Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I would like to especially thank Matt Sonnesyn who is sitting here beside me. When I was permitted to be on the faculty of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard at the time when the Senator from Arkansas's father was the Director of the Institute of Politics, Matt Sonnesyn was my course assistant. He came with me to my campaign, and then he came with me to the Senate. For the last 2 years, he has worked on this legislation with Senator Bingaman's staff and Senator Ensign's staff on this side--a tremendously effective staff group who has made this bill possible. I see the Senator from Arkansas here, and I know he is going to close out in a few minutes, and I think I am coming toward the end of my remarks. I would like to conclude by emphasizing two points--one about substance and one about process. I know the Senator from Arkansas and I have talked about this often. We are working together right now on a bipartisan project that has to do with the Iraq war. We believe there shouldn't be any partisan votes on the Iraq war. For example, we, Senator Salazar and I, are joined by 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats in cosponsoring legislation that would make the bipartisan Iraq Study Group the law of our country. If the Congress and the President would agree on this bill, we could send to our enemy and our troops and the world the message that as we go forward to wherever we go next in Iraq, we go together; we are united. Each Tuesday we have a breakfast that Senator Lieberman and I host-- no staff, no media, no policy positions adopted--so that in the midst of all our team meetings among Republicans and Democrats, when we talk about what to do to each other, we can have a session where we build relationships and talk about how we move the country ahead. We have had as many as 40 Senators at those breakfasts. It is important for the people of this country to know that we spend a lot of time working that way. We did tonight on the Children's Health Insurance bill with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley working together in a bipartisan way. For 2 years, we have done that on legislation that goes straight to the heart of how we keep our jobs from going to China and India, which is what we passed tonight. So the word I wish to say about process is that when the Senate tries and when we focus on big issues, we are perfectly capable of acting the way the rest of the country would hope we would act. We compromise on our differences and come up with a result that benefits family after family. This legislation, the America COMPETES Act, will mean, for example, in my home State of Tennessee, opportunities for hundreds of math and science teachers and for thousands of students to go to summer academies and institutes of math and science. It will mean opportunities for thousands of students who now can't afford to take advanced placement courses in science and technology to be able to do so and for hundreds of teachers who aren't trained to teach those courses to have that training. It will mean distinguished scientists will hold joint appointments at the University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for example. It will mean support for a residential high school for science and math, which we have wanted to do in our State ever since I was Governor 20 years ago but didn't feel like we had the money. Now other States have it, and this bill provides some support for such a school. It will mean a steady growth over 7 years in research funding, new support for early-career research grants in science and technology, and more support for all those kinds of studies that create the jobs that will keep our standard of living. That is what it means for my State. It means the same for New Jersey, and it means the same for Arkansas. So that bipartisan consensus we have seen here happens more often than most Americans know, but it doesn't happen as often as it should. So this has been a privilege for me to work, especially with Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici on the committee that I was a part of, to help get this started with Bart Gordon, my colleague from the House, the Democratic Congressman who is chairman of the Science Committee, and with all the other Senators. This is the kind of thing I hoped to do when I came to the Senate. I think each of us hopes when we come here to get up every day and do a little something constructive and then go home at night and come back the next day and see if we can find something more to do along that way. If all of us participate in that way in other big issues, as we have in this, the America COMPETES bill, the Senate will be a stronger institution and the country will be a better country. So I thank my colleagues for their support and for the time tonight. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for staying late so I can make these remarks. This legislation, the America COMPETES Act which passed the House today overwhelmingly and passed the Senate unanimously, is at least as important as any piece of legislation that passes in these 2 years because we have accepted the advice of the wisest men and women in our country about what we ought to do to keep our brain power advantage so we can keep our jobs. The President has done a big part of it. I am sure he will sign it. I hope he takes some credit because he deserves it. There is plenty of credit to go around. I think the country will be glad we acted. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Overview of the Conference Report on H.R. 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (COMPETES) Earlier this year, both the U.S. House and Senate passed comprehensive legislation (H.R. 2272, S. 761) to ensure our nation's competitive position in the world through improvements to math and science education and a strong commitment to research. The Conference Agreement follows through on a commitment to ensure U.S. students, teachers, businesses and workers are prepared to continue leading the world in innovation, research and technology-- well into the future. In summary, the Conference Agreement: Keeps research programs at National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science on a near-term doubling path; Authorizes a total of $43.3 billion over fiscal years 2008- 2010 for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research and education programs across the federal government; Helps to prepare thousands of new teachers and provide current teachers with content and teaching skills in their area of education through NSF's Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and Math and Science Partnerships Program; Creates the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) at NIST (replacing the existing Advanced Technology Program or ATP) to fund high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology development with high potential for public benefit; Establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), a nimble and semiautonomous research agency at the Department of Energy to engage in high-risk, high reward energy research; Expands programs at NSF to enhance the undergraduate education of the future science and engineering workforce, including at 2-year colleges; Includes provisions throughout the bill to help broaden participation in science and engineering fields at all levels; Authorizes two new competitive grant programs that will enable partnerships to implement courses of study in mathematics, science, engineering, technology or critical foreign languages in ways that lead to a baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher certification; Authorizes competitive grants to increase the number of teachers serving high-need schools and expand access to AP and IB classes and to increase the number of qualified AP and IB teachers in high-need schools; Expands early career grant programs and provides additional support for outstanding young investigators at both NSF and DOE; and Strengthens interagency planning and coordination for research infrastructure and information technology (i.e. high-speed computing). Following are more detailed summaries of the conference agreement's eight titles: TITLE I--Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)/Government Wide Science The conference agreement directs the President to convene a National Science and Technology Summit to examine the health and direction of the U.S. STEM enterprises; requires a National Academy of Sciences study on barriers to innovation; changes the National Technology Medal to the National Technology and Innovation Medal; establishes a President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness (akin to the President's Council on Science and Technology); requires prioritization of planning for major research facilities and instrumentation nationwide through the National Science and Technology Council; and expresses a sense of Congress that each federal research agency should support and promote innovation through funding for high-risk, high- reward research. TITLE II--National Aeronautics and Space Administration The conference agreement establishes the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a full participant in all interagency activities to promote competitiveness and innovation and to enhance science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. The agreement also affirms the importance of NASA's aeronautics program to innovation and to the competitiveness of the United States. It urges NASA to implement a program to address aging workforce issues at NASA and to utilize NASA's existing Undergraduate Student Research program to support basic research by undergraduates on subjects of relevance to NASA. Finally, the conference agreement expresses the sense of Congress that the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory offers unique opportunities for educational activities and provides a unique resource for research and development in science, technology, and engineering which can enhance the global competitiveness of the U.S. TITLE III--National Institute of Standards and Technology The conference agreement authorizes a total of $2.652 billion over fiscal years 2008-2010 for NIST. This includes funds for the NIST labs, for lab construction, the TIP program, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program: This funding level keeps the NIST labs on a path to doubling in ten years. The conference agreement funds the NIST Labs at $502.1 million for FY08 and increases the funding by 8% per year (10-year doubling), which result in $541.9 million in FY09 and $584.8 million in FY10. The conferenqe agreement provides $150.9 million in FY08 for lab construction. This funding is reduced in each of the next two fiscal years, with funding provided at $86.4 million in FY09 and $49.7 million FY10. These out-year funding levels will allow the completion of construction projects at NIST's Boulder, CO and Gaithersburg, MD facilities. The MEP program is funded at $110 million in FY08, $122 million in FY09 and $131.8 million FY10. The conference agreement creates a new initiative, the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) which is based on the proven success of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), but better reflects global innovation competition by funding high-risk, high-reward, pre-competitive technology develoment, focusing on small- and medium-sized companies. The TIP allows for greater industry input in the operation of the program, allows university participation for the first time, and firmly focuses the program on small- and medium- sized high-tech firms. TIP will replace ATP and bridge the funding gap between the research lab and the marketplace. The conference agreement provides an authorization of $100 million FY08, $131.5 million FY09 nd $140.5 million in FY10. These funding levels will allow for a viable program, with approximately $40 million per year for new awards. The agreement includes language to clarify that the focus of TIP is to support, promote and accelerate innovation in the U.S. through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need. It specifies that large companies may not receive any TIP funding. Further, it provides a list of award criteria to ensure that the proposed technology has a strong potential to address critical national needs through transforming the nation's capacity to deal with major societal challenges that are not currently being addressed; that the applicant provides evidence that the research will not be conducted within a reasonable time period without TIP assistance; that reasonable efforts were made by the applicant to secure funding from alternative sources and that no other alternative funding sources were reasonably available; and that other entities have not already developed, commercialized, marketed, distributed or sold similar technologies. In addition, the NIST Director shall issue an annual report on the program's activities. TIP may accept funds from other federal agencies, and these funds will be included as part of the federal cost share of any TIP project. TITLE IV--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The conference agreement establishes a coordinated ocean, Great Lakes, coastal and atmospheric research and development program for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA) in consultation with NSF and NASA. In addition, NOAA is required to build upon existing educational programs and activities to enhance public awareness and understanding of the ocean, Great Lakes, and atmospheric science. As a result, a science education plan is to be developed that would set forth the goals and strategies for NOAA, and be reevaluated and updated every 5 years. NOAA would also be recognized for their historic contributions to the innovation and competitiveness of this country, as well as be recognized as a full participant in interagency efforts to promote innovation and competitiveness. TITLE V--Department of Energy The conference agreement provides nearly $17 billion to Department of Energy (DOE) programs over fiscal years 2008- 2010, keeping Office of Science on a seven-year doubling path and establishes an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E. ARPA-E will address long-term and high-risk technological barriers in energy through collaborative research and development that private industry or the DOE are not likely to undertake alone. Because of its autonomy within DOE, and the flexibility and resources afforded to its technical personnel, ARPA-E is structured to respond very quickly to energy research challenges, as well as terminate or restructure programs just as quickly. A fund is established in the U.S. Treasury separate and distinct from DOE appropriations, as will be the budget request for ARPA-E. With this separate fund, ARPA-E will be independent of the DOE bureaucracy, and likewise should not operate at the expense of other programs at DOE, particularly the Office of Science. The conference agreement authorizes $300,000,000 in FY 2008, and such sums as are necessary thereafter for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. As the nation's largest supporter of the physical sciences, the DOE Office of Science funds basic research and world- class facilities that play an integral role in the effort to maintain the technological competitiveness of the U.S. The conference agreement contains an authorization for the Office of Science which extends the 7 year doubling track prescribed in Energy Policy Act of 2005 by authorizing Fiscal Year 2010 at a funding level of $5.8 billion. The conference agreement provides $150 million for K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education programs that capitalize on the unique scientific and engineering resources of the national laboratories. These programs include a pilot program of grants to states to help establish or expand statewide specialty high schools in STEM education; a program to provide internship opportunities for middle and high-school students at the national labs, with priority given to students from high-needs schools; a program at each national lab to help establish a Center of Excellence in STEM education in at least one high-need public secondary school in each lab region in order to develop and disseminate best practices in STEM education; and a program to establish or expand summer institutes at the national labs and partner universities in order to improve the STEM content knowledge of K-12 teachers throughout the country. All of these programs would be coordinated by a newly appointed Director for STEM Education at the Department, who would also serve as an interagency liaison for K-12 STEM education. In keeping with ongoing efforts to improve coordination and evaluation of K-12 STEM education programs across the federal government, all of the programs authorized in this conference agreement require evaluation and reporting of program impact. In addition, the conference agreement highlights the critical role of young investigators working in areas relevant to the mission of DOE by establishing an early career grant program for scientists at both universities and the national labs; and a graduate research fellowship program for outstanding graduate students in these fields. The agreement also brings attention to research and education needs in the nuclear sciences and hydrocarbon systems sciences by establishing programs of grants to Universities to establish or expand degree programs in these areas. Finally, the conference agreement helps DOE recruit distinguished scientists to the national labs and foster collaboration between universities and the labs by providing competitive grants to support joint appointments between the two. TITLE VI--Department of Education To enhance teacher education in the STEM fields and critical foreign languages, the conference agreement authorizes two new competitive grant programs. The programs will specifically enable partnerships to implement courses of study in STEM fields and critical foreign language that lead to a baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher certification and at the graduate level the conference agreement implements 2- or 3-year part-time master's degree programs in these areas for current teachers to improve their content knowledge and pedagogical skills. The conference bill authorizes $151,200,000 for the baccalaureate degree program and $125,000,000 for the master's degree program for fiscal year 2008 and the two succeeding fiscal years. The conference agreement authorizes competitive grants to increase the number of highly qualified teachers serving high-need schools and expand access to AP and IB classes; as well as authorize the Secretary of Education to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a national panel within a year after the enactment of this Act to identify promising practices in the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in elementary and secondary schools. It also authorizes appropriations of $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the two succeeding fiscal years. The conference agreement authorizes new grant programs to enhance math education in elementary and middle school mathematics and provides grants to support the following activities to assist states to implement programs for secondary schools and in addition to other best practices and in-service training, the bill provides targeted help to low- income students who are struggling with mathematics. The conference agreement also authorizes a competitive grant program to increase the number of students studying critical foreign languages, starting in elementary school and continuing through postsecondary education programs. The Secretary of Education is authorized to award competitive grants to states to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in academic credit-bearing coursework in institutions of higher education, in the 21st century workforce and in the Armed Forces. The Secretary is also authorized to award grants of $50,000 to three elementary and three secondary schools, with a high concentration of low-income students in each state, whose students demonstrate the largest improvement in mathematics and science. TITLE VII--National Science Foundation The conference agreement provides $22 billion to the National Science Foundation (NSF) over fiscal years 2008- 2010, putting it on a path to double in approximately 7 years. Particularly strong increases are provided in fiscal year 2008 for K-12 STEM education programs at NSF. These programs, including the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program and the Math and Science Partnerships program will help to prepare thousands of new STEM teachers and provide current teachers with content and pedagogical expertise in their area of teaching. In addition to providing increased support for programs that address the earliest stages of the STEM workforce pipeline, the conference report will help create thousands of new STEM college grduates, including 2-year college graduates, through increased support for the STEM talent expansion (STEP) program and the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program. For those STEM graduates who continue on the path toward academic careers, the conferece agreement provides critical support for young, innovative researchers by expanding the graduate research fellowships (GRF) and integrative graduate education and research traineeship (IGERT) programs, strengthening the early career grants (CAREER) program, and creating a new pilot program of seed grants for outstanding new investigators. Such programs have an additional benefit of helping to stimulate high-risk, high-reward research by identifying and taking a chance on the best and brightest young minds. Finally, the conference agreement includes provisions throughout the bill to help broaden participation in STEM fields at all levels, from kindergarten students through academic researchers. These include several programs of outreach and mentoring for women and minorities, a request for a National Academy of Sciences report to identify barriers to and opportunities for increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields, and an emphasis on inclusion of students and teachers from high-needs schools.