Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia. He has described something that for the last several months I have been calling the Isakson principle. I believe the Isakson principle is the basis for a comprehensive immigration bill that could attract 85 to 90 votes in the Senate and could, in a fairly short period of time, be reconciled with legislation passed by the House of Representatives. It would be a single piece of legislation that would work in two stages. It would first secure our border; and then, as the Senator from Georgia says, the trigger would come in, and we would get the rest of the job done. And the rest of the job includes defining who can work and who can study in the United States if they come from overseas. The rest of the job also includes helping prospective citizens, of which there are about a million a year today--people who are here legally--to help them learn English, to learn our history, and to learn our democratic traditions so we can be one country. There is a lot of talk this week about the borders of Iraq. I believe there are some more important borders in this world, at least to us Americans, and they are the borders around our own country. It is more important that we secure our borders at home than it is to secure the borders in Iraq. Last year, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an immigration bill. I voted no on the Senate immigration bill. I opposed the bill because I did not believe it did enough to secure our borders. It had some good proposals for border security, and it had a number of other excellent proposals, but it did not guarantee they would be funded. We all know that border security on paper means nothing. It requires boots on the ground. It requires jeeps on the roads and unmanned aerial vehicles in the air. It requires an employer verification system. And it requires adequate funding. So I voted no. But I said at the time I was ready to vote for, and wanted to vote for, a comprehensive bill, one that fixed the whole problem. And I suggested then, as did a number of others, that the basis for such a bill was the Isakson principle. Well, instead of getting a bill passed into law, it was a political year, and some Members of the House of Representatives, including some members of my own party, thought the wiser course was basically to run against the Senate bill that I voted against. Well, we now know how successful that turned out to be. That was not successful because the American people expect us to act like grownups, deal with big issues, and come to a conclusion. There is no issue upon which we in the Congress have more need to come to a conclusion on than the issue of immigration. It is our responsibility. We cannot kick it to the Governors. We cannot blame the mayor of Nashville. We cannot blame anybody in Iraq. It is our job in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We should begin to do our job. We should take it up within the next few weeks. We should base our bill on the Isakson principle. And we should not stop our work on the immigration bill until we are finished. The Isakson principle is the basis for success with immigration because of the so-called trigger. As the Senator from Georgia said, once we put into effect all of the things we need to do to secure the border, the trigger operates, and then we get to all the rest of the issues, some of which are hard to solve. But they are made much easier to solve once we and the American people are assured the border will be secured. It is outrageous for us in the Senate to preach about the rule of law to the rest of the world and ignore it here at home. The rule of law is one of the most important principles of our country. We should make no apology, not be embarrassed 1 minute for insisting upon it. Every new citizen knows that. They do not come to this country to become an American based upon their color or their ethnic background. They come because to be an American, you believe in a few principles which you must learn if you are going to become a citizen. Foremost among those is the rule of law. So we start with that. But that is not the only principle new citizens learn. There is the principle of laissez-faire-- in other words, a strong economy. And immigrants help a strong economy, whether they are going to be Nobel Prize winners or whether they are going to be picking fruit in California. There is the principle of equal opportunity. There is the principle of e pluribus unum, engraved right up there above the Presiding Officer: How do we become one country? We learn our tradition. We learn a common language. We adhere to common principles, instead of color and background. And there is the tradition of the country that we are a nation of immigrants. By our failure to act, we are showing a lack of respect for the rule of law and a lack of respect for our tradition as a nation of immigrants. It is especially outrageous for us not to act when there is no one to blame but us. We cannot blame Syria for this one. We cannot blame the Iraqi Government. We cannot blame Iran. We cannot blame al-Qaida. It is us. It is our job. So, Mr. President, I am here today to commend the Senator from Georgia. Since last fall, he has had before us the basis for sound, comprehensive immigration legislation--all in one bill; two parts: secure our borders; and once that is done, then all the rest of it. I believe that would attract 85 or 90 votes. And I would suggest, respectfully, to my friend, the Democratic leader, and my friend, the Republican leader, that if we are looking for things to do that are important, that the American people expect us to act on, that we have already demonstrated we can work on together, that within a few weeks we take up the matter of immigration, we base it on the Isakson principle, and we do not stop until we finish the job.