or you can't put a sales tax on Internet access. In 2003 and 2004, we had a huge debate about the last extension of the Internet access tax moratorium and came to a conclusion. At that time, Senator Carper and I asked the industry, the companies, to sit down with the National Governors Association, the National Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and take these principles--federalism on the one side, laissez faire on the other--and suggest to us some ways we could craft legislation that recognized we all agree with both principles. We need to find a way to put the principles together. That is what this compromise did. I will let the Senator from Delaware explain a little more about the details of it, but if he doesn't mind, I will go ahead a few more minutes and give a couple of examples of why the compromise is a good idea. Fundamentally, it is a good idea because it achieves these three objectives: No. 1, it updates the definition of what we mean by access to the Internet. It updates that definition. No. 2, it avoids most unfunded Federal mandates. In other words, States that are now collecting--in effect, a sales tax on access to the Internet or, in some States, a gross receipts tax--in general may continue to do that during the next 7 years. It is a limited number of States, but it is still important to those States. No. 3, it provides, after a reasonable period of time, that we come back and take a look at the whole issue. We finally decided on 7 years in the Senate so we can make sure the definition of Internet access has not changed so the law doesn't apply correctly. If anything is likely to change, it probably is the Internet. At the time the Telecommunications Act was last written, in the middle of the 1990s, I doubt, with all respect, that most Members of the Senate even knew what the Internet did, much less used it. In 1998, when the first moratorium and the definition of Internet access tax was written, all we knew about was a telephone dial-up Internet. Yet, by 2004, we had to refashion a definition of access to the Internet to take into account that suddenly telephone calls were being made over the Internet, and States and local governments currently collect billions of dollars in local taxes from telephone services. If the Federal Government banned that, then States would either have to raise tuition or raise some other taxes or cut services. So we decided, in 2004, that we didn't mean to keep States from making the decisions about services and taxation that they had already made, except for the connection of access to the Internet. That didn't just favor States and local governments, for us to figure that out and be accurate in our definition. It also was of great benefit to the industry because, for example, some States were taxing what is called the backbone of the Internet, which was not intended to be left out of the moratorium. This compromise, which Senator Carper, Senator Sununu and many others have worked out, I think, in the spirit of our country, takes two very important principles--laissez faire and federalism--and notices that they conflict in this question but comes to a reasonable compromise end result. So what we have is an updating of the definition of what we mean by access to the Internet. What we have is avoiding, for the most part, unfunded Federal mandates. And what we have is a reasonable period of time in which we can come back and revisit the issue, to make sure that what was happening in 2007 is still what we mean by the Internet in 2014. I am glad to have been a part of this discussion. It went much better this year than it did in 2004, when we couldn't come to an agreement for about a year. The reason was because those affected by it--the entrepreneurs of America and the mayors, the cities, the Governors and county officials--helped us a lot by getting together, resolving their differences, and understanding each side has a legitimate point. I am glad to be a part of it. I am glad to engage in this colloquy with Senator Carper and I salute him for his consistent leadership and for, once again, demonstrating his ability to work well with people from many different walks of life and for being willing to work across the aisle, when that was necessary, to produce a result.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the House voted recently 405 to 2 to extend the current Internet tax moratorium which expires at the end of this month. They voted to extend it for 4 more years. I believe the Senate should do the same thing and do it before the end of the month rather than enact a permanent moratorium, as some want to do, because permanent action is likely to invoke a far higher law--the law of unintended consequences. We can't imagine the future impact of the World Wide Web, and a permanent moratorium could produce at least two unintended consequences: No. 1, a big unintended tax increase, or No. 2, a big unintended, unfunded Federal mandate. Here is an example of how a permanent moratorium could produce an unintended new tax. At the time the original moratorium was enacted in 1998, Internet access meant dial-up. Today, Internet access also includes broadband. Fortunately, Congress updated the moratorium definition in 2004 so that access to broadband is exempt from taxation. Or, here is an example of how an outdated moratorium could produce an unintended, unfunded Federal mandate on States, cities, and counties. States and local governments collect billions of dollars in sales tax on telephone services to pay for schools, roads, police, and hospital workers. Under the old definition of Internet access, telephone calls made over the Internet might have escaped such taxation. That might sound good to conservatives like me who favor lower taxes, but most members of my Republican Party were elected promising to end the practice of unfunded Federal mandates--that is, those of us in Washington telling Governors, mayors, and county commissioners what services to provide and how to pay for them. In fact, Republican candidates for Congress stood with Newt Gingrich on the Capitol steps in 1994 and said, as part of a Contract With America, ``No more unfunded mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out.'' In 1995, the new Republican Congress enacted a new Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, banning unfunded mandates. Make no mistake, Mr. President, the permanent extension that is proposed would be an unfunded Federal mandate because it would not allow the grandfathered States--and there are currently nine of them collecting this tax--the ability to continue to make their own decisions about what revenues to collect. It would freeze into place forever an Internet access definition that might not be wise for industry and that might not be wise for State and local governments. That is why so many people support the idea of a 4-year moratorium on taxation of Internet access. It has the support of the National Governors Association, the National Association of Counties, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Multistate Tax Commission, and the AFL-CIO. In addition to that, even though many in the industry would like to have a longer moratorium, the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition has written a letter