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will the Chair let me know when 6 minutes has expired?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, when I was first elected to the Senate in 2002, I recognized the so-called maiden speech tradition, and I came here expecting to talk about U.S. history. I was so disappointed by the debate that I found going on in February of 2003 about the President's appointment of Miguel Estrada to the Supreme Court that I spoke for a long time one night about the unfairness that I felt about that. I thought he was a superbly qualified individual and that a case was being manufactured against him to try to prevent an up-or-down vote. Then, along came the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering, of Mississippi, who in the 1950s and 1960s, while others were making speeches about civil rights, was living it out in the middle of Mississippi, testifying against someone who was described as the ``most violent living racist'' in Mississippi and putting his children into desegregated schools at a time when others weren't. There was a manufactured, unfair case against him. The Senate came to its senses shortly thereafter and began to develop a procedure where judges could get an up-or-down vote, which brings me to the matter of Judge Leslie Southwick, of Mississippi, whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit--the same position for which Judge Pickering was nominated. Yet, despite his excellent qualifications, his nomination has not been reported to the floor by the Judiciary Committee for a fair up-or-down vote. It seems that Judge Southwick may be the first target in a new round of character assassination by some in this body. That seat has been vacant for 6 years. This is one of the most important courts in America. I was a law clerk on that court--actually a messenger, but I was treated like a law clerk--to the great Judge John Minor Wisdom, who served with Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown, all of whom presided over the segregation of the South. I value that court and the quality of judges who have been there. Judge Southwick has that same quality. He has 11 years of service as a Mississippi State appellate court judge. He had military service in Iraq as a staff judge advocate. He has been a professor at Mississippi College of Law. He has had service as a senior Justice Department official. He has had more than 20 years in private practice in Jackson. He is rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He has been honored by the Mississippi State Bar with its Judicial Excellence Award. What is it about the Democrats and Mississippi judges? This is an enormously well-qualified judge from Mississippi, and the Democrats, apparently because he is from Mississippi, do not want to give him a fair up-or-down vote. That is totally unfair and it is beneath the dignity of this body and I object to it strenuously. This judgeship has been labeled a ``judicial emergency'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the Courts. What is the manufactured case? The case that has been made against him, if a student were to send it in to any accredited law school, would be sent back with an F and the student would be told to prepare better. First, it is said he participated in an opinion he didn't even write which put the first amendment ahead of a racial slur. That is always-- always--a difficult decision to make, but the Mississippi Supreme Court said it was the correct decision. Judge Southwick reiterated his disdain for racial slurs. He said the racial slur in question is ``always offensive'' and ``inherently and highly derogatory.'' He did not even write the opinion. Yet for some reason that is thought to be inappropriate. Then they said he joined in a case that used the words ``homosexual lifestyle.'' He didn't write the opinion. That phrase ``homosexual lifestyle'' may not be preferred by some, but it is very commonly used in American legal opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the Texas ban on sodomy. It was also used by President Bill Clinton when he announced his ``don't ask don't tell'' policy. That is the manufactured case. So I ask my colleagues to remember the difficulties we had in 2003 and 2004, when the Senate did not look at its best, when it was manufacturing cases against otherwise well-qualified and distinguished men and women who had been nominated to the court. I hope the Judiciary Committee will bring Judge Leslie Southwick's name forward to the full Senate so we can have an up-or-down vote. He deserves a vote. The Senate deserves to respect its traditions regarding nominees, and the American people deserve to be served by a man of such quality. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I joined Senators Klobuchar and Lieberman in introducing the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act. Our legislation would establish a rotating schedule of regional presidential primaries and caucuses. We introduced this legislation because we agree that the Presidential nomination system is broken. The American dream that ``any boy or girl can grow up to be President'' has become a nightmare. Crowded schedules and government restraints on contributions close primaries to worthy competitors. States racing to schedule early contests have made the nomination process too long and expensive. As a result, media and money make decisions voters should make. The National Football League schedules 16 contests over 5 months to determine its champions. The Presidential nominating process uses the equivalent of two preseason contests in Iowa and New Hampshire to narrow the field to two or three and sometimes pick the winner. If professional football were Presidential politics, SportsCenter would pick the Super Bowl teams after two preseason games. The problem is not Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem is what comes after Iowa and New Hampshire. At least 18 States will choose delegates in a 1-day traffic jam on February 5 next year. The legislation we introduced today requires States to spread out the primaries and caucuses into a series of regional contests over four months. Beginning in 2012, States could only schedule primaries and caucuses during the first weeks of March, April, May, and June of Presidential years. The traditional warm up contests in Iowa and New Hampshire would still come first, but they would return to their proper role as ``off- Broadway'' opportunities for lesser known candidates to become well- enough known to compete on the 4-month-long big stage. In addition, at the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to this legislation that would allow Presidential candidates to raise up to $20 million in individual contribution amounts of up to $10,000, indexed for inflation. The current limit of $2,300 makes it too hard for many worthy but unknown candidates to raise enough early money to be taken seriously--leaving the field to the rich--who constitutionally can spend their own funds--and famous. Together, these two reforms--spreading out the primaries and allowing a ``start-up'' fund for candidates--will increase the pool of good candidates willing to run for the White House and give more Americans the opportunity to hear their ideas and to cast a meaningful vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following documents printed in the Congressional Record: a David Broder column, ``No Way to Choose a President,'' that ran in the May 10, 2007 issue of The Washington Post; Remarks that I delivered on the floor of the Senate on February 2, 2004 titled ``Two Super Bowls''; and a lecture I delivered at the Heritage Foundation on May 23, 1996 titled ``Off With the Limits: What I Learned About Money and Politics When I Ran for President.''

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I joined Senators Klobuchar and Lieberman in introducing the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act. Our legislation would establish a rotating schedule of regional presidential primaries and caucuses. We introduced this legislation because we agree that the Presidential nomination system is broken. The American dream that ``any boy or girl can grow up to be President'' has become a nightmare. Crowded schedules and government restraints on contributions close primaries to worthy competitors. States racing to schedule early contests have made the nomination process too long and expensive. As a result, media and money make decisions voters should make. The National Football League schedules 16 contests over 5 months to determine its champions. The Presidential nominating process uses the equivalent of two preseason contests in Iowa and New Hampshire to narrow the field to two or three and sometimes pick the winner. If professional football were Presidential politics, SportsCenter would pick the Super Bowl teams after two preseason games. The problem is not Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem is what comes after Iowa and New Hampshire. At least 18 States will choose delegates in a 1-day traffic jam on February 5 next year. The legislation we introduced today requires States to spread out the primaries and caucuses into a series of regional contests over four months. Beginning in 2012, States could only schedule primaries and caucuses during the first weeks of March, April, May, and June of Presidential years. The traditional warm up contests in Iowa and New Hampshire would still come first, but they would return to their proper role as ``off- Broadway'' opportunities for lesser known candidates to become well- enough known to compete on the 4-month-long big stage. In addition, at the appropriate time I will offer an amendment to this legislation that would allow Presidential candidates to raise up to $20 million in individual contribution amounts of up to $10,000, indexed for inflation. The current limit of $2,300 makes it too hard for many worthy but unknown candidates to raise enough early money to be taken seriously--leaving the field to the rich--who constitutionally can spend their own funds--and famous. Together, these two reforms--spreading out the primaries and allowing a ``start-up'' fund for candidates--will increase the pool of good candidates willing to run for the White House and give more Americans the opportunity to hear their ideas and to cast a meaningful vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following documents printed in the Congressional Record: a David Broder column, ``No Way to Choose a President,'' that ran in the May 10, 2007 issue of The Washington Post; Remarks that I delivered on the floor of the Senate on February 2, 2004 titled ``Two Super Bowls''; and a lecture I delivered at the Heritage Foundation on May 23, 1996 titled ``Off With the Limits: What I Learned About Money and Politics When I Ran for President.''