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia. He has described something that for the last several months I have been calling the Isakson principle. I believe the Isakson principle is the basis for a comprehensive immigration bill that could attract 85 to 90 votes in the Senate and could, in a fairly short period of time, be reconciled with legislation passed by the House of Representatives. It would be a single piece of legislation that would work in two stages. It would first secure our border; and then, as the Senator from Georgia says, the trigger would come in, and we would get the rest of the job done. And the rest of the job includes defining who can work and who can study in the United States if they come from overseas. The rest of the job also includes helping prospective citizens, of which there are about a million a year today--people who are here legally--to help them learn English, to learn our history, and to learn our democratic traditions so we can be one country. There is a lot of talk this week about the borders of Iraq. I believe there are some more important borders in this world, at least to us Americans, and they are the borders around our own country. It is more important that we secure our borders at home than it is to secure the borders in Iraq. Last year, both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an immigration bill. I voted no on the Senate immigration bill. I opposed the bill because I did not believe it did enough to secure our borders. It had some good proposals for border security, and it had a number of other excellent proposals, but it did not guarantee they would be funded. We all know that border security on paper means nothing. It requires boots on the ground. It requires jeeps on the roads and unmanned aerial vehicles in the air. It requires an employer verification system. And it requires adequate funding. So I voted no. But I said at the time I was ready to vote for, and wanted to vote for, a comprehensive bill, one that fixed the whole problem. And I suggested then, as did a number of others, that the basis for such a bill was the Isakson principle. Well, instead of getting a bill passed into law, it was a political year, and some Members of the House of Representatives, including some members of my own party, thought the wiser course was basically to run against the Senate bill that I voted against. Well, we now know how successful that turned out to be. That was not successful because the American people expect us to act like grownups, deal with big issues, and come to a conclusion. There is no issue upon which we in the Congress have more need to come to a conclusion on than the issue of immigration. It is our responsibility. We cannot kick it to the Governors. We cannot blame the mayor of Nashville. We cannot blame anybody in Iraq. It is our job in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We should begin to do our job. We should take it up within the next few weeks. We should base our bill on the Isakson principle. And we should not stop our work on the immigration bill until we are finished. The Isakson principle is the basis for success with immigration because of the so-called trigger. As the Senator from Georgia said, once we put into effect all of the things we need to do to secure the border, the trigger operates, and then we get to all the rest of the issues, some of which are hard to solve. But they are made much easier to solve once we and the American people are assured the border will be secured. It is outrageous for us in the Senate to preach about the rule of law to the rest of the world and ignore it here at home. The rule of law is one of the most important principles of our country. We should make no apology, not be embarrassed 1 minute for insisting upon it. Every new citizen knows that. They do not come to this country to become an American based upon their color or their ethnic background. They come because to be an American, you believe in a few principles which you must learn if you are going to become a citizen. Foremost among those is the rule of law. So we start with that. But that is not the only principle new citizens learn. There is the principle of laissez-faire-- in other words, a strong economy. And immigrants help a strong economy, whether they are going to be Nobel Prize winners or whether they are going to be picking fruit in California. There is the principle of equal opportunity. There is the principle of e pluribus unum, engraved right up there above the Presiding Officer: How do we become one country? We learn our tradition. We learn a common language. We adhere to common principles, instead of color and background. And there is the tradition of the country that we are a nation of immigrants. By our failure to act, we are showing a lack of respect for the rule of law and a lack of respect for our tradition as a nation of immigrants. It is especially outrageous for us not to act when there is no one to blame but us. We cannot blame Syria for this one. We cannot blame the Iraqi Government. We cannot blame Iran. We cannot blame al-Qaida. It is us. It is our job. So, Mr. President, I am here today to commend the Senator from Georgia. Since last fall, he has had before us the basis for sound, comprehensive immigration legislation--all in one bill; two parts: secure our borders; and once that is done, then all the rest of it. I believe that would attract 85 or 90 votes. And I would suggest, respectfully, to my friend, the Democratic leader, and my friend, the Republican leader, that if we are looking for things to do that are important, that the American people expect us to act on, that we have already demonstrated we can work on together, that within a few weeks we take up the matter of immigration, we base it on the Isakson principle, and we do not stop until we finish the job.