to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, saying that they prefer the permanent extension but that they believe the House-passed bill is a step forward and one they can support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter from the Don't Tax Our Web Coalition and also a copy of the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate from September 9, 2003, which makes absolutely clear that such a law would be an unfunded Federal mandate under the terms of the 1995 Unfunded Federal Mandate Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the bill managers, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Mississippi for allowing me to proceed. (The remarks of Mr. Alexander are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I join the Senior Senator from Louisiana in asking Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter to provide as much funding as possible for public charter schools. One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992 was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging them to create charter schools. I saw these charter schools as ways to remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help children and so parents could have more choices of schools. Today, there are over 4,000 charter schools serving more than 1.15 million students in 40 States and the District of Columbia. Over half of these schools report having waiting lists, averaging 166 students. I am pleased that 12 charter schools have opened in Tennessee since passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic organizations. Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs and styles. They vary in specific mission and focus but not in their commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals of their charters, they are closed. I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across the Nation as word of their success spreads. Five years ago, the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains several programs that support charter school development and provides school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools into charter schools. It is my hope that the leadership of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations subcommittee can look at every possible option, in consultation with the House, to support as much funding as possible for this worthy program.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the question before the Senate is whether we think the union members of the United States are first-class citizens or second-class citizens. The Sessions amendment says we recognize union members as first-class citizens by increasing the amount of money available to the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which collects the information to give them a chance to know what is going on within their union. We treat stockholders as first-class citizens. We passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law with a number of disclosure requirements for businesses. Some of the requirements may be burdensome, as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania pointed out, but we thought it was important for the stockholders of this country to know what their public corporations were doing. We have disclosure requirements which we in the Senate are required to give every year. They are fairly burdensome, but we do that because the voters need to know what our incomes are, what our assets are. They know quite a bit about us because we are required to file these reports, and these reports are investigated by various officials and ethics committees. There are a number of people running for President of the United States today, including a number in this body. They have to spend a lot of time filing information about where they get their contributions, because this is an era of instant information and almost universal access to information and transparency. We hear that all the time. So, we want the voters to know where the candidates for President are getting their money to see whether that influences what they do. In this age of transparency and universal access to information, we treat stockholders as first-class citizens, we treat voters as first- class citizens, we treat taxpayers as first-class citizens, but we will be treating union members as second-class citizens if we are going to cut the funds the Department of Labor needs to provide union members with information they deserve. For example, this year the Senate, I am told, provides a $12.8 million increase in funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the oversight agency for publicly-traded companies. So we are recognizing the importance of treating stockholders as first-class citizens, but at the same time we are cutting the funding for the Office of Labor Management Standards, which means we are treating union members as second-class citizens. That is the issue. A vote for the Sessions amendment says we believe union members are as important as stockholders, are as important as voters, are as important as taxpayers, and that they are all entitled to be treated as first-class citizens. This is not, as has already been mentioned, a Republican cause, I would hope. I have been around long enough to remember the Kefauver committee, the McClellan committee, Senator John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy in the 1950s. It was the early days of television, and people who wanted to know about the Senate watched those Senators--one of whom later became President, one of whom later became Attorney General--as they ferreted out corruption and organized crime in various parts of American society, including unions. This Federal statute we are talking about was championed by Senator John F. Kennedy. It was enacted as an outcome of the McClellan committee hearing. Senator Kennedy knew then, as we know today, that rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions are spending their money, how they are investing their members' money, that their union books are clean, and that elections for union officers are fair and free of intimidation or scandal. They have a right to know that information. The question is, Do unions still need a Federal watchdog? Apparently so. The Secretary of Labor thinks so. She has said so. She has plenty to do over there. She could do more. She could use the money, according to her testimony. Over the last 7 years, the Office of Labor Management Standards has performed more than 3,000 audits, resulting in 827 indictments and 790 convictions. There apparently is a lot to do in this area. What is our response? Let's cut the funding so we cannot have the investigations, so we cannot have the audits, so we cannot have the indictments, so we cannot give these union members the rights that Senator Kennedy--later, President Kennedy--thought they ought to have. I hope we can correct what I hope is an oversight in the development of this big, complex piece of legislation. Senator Sessions' amendment would treat union members as first-class citizens, just as we do stockholders, just as we do taxpayers, just as we do voters. We live in an era of instant information, universal access to information, and union members, just as stockholders, voters, and taxpayers, have a right to know what is going on in their union. I yield the floor.