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I am not mistaken, after the 2 minutes I have, we may proceed to a vote?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment described by Senator Murray be modified. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I agreed with the last half of the Senator from Montana's statement, but the first half was an eloquent argument for a $20 billion unfunded mandate for the States of Montana and Nebraska and Tennessee and everybody else. If we are going pass it, we ought to fund it. And if we are not going to fund it, we ought to repeal it. That is my position. We passed the law in 1995, the Federal Unfunded Mandate Act, but the REAL ID program imposes on the States, according to the Department of Homeland Security, an up to $20 billion unfunded mandate. It will require up to 245 million of us to go in and prove we are lawfully here and stand in line at our driver's license offices. Seventeen States have said they don't like it, including mine. The National Governors Association meeting in Traverse City, MI, last week generated a letter to all of us saying: If you are going to require it, fund it. That is what we are beginning to do. If you think the passport backlog is a big problem, wait until the driver's license backlog comes if we don't properly fund REAL ID or repeal it. There will be weddings. There will be vacations. There will be honeymoons. There will be trips. But there will be work days messed up. There will be a lot of mad Americans, and rightly so. So this amendment would make a small installment payment of $300 million for the REAL ID program we imposed on the States. Surely the conference can find, in a $37.6 billion bill, $300 million to do what we are supposed to do. If we require it, we should fund it. The Republican Congressmen were right in 1994 when they said it, and if we can't remember that, they should throw us out. I urge a ``yes'' vote on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Warner, Senator Kyl, and Senator Voinovich, the cosponsors of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I will continue with my time because I do not see Senator Collins or Senator Warner or Senator Voinovich. I will take another 4 or 5 minutes. If they don't come, then I will give back my time, except a minute or two to the Senator from Washington and let the Senator from Washington be recognized. But let me talk about the money a minute. Seventeen State legislatures, including Tennessee, have passed legislation against REAL ID. We do not want it. We want something else. But for those who do have it, they have to get cracking because it says here: States have to be ready to comply with these new measures by May of next year. The Department of Homeland Security has not even issued final regulations about what the compliance must be. But the Department, thanks to the good work of Senator Collins and others with an amendment we had earlier this year, has agreed to grant waivers to States for delayed implementation. So States have a little bit of time to work on this, if they choose to. But 17 States do not want to. However, we have a principle here called federalism. Much of it is incorporated in the 10th amendment to the Constitution. I see our constitutional expert, the Senator from West Virginia, on the floor. When I was Governor, I said on the floor many times, nothing made me madder than when some Congressman or Senator would stand up with a big idea, pass it, hold a press conference taking credit for it, and send the bill to me. I would have to either raise tuition or cut this or change that, and then that same Congressman would be home making a big speech about local control the next weekend. I did not like that. It was called unfunded Federal mandates. I have also stated many times on this floor that the Republican Congress got elected in 1994 running against these mandates. They stood on the steps of the Capitol in 1994 with Newt Gingrich. They said: No more unfunded mandates. If we break our promise, throw us out. Maybe that is one of the reasons they did throw us out, because we forgot that promise. We forget it with REAL ID because, according to the National Governors Association, implementing it would cost $11 billion over 5 years. The Department of Homeland Security itself expects the cost to reach $20 billion over 10 years. Today, the Federal Government has appropriated only $40 million for the States to comply with those mandates, even though it could cost $20 billion over 10 years. We are not supposed to be doing that. If we want to require it, we should pay for it. My view of unfunded mandates is we ought to either fund REAL ID or we ought to repeal it. We should not require it unless we are going to pay for it. I see the Chair, the distinguished former Governor himself, the Senator from Nebraska. When I described how I felt about unfunded mandates as Governor of Tennessee, I imagine he felt exactly the same way. I have sought, working with Senators Collins, Warner, Voinovich, and Kyl, to identify a way to begin to deal with this issue of the unfunded Federal mandate. That is where this $300 million amendment comes from. The National Governors Association met last weekend. They issued the following statement regarding REAL ID: If Congress is truly committed to transforming REAL ID into a reasonable and workable law that actually increases the security of our citizens, it must commit the Federal funds necessary to implement this Federal mandate. As the Senate considers the Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008, the Nation's Governors urge Senators to support Senator Alexander's efforts to begin funding the mandates imposed by REAL ID. States estimate the cost of REAL ID will exceed $11 billion over 5 years, including $1 billion in up-front costs merely to create systems and processes necessary to implement the law and prepare to re-enroll all 245 million driver's license and identification cardholders. To date Congress has appropriated only $40 million to assist States. I only have one more point to make. Then I will yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member allowed me to discuss this and bring up this amendment during committee deliberations. I thank them for that. I offered offsets from other funds that States were receiving. A majority of the members of the committee didn't like the offsets. That is not so unusual in the world in which we live. My amendment was defeated in the Appropriations Committee. I am coming to the floor with a different offset. It is 0.8 percent across the board cut in the rest of the bill. I know very well that the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and other Senators don't like that offset, but I suggest to my colleagues that there are others of us who don't like underfunded Federal mandates. If the Congress is going to impose on the States a $20 billion cost over 10 years, then we should pay for it. We have only appropriated $40 million. As the Governors said, it is time for us to move ahead and appropriate $300 million this year, only a downpayment on what we should pay, and if the offset we adopt today is not the one the chairman and others would prefer, then perhaps there is an opportunity during conference on an this appropriations bill of $37.6 billion to make that adjustment. I thank the managers of the bill for giving me a chance to bring the amendment to the floor. I will yield the floor and wait to see if Senator Collins or others decide to come. If they do not come, I will yield back the rest of my time except for 2 minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I might ask the managers of the bill, if I am not mistaken, after my 2 minutes, we can proceed to a vote?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know Senator Collins, Senator Voinovich, Senator Warner, and Senator Kyl--all cosponsors of the bill--had hoped to speak, but I am not sure any of them are able to come now, so I wish to reserve 2 minutes prior to the vote, but other than that, I say to the managers and to the distinguished chairman of the committee that on this side we are ready to go forward.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her courtesy. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his help with this amendment, facilitating its coming to the floor last night at a late hour. I am grateful to him for that. This is an amendment which I described on the Senate floor yesterday. It is an amendment involving REAL ID. I am offering the amendment with several cosponsors, including Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Warner, and Senator Voinovich. It is my intention to use about 10 minutes of our 30 minutes on this side and to reserve the rest of that time for Senators Collins, Warner, and Voinovich, if they choose to come to the floor in support of this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl of Arizona be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment would provide $300 million in funding to the States to implement the program known as REAL ID. It is offset with a .8-percent across-the-board cut in the rest of the bill. The total pricetag of the rest of the bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, is about $37.6 billion. I will have a word to say about the offset in a moment. I know the Senator from Washington will have a few more words to say about the offsets when her time comes. I would prefer another offset, but I will talk about that a little later. First, let me describe again what the amendment does. I would ask the Chair if I can be informed when 10 minutes has expired.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, after 9/11, the 9/11 Commission recommended that in light of the terrorism our country faces, we begin to study how we can have more secure identification cards. A number of the terrorists had stolen cards or had fraudulent cards or had ID cards that were not real. As a result of that, the Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act at the end of 2004 which established a process by which we could look at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It established a negotiated rule-making process. Because most of the ideas about ID cards involved State and local governments, all of them involved issues of privacy, all of them involved the possibility of great inconvenience to most Americans, this negotiated rule-making process would basically create a seat at the table for representatives of all the affected groups and try to work out the most sensible thing to do. I have historically been opposed to the idea of an ID card. When I was Governor of Tennessee, I twice vetoed the photo driver's license bill because I thought it was an infringement on liberty. But the legislature overrode me, I accepted it, and today, after 9/11, I agree it would be wise for our country, with a combination of terrorism and the difficulties within immigration, to have more secure identification cards. The question is, which one? Then suddenly, in 2005, along came an appropriations bill for our troops, and in the middle of it, the House of Representatives stuck something called the REAL ID Act, which set minimum standards for State driver's licenses as an effort to deter terrorists from easily obtaining that form of identification. Well, that could be a good idea. But there are 245 million Americans with driver's licenses or ID cards. Many of us send those in by mail or online to renew them. Last year in the State of Tennessee, for example, there were 1.7 million driver's licenses issued. There are 53 driver's license identification stations. I believe the only group of people who could have passed REAL ID in the dead of the night, without any hearings, were Congressmen who had never been to a driver's license examining station in Tennessee or maybe in their own State, because these are not State employees who are trained in catching terrorists. They are not equipped to deal with the large number of new responsibilities, in a State which is going to have REAL ID, that include having to come in person to that driver's license office and show a number of documents, including the Social Security card and a valid U.S. passport. We would have to prove, I would have to prove, that I am lawfully a citizen of the United States. Our family has been here for 12 generations. Senator Salazar has been here for 13 generations. The Presiding Officer has written a book about the number of generations his family has been here. We would have to go down to one of these driver's license stations and prove we belonged here. Nobody else ever had to do that before in my family that I know about. But in an age of terrorism, we might have to do that. At the very least, I would think we would want to do one of two things: One would be that in the Senate, in the Homeland Security Committee or other appropriate committees, we might want to think about whether there might be other ways to come up with a better secure identification card, rather than add that to the burden of the driver's license. For example, most of the problems that surround the immigration bill have to do with work, people coming into this country illegally to get a job. That is what most of it is about. Senator Schumer and Senator Graham have a piece of legislation that would create a secure Social Security card. Now, I wonder if, over a period of years, having workers with a Social Security card that is secure, includes biometrics, and a good employer verification system, might not be a more sensible way for us to improve the question of whether we have secure identification cards. There is the idea of more passports. Already we have a backlog because of the number of American who are getting a passport. But passports are a more secure identification. Maybe there should be a secure travel card we could use when we travel on airplanes. For example, there are a couple million of us at a time who are up in the air. If we all had one of those cards, you begin to add all those up--you may have some driver's licenses that are more secure, a secure work card, a passport and a travel card, a variety of secure cards would begin to avoid the terrors we imagine from a ``Big Brother'' national ID card. We remember what happened with that sort of thing in Nazi Germany and in South Africa, where you had to carry around a wallet and a portfolio describing how mixed your blood might be so they can determine your race. We do not want that in the United States. So that would be the kind of discussion we should have had in hearings before any of this was adopted. We were going to have that with the negotiated rule-making process, before suddenly this so-called REAL ID card comes through here at night and we have to vote for it, up or down, or not send any money to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can get an idea of what the REAL ID surge might cost by looking at what is happening right now with the passport backlog in the United States. There were 12 million passports issued in 2006. This year there are going to be 17 million because of new travel requirements. The Passport Office employees are working hard, but they grossly underestimated, or we did, what the new demand would be. As a result, there was a backlog of 3 million passports in March. Today it is 2.3 million. The turnaround time used to be 6 weeks, now it is 12 to 14 weeks on regular service and 4 to 6 on expedited service. We have destroyed summer vacations, we have ruined weddings and honeymoon plans, we have disrupted business meetings and educational trips. People lost days of work waiting in line. If we think the passport backlog has created consternation, imagine what it is going to be like when 245 million Americans, many who have been used to renewing their driver's licenses by mail, many who have thought of themselves and their parents and grandparents as good, legal Americans, have to go to their driver's license station with a pack of documents and prove they are legally here. Then they might get right up to the door and somebody says: You forgot one thing, and they have to go all the way back home, get it, and stand back in line again. I bet we get more calls on that than we did on immigration. There is another problem I would like to describe. It is one I am trying to address with this amendment. I am trying to provide three hundred million dollars next year to help States who wish to comply with REAL ID pay for it. Now, not all States will take advantage of this because 17 States have already The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) The Senator has used 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask the manager of the bill if it would be appropriate for me to speak now on the amendment I propose to offer. Seeing no objection, I will proceed.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will not ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside because I understand from the bill's managers that at this point there would be an objection to that. That disappoints me. I have an amendment I would like to offer. It is an amendment we discussed in the full Appropriations Committee when it was considered, and I hope I have the opportunity to offer the amendment at another time. The amendment was filed earlier today. It is No. 2405. The amendment has as cosponsor Senator Collins. I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator Voinovich and Senator Warner be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2405.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this amendment, the Alexander-Collins- Voinovich-Warner amendment, has to do with the law we call REAL ID. I will describe REAL ID in a moment, but fundamentally what the amendment proposes is to offer $300 million in funding to the States to implement REAL ID. The offset would be a 0.8-percent across-the-board cut in the rest of the bill. The total bill is $37 billion, more or less. I know that offset is not one the chairman and ranking member of the committee are likely to approve of, but during our committee discussions I offered other offsets which weren't approved of, and I feel strongly that if the Congress requires the States to adopt REAL ID or something similar to REAL ID, then the Congress ought to pay for it--hence the $300 million amendment. Someone once said about me last year--and I haven't been here very long, this is my fifth year as a Senator, but I have been around a while--they said the problem with Lamar is he hasn't gotten over being Governor, which I was privileged to be in my home State of Tennessee for several years. I hope when I get over being Governor, the people of Tennessee send me home because I think one of the contributions I can make is to remind the Congress and remind the country that our country's strengths begin with strong communities and strong counties and strong cities and strong States and that the central government, according to our traditions and our Constitution, is for the rest of the things that States, communities, cities and counties can't do. According to the 10th amendment and its spirit, if we require it of the State and local governments from here, we should fund it from here. Nothing used to make me more angry as a Governor than for some Senator or Congressman to pass a bill with a big-sounding idea in Washington, DC, hold a press conference, take credit for it, and then send the bill to me to pay. Then that same Senator or Congressman more than likely would be back in Tennessee within the next few weeks making a big speech at the Lincoln Day or Jackson Day dinner about local control. This is such an important issue that the 1994 elections turned on it, to a great extent. I remember dozens of Republican Congressmen and candidates standing with Newt Gingrich on the Capitol steps, saying: No more unfunded Federal mandates. If we break our promise, send us home. That may be one of the reasons the Republican Congress got sent home last year, because we hadn't paid enough attention to that promise. I can remember Senator Dole, when he was the majority leader in the Senate in 1995. He was campaigning for President, campaigning around the country and I was often at the same events. He would hold up his copy of the Constitution and talk about the 10th amendment. That is the spirit I wish to talk about today. The REAL ID Act began in a good way. The 9/11 Commission recommended, in some fairly vague language, that we needed to improve our identification documents in the United States. The Commission found that: [a]ll but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud. Acquisition of these documents would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities. So said the 9/11 Commission. The Commission added that the Federal Government should: . . . set standards for the issuance of . . . sources of identification, such as drivers' licenses. Fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft. The Congress began to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission soon thereafter, and in December of 2004 the Senate passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which called for States to create secure driver's licenses and ID cards under section 7212 of the bill. It established a negotiated rulemaking process that included State government officials, which was a direct effort to deal with the problem I discussed. Through that, standards would be promulgated that would make it more difficult to create and obtain fraudulent driver's licenses. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was so that as Congress said that our national needs called for more secure documents, the State and local governments could say let us talk with you about the realities at home, about what we use driver's licenses for, about how many there are, about what the cost would be of implementing new standards, and about how long it might take. In addition, we might have some other ideas about a different kind of secure document that might be better than a driver's license for this purpose. And there are some privacy standards we are worried about. In addition to that, the experience with national identification cards around the world hasn't been all that promising. In Nazi Germany it wasn't a good story. Those who remember the more recent history of South Africa, when every citizen had a card to carry around which would decree what their race is and whether they were of mixed blood, that sort of ``Big Brother'' attitude is of great concern in the land of liberty, the United States of America. So the negotiated rulemaking process was to take into account all of that. Then came along the REAL ID Act of 2005 in the midst of all this careful consideration. It was attached to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill of 2005. In other words, it was stuck in, by the House of Representatives, on the troop funding bill and it was signed into law by the President in May. We had no choice but to pass it. We had our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had to pay the bills for their service. This was just stuck in there. We had to vote it up or down and REAL ID became law. The Senate didn't hold any hearings. It was swept through Congress. The REAL ID Act superseded that negotiated rulemaking process included in the Intelligence Reform bill, in which the States and the Federal Government were working back and forth to set minimum standards for State driver's licenses in an effort to deter terrorists. REAL ID established a de facto national ID card by setting Federal standards for State driver's licenses and making the States create and issue them. One might say the States don't have to do it. They don't have to do it unless they want their citizens to be unable to fly on airplanes or obtain other necessary Federal services. It is a Hobson's choice. So, in effect, the REAL ID law, with no hearings, no consideration of whether there might be some other kind of card or set of different cards that would be more appropriate, became law. The States had to comply with that and that meant 245 million U.S. driver's licenses or ID holders would have to get new identification. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet issued final regulations of this massive act, even though the States are supposed to be ready to comply with these new standards and measures by May 11 of next year, 2008. Final regulations are expected to be released in the early fall, and this will give States just months to reach the May 2008 deadline. It is true that, thanks to Senator Collins and others, and our willingness to forgo an amendment earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security agreed to grant waivers to States to delay implementation. But, still, under the present route, 245 million people in America will need to get new ID cards by May of 2013. REAL ID is a massive unfunded mandate on the States to begin with. Last fall the National Governors Association and others released a study putting the cost of REAL ID at $11 billion over 5 years. The Department of Homeland Security itself said the cost may reach $20 billion over 10 years. To date, the Federal Government has appropriated $40 million for the States to comply with REAL ID, and only $6 million of the $40 million has actually been given to the States. Here we go again. After a lot of promises from Washington, DC, on this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle--we say no more unfunded mandates, but we have a real big idea, we announce it, take credit for it and send the bill to the Governors and the legislatures. We let them worry about whether to raise college tuitions, raise property taxes, or cut services over here--worry how do we pay for this new mandate? No wonder 17 States now have passed legislation opposing the REAL ID Act, including Tennessee, which became the 16th State on June 11 of this year. To get an idea of what REAL ID would require, first, you have to prove the applicant's identity, which would take a passport, birth certificate, a consular report--there are a number of other documents that could be used. Then you have to prove your date of birth. That might mean you have to bring in two documents. Then you have to prove your Social Security number. That might mean you have to go find your Social Security card. I wonder how many people have their Social Security card today. You are up to three documents. You need the address of your principal residence--you have to prove that. Then you have to prove you are lawfully here. That is not just for someone who is becoming a citizen or someone coming here, this is for every single person who drives a car or gets an ID; he or she has to prove they are lawfully here under REAL ID. In all the States, that is 245 million people. In Tennessee last year, there were 1,711,000 new or renewed driver's licenses. I renewed mine by mail; 154,000 renewed theirs online. There will be no mail renewals, there will be no online renewals in Tennessee or Maryland or Mississippi or Washington State. Everybody will get to go to the driver's license office. There are 53 of those in Tennessee, and 1.7 million of us will show up at those 53 offices, not just at one time, not just in 1 week, but just in 1 month, scrambling around, trying to figure out what documents we need to have. I can imagine there are going to be phone calls coming into our offices that make the phone calls on immigration look like a Sunday school class. We need only look at the recent passport backlog to imagine what might happen with the REAL ID backlog. We remember that the passport quagmire in which we have been in the last few months was triggered by a very well intentioned policy change designed to thwart terrorists. Specifically, new rules were implemented in January of 2007 requiring Americans to have passports for travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico and most of the islands of the Caribbean. This caused a massive surge in passport applications. There were 12 million passports issued in 2006. The State Department expects to issue 17 million this year--a 42-percent increase. Prior to the passport regulations, applications were increasing at a rate of 1 to 2 million a year. We are expecting an increase of 5 million applications from 2006 to 2007. In March of this year, there was a backlog of 3 million passports. The current backlog is 2.3 million passports. Prior to the new regulations, turnaround time was 6 weeks on regular service and 2 weeks on expedited service. At the worst part of this year, they were running 12 to 14 weeks on regular service and 4 to 6 weeks on expedited service. This massive backlog destroyed summer vacations, ruined wedding and honeymoon plans, disrupted business meetings and educational trips, caused people to lose days of work waiting in line, and caused people to lose money for nonrefundable travel and hotel deposits and reservations. My office has worked with the passport office over the last few months. I would compliment them for the dedication of the employees and how they were trying to deal with this massive surge, but we imposed upon them a burden they simply could not handle. What do we say to the people of Tennessee: Show up at our 53 driver's license offices with the correct documentation; otherwise, you may wait for 2 hours, you get up to the window, and then they tell you've forgotten your Social Security card and you must come back again. If they show up over 1 month, this is going to make the passport application surge look like a small problem. I believe we have a choice in Congress. I think insofar as REAL ID goes, we should either fund it or we should repeal it. Fund it or repeal it. It may be that we need to have a national identification card. I have always been opposed to that, but we live in a different era now. But I would much prefer to have seen the Senate debate this in the usual way and let us consider, for example, whether a secure work card, such as the kind Senator Schumer and Senator Graham have proposed and Senator Cornyn and I have talked about, might not be a better form of ID card. Most of our immigration problems, for example, are related to work. Maybe a secure identification card would be better, a secure Social Security card would be better, or maybe, because of privacy concerns and our memory of Nazi Germany and our memory of South Africa, we want to be very careful about having anything that is actually called a national ID card or even a de facto ID card. So maybe we can work over a period of years and help to create several cards: maybe a travel card that some can use on airplanes or other forms of travel; maybe a work card; maybe some States would want to use the driver's license as that form of ID card. But the point would be that there would be three or four choices which could be used for ID which would be secure and would help with the terrorism threat we face. I regret very much that we did not have a chance to take this problem, this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, properly through the Senate and consider it. I was glad to see the legislation that created the negotiated rulemaking process that at least involved the States in what is going on. We have an obligation in this body to recognize the fact that if we are going to have something called REAL ID--and according to our own Department of Homeland Security, it is going to cost $20 billion over 10 years--then we have a responsibility to appropriate that money or most of that money to pay for it. Today, we are at $40 million. That is why Senator Collins and Senator Warner and Senator Voinovich and I intend to offer this amendment to the appropriations bill to provide $300 million in funding to the States to implement REAL ID. In the meantime, I am going to work with other Senators to either reestablish the negotiated rulemaking process or to repeal REAL ID and let us move ahead with a different way of developing a secure identification card. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. The American people should be grateful to Senator Kennedy and the committee and I believe this Senate, for increasing the opportunity for Americans of all ages to continue their education and, second, for continuing what arguably is our strongest asset in competition worldwide, our system of higher education. I can recall the former President of Brazil saying to a number of us before he went back to Brazil: What we remember about the United States, he said, is the American University. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world and we have a responsibility to continue to keep it excellent and provide access to it. I thank the chairman for offering me this time.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. For 15 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes and that following me, Senator Menendez be allowed to speak for----

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would ask through the Chair to the managers, would it be appropriate now to speak on the bill or would they prefer to go ahead with other business that they have?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I hope my friends in the university community will see in me someone who values higher education, who defends the importance of it in our society, who is working hard to keep our brainpower advantage in the world marketplace, who supports funding it generously, but who also believes that the greatest Achilles' heel of our system of higher education today is political correctness and a failure to take it seriously. Colleges and universities are places where people ought to be allowed to say even outrageous things from the right and from the left. It is not a free and academic environment if you are only allowed to say outrageous things from the left. Without belaboring that point, I conclude my remarks by expressing my appreciation once more to Senators Kennedy and Enzi. This is a first- rate bill. It will help students. It will help our country. It has a great many good ideas in it, and I hope there are others in this body and in the House of Representatives who will join me in recognizing that along with political correctness, the greatest threat to quality of higher education, in my view, is overregulation by the Federal Government, and perhaps over time we can find some sensible ways to give it a little more freedom from this big stack of regulations that piled up over the years. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Remarks of Senator Alexander to Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Nashville, Tennessee Thank you for the time you are giving to this Commission's work, and thank you for inviting me to testify. I've seen higher education from many sides, so I'm sometimes asked, ``What's harder: being governor of a State, a member of a president's cabinet, or president of a university?'' My answer is, ``Obviously, you've never been president of a university, or you wouldn't ask such a question.'' I have six suggestions for recommendations you might make: First, I hope you will urge the Administration that appointed you to make the National Academies' ``Augustine Report'' a focus of the President's State of the Union address in January and of his remaining three years in office. This 20-point, $10 billion a year report is the National Academies' answer to the following question that Senator Pete Domenici, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I posed to them in May: ``What are the ten top actions, in priority order, that federal policy makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so the United States can successfully compete, prosper and be secure in the global community of the 21st century?'' The report was written by a distinguished panel of business, government and university leaders headed by Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin. As 2005 ends, we Americans--who constitute just five percent of the world's population--will once again produce nearly thirty percent of the world's wealth. Most of this good fortune comes from the American advantage in brainpower: an educated workforce and our science and technology. More Americans go to college than in any other country. Our universities are the world's best, attracting more than 500,000 of the brightest foreign students. No country has national research laboratories to match ours. Americans have won the most Nobel Prizes in science, and have registered the most patents. We have invented the Internet, the automobile and the computer chip, television and electricity. From such advances have come a steady flow of the world's best paying jobs. As one scientist has said, we don't have science and technology because we're rich. We're rich because we have science and technology. Yet I am worried that America may be losing its brainpower advantage. Most Americans who travel to China, India, Finland, Singapore and Ireland come home saying, ``Watch out.'' The Augustine panel found I am right to be worried: Last year, China trained 500,000 engineers, India 200,000, while the U.S. trained 70,000. For the cost of one chemist or engineer in the U.S., a company can hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India. China is spending billions to recruit the best Chinese scientists from American universities to return home to build up Chinese universities. They also found signs that we are not keeping up: U.S. 12th graders performed below the international average of 21 leading countries on tests of general knowledge in math. In 2003, only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of new U.S. patents. Of 120 new chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion dollars or more, one is in the U.S. and 50 are in China. Among the Augustine Report's 20 recommendations were: Recruit 10,000 new science and math teachers with 4-year scholarships and train 250,000 current teachers in summer institutes. Triple the number of students who take Advanced Placement math and science exams. Increase Federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences by 10 percent a year for 7 years. Provide 30,000 scholarships and graduate fellowships for scientists. Give foreign students who earn a PhD in science, engineering and computing a ``green card'' so they can live and work here. Give American companies a bigger research and development tax credit so they will keep their good jobs here instead of moving them offshore. Some may wince at the $10 billion a year price tag. I believe that the cost is low. America's brainpower advantage has not come on the cheap. This year, one-third of State and local budgets go to fund education. Over 50 percent of American students have a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college. The Federal government spends nearly $30 billion per year this year on research at universities and another $34 billion to fund 36 national research laboratories. Just this year, Congress has authorized $75 billion to fight the war in Iraq, $71 billion for hurricane recovery, $13 billion in increased Medicaid spending and $352 billion to finance the National debt. If we fail to invest the funds necessary to keep our brainpower advantage, we'll not have an economy capable of producing enough money to pay the bills for war, Social Security, hurricanes, Medicaid and debt. Aside from the war on terror, there is no greater challenge than maintaining our brainpower advantage so we can keep our good paying jobs. That is the surest way to keep America on top. I have attached an executive summary of the Augustine Report to my comments. Second, I suggest that you recommend that presidents of the United States appoint a lead adviser to coordinate all of the Federal government responsibilities for higher education. My greatest regret as U.S. Education Secretary was that I did not volunteer to be that lead person. Secretary Spellings, with the appointment of this commission, has assumed at least some of that responsibility. But the authority of the Secretary of Education over higher education is somewhat like the authority of the U.S. Senate majority leader or a university president: overestimated. Almost every agency of the federal government has something to do with higher education, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are invested every year and someone should be looking at all of this in a coordinated way. Third, I urge you to join me on the bandwagon for deregulation of higher education. The greatest threat to the quality of American higher education is not underfunding. It is overregulation. The key to the quality of our higher education system is that it is NOT a system. It is a marketplace of 6,000 autonomous institutions. Yet, thanks largely to the last two rounds of the Federal Higher Education Act, each one of our 6,000 higher education institutions that accepts students with Federal grants and loans must wade through over 7,000 regulations and notices. The president of Stanford has said that seven cents of every tuition dollar is spent on compliance with governmental regulations. I have attached to my testimony remarks I made to the U.S. Senate in June when I introduced the Higher Education Simplification and Deregulation Act of 2005, much of which was incorporated in the Higher Education Act reauthorization bill this year. Fourth, I urge the Congress to overhaul the Medicaid program and free states from outdated federal court consent decrees so that states may properly fund colleges and universities. You have two charts before you that tell the story. Nationally, during the five year period from 2000 to 2004, State spending for Medicaid was up 36 percent, while State spending for higher education was up only 6.8 percent. As one result, tuition was up 38 percent. The story in Tennessee was worse. Medicaid spending was up 71 percent, while higher education was up only 10.5 percent, and tuition was up 43 percent. By the way, during this same four year period, Federal spending for higher education was up 71 percent. When I left the governor's office in 1987, Tennessee was spending 51 cents of each State tax dollar on education and 16 cents on health care, mainly Medicaid. Today it is 40 cents on education and 26 cents on health care, mainly Medicaid. To give governors and legislatures the proper authority to allocate resources, Congress should give States more authority over Medicaid standards and more ability to terminate outdated Federal court consent decrees that remove decision-making authority from elected officials. In addition to the two charts on spending trends, I have attached my remarks when Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas and I introduced the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act. Fifth, I hope you will put a spotlight on the greatest disappointment in higher education today: colleges of education. ``At a time when America 's schools face a critical demand for effective principals and superintendents, the majority of programs that prepare school leaders range in quality from inadequate to poor.'' Those are not my words, but those of a new report by Arthur Levine, the president of Teachers College, Columbia University. Or ask Richard Light, the Harvard professor, who is working with university presidents trying to find and inspire a new generation of leaders for our colleges of education. Sometimes colleges of education are even roadblocks to the very reforms they ought to be championing. In 1983, when I asked colleges of education to help me find a fair way to pay teachers more for teaching well (which not one State was doing at the time), they said it couldn't be done. So we invented our own system for thousands of teachers, with virtually no help from the very people who are in business to figure out such things. And still today, despite the good work of Governor Hunt and others, the lack of differential pay is the major obstacle to quality teaching. I have attached an executive summary of Dr. Levine's report, ``Educating School Leaders.'' Finally, I hope you will put a spotlight on the greatest threat to broader public support and funding for higher education: the growing political one-sidedness which has infected most campuses, and an absence of true diversity of opinion. To describe this phenomenon, allow me to borrow some words from the past, which may sound familiar to your chairman, Charles Miller, who was once Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas: ``systematic, persistent and continuous attempts by a politically dominant group to impose its social and educational views on the university.'' This was what the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) called it in its censure of Texas Governor Pappy O'Daniel's Board of Regents when the Board fired University of Texas President Homer Rainey in the 1940s. This is reported in Willie Morris' book, ``North Toward Home.'' Then the AAUP was talking about one-sidedness imposed by the right, instead of by the left--but political one-sidedness is political one-sidedness, no matter from what direction it comes. There is more to this charge of one-sidedness than the academic community would like to admit. How many conservative speakers are invited to deliver commencement addresses? How many colleges require courses in U.S. history? How many even teach Western Civilization? How many bright, young faculty members are encouraged to earn dissertations in the failures of bilingual education or on the virtues of vouchers or charter schools? I am not surprised that most faculties express liberal views, vote Democratic and that most faculty members resist authority. That is the nature of most university communities. But I am disappointed when true diversity of thought is discouraged in the name of a preferred brand of diversity. This one-sidedness is not good for students. It is not good for the pursuit of truth. And it undermines broad public support for higher education. The solution to this political rigidity lies not in Washington, D.C., but in the hands of trustees, deans and faculty members themselves. Last year Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas invited former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso to join a small group of U.S. senators in the majority leader's office for a discussion. Dr. Cardoso was completing a residency at the Library of Congress. ``What memory of the United States will you take back to your country?'' Senator Hutchison asked Dr. Cardoso. ``The American university,'' he replied immediately. ``The uniqueness, strength and autonomy of the American university. There is nothing like it in the world.'' I salute Secretary Spellings and this Commission for undertaking to preserve and improve higher education, America's secret weapon for its future success. In coming to your conclusions, I hope that you will urge the President to adopt the Augustine Report and to designate a lead advisor for higher education, that you will jump on the bandwagon to deregulate higher education and preserve its autonomy, that you will urge Congress to overhaul Medicaid and Federal court consent decrees so States can properly fund higher education, and that you will urge trustees to revamp colleges of education and ensure a campus environment that honors true diversity of opinion.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Often legitimate speakers with different points of view are booed and not welcomed in the academic environment. I testified about this situation before Secretary Spellings' committee on higher education. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks my testimony in Nashville last year.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wyoming. Another example of what I would call the propensity to federalize education is to regulate the transfer of credit policy that individual institutions have. If we are going to have a marketplace, and if students are going to have choice, then it is the job of the students to find out from the colleges and universities what their rules are. Otherwise, we go to a European system or a Chinese system, or a system like our K-12 system where we, knowing all, tell everybody what to do, what the transfer of credit policies might be. So I strongly resist saying that the Federal Government ought not to have anything to say about whether the Nashville Auto Diesel College ought to be required to accept a transfer of credit from the Harvard classics department. I am not sure that a graduate or student in Harvard classics would know anything about a Nissan engine in Nashville, and vice versa. I am pretty sure we don't need to interfere with that, particularly if so much of the excellence in our system comes from this competition, and these autonomous institutions and this marketplace that allows students, followed by Government money, to choose and allows researchers to compete to see who deserves the money. So my hope is that as time goes on we can have a serious discussion in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in the Education and Labor Committee in the House about deregulation of higher education. We all have good ideas about what to do. Some will be voted on as amendments tomorrow. If we all impose our good ideas from here, then they add up to another stack like this, and our higher education system begins to be smothered. I have had the privilege of working at several levels in higher education. When I was president of the University of Tennessee, I had a lot of oversight. The Governor was chairman of the board. The legislature approved the largest share of money that I received. I had a board of trustees to which I had to respond. There was a faculty council to which I paid a lot of attention. In terms of student accountability, the professors graded students on a regular basis. The dean graded the professors. The trustees, the president, the provost, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission, the Governor, and the legislature all had their say. There is plenty of supervision of higher education based on my experience. So we need to be careful. We have been wise since World War II with our loans and grants that half of Americans use to go to college to say here is the money. If the college is accredited, a student can take their choice. You may go to Notre Dame or to the community college down the street. You may go to the University of Tennessee or to Rhode Island. That is your choice, as long as it is accredited. Of course, some mistakes are made. I am sure that at the fringes some colleges are teaching goofy courses. Some schools are better than others. Overall, we don't have any enterprise in America that today has consistently outperformed the rest of the world as well as our system of higher education--not our automobile business, not our aluminum business, and not our K-12 system. Even the Senate rarely raises above the level of the Baghdad Parliament when it comes to getting consensus on the war in Iraq. But the system of higher education, with all its sometimes stuffiness and its disagreeable political correctness, and even with the lengthy vacations and even with more tenure than probably is deserved, as a whole, is by far the finest in the world; and more regulation, as a whole, will make it worse, not more excellent. There is one other provision I want to mention. I am glad the committee included this. It is a statement about the protection of free speech. Willie Morris, who wrote the ``North Toward Home'' about his days in Mississippi and the University of Texas and New York, wrote an eloquent statement about how the American Association of University Presidents rose up about the political correctness at the time he was a student. That was in the 1950s--I guess early 1960s. At that time, the political correctness in part of Texas, or all of Texas, was segregationist, very conservative, and oppressive to those who had different points of view. Today, the shoe is often on the other foot. Some deny that, but we know that is true. There are not many conservative speakers at college graduation ceremonies.