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, reintroduced the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, a bill that would create a new, race-based government within the borders of the United States. I strongly oppose this bill. This legislation was considered and rejected by the Senate last year; we ought not waste one moment of the Senate's time on it this year. Instead, we should consider legislation that unites us all as Americans. Our Nation must remain ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all''--``not many Nations, divided by race, with special privileges for some.'' Here are four reasons this bill should be stopped in its tracks: 1. It would create a new, sovereign government within our borders. 2. As noted by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the bill ``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin.'' 3. The bill is really about transferring control over ``land'' and ``other assets'' to this new, race-based government. 4. Native Hawaiians are not just ``another Indian tribe'' since they do not meet the requirements under current law of being sovereign for the last 100 years, living as a separate and distinct community, and having a preexisting political organization. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this dangerous piece of legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois had the next 15 minutes. I don't see him. I was to follow him, but to conserve time I will go ahead and take my 15 minutes now and then ask unanimous consent he be allowed to follow me when he arrives.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute the Senators from Arkansas and Texas on their comments about the timber tax. That is not my subject today, although I intend to talk about competitiveness, jobs, but this is something we do need to pay attention to, not just for the jobs but for conservation in our country. That was mentioned eloquently by Senator Lincoln. I was in Waverly, TN, in Humphreys County the other day, and people are very upset because the timber company--I guess partly because of the Tax Code--has sold thousands of acres to an organization that doesn't care anything about the forest. That organization is cutting all the trees and going about their way. The people in that county, for a long time, have enjoyed having that forest properly managed--not just the jobs; they like the jobs, as well, but they like the trees. What we may be doing in an unanticipated way is having a tremendous negative impact upon the beauty and the forests of the United States by our tax policy even though we don't intend to do that. I am glad the Senators from Texas and Arkansas and others are interested in this issue. I would like to work with them in the new Congress to try to be of some help. I am here today to suggest, especially to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will be in the majority starting next month, that we, all of us together, have a remarkable opportunity to start the new year with a truly bipartisan piece of legislation critical to the future of the United States. Our new majority leader, who will be Senator Reid, has said he would like to foster a more bipartisan atmosphere as the Senate begins its work next year. So would I. So would most Members. The best bipartisan bill I know that is ready for action in the Senate is the bill that Senator Reid and Senator Frist are cosponsors of, the National Competitiveness Investment Act. At the end of September, our two leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Reid, the Republican and Democratic leaders, introduced this bipartisan competitiveness bill. It has the support of the chairmen and the ranking members of the Energy, Commerce, and HELP Committees and, in fact, was created by those three committees. It wasn't written by the Republicans and handed to the Democrats for approval. We wrote it together. We have worked on it for 18 months. The product is here and ready for action. I had hoped we would be able to complete our work on this legislation before the end of the year. However, because of our current schedule, we can't. January is just around the corner, and it will be an opportune moment because the bill is so bipartisan there is no reason in the world that it can't be chalked up as an early victory for a new bipartisan Senate. Senator Bingaman has worked as hard on it as Senator Domenici. Senator Inouye has worked as hard on it as Senator Stevens. Senator Kennedy has worked as hard on it as Senator Enzi. So has Senator Mikulski, and so has Senator Hutchison. In other words, this is our product. It is ready for action. The prospects of passing a significant piece of legislation to protect America's brain power advantage in the world are also strong in the House of Representatives. My friend and colleague, Bart Gordon from Tennessee, is likely to become the new chairman of the House Science Committee. When Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and I and many others introduced the Augustine Report, the report of the National Academy of Sciences that detailed 20 steps we should take as a country in order to keep our brain power advantage, Congressman Bart Gordon in the House of Representatives put his legislation in at the same time. He is strongly committed to this agenda, has worked as hard as anyone in the Congress, and we have all been working together for some time. The incoming Speaker, Congresswoman Pelosi, laid out an agenda on this issue that drew heavily on the National Academies' ``Gathering Storm'' report, the Augustine Report I described. She even brought George Lucas to Washington to tout her agenda and told President Bush this is an area where the two parties can work together. President Bush himself has been a leader in this area, which is enormously helpful since the President is the Nation's agenda setter. In his State of the Union Address, President Bush talked importantly about our competitive position in the world. He has seen the need for it as a President. He saw it before that as a Governor. He followed up his action with money. He put his money where his mouth was and he put significant new dollars in the budget this year to fund his American Competitiveness Initiative. The President says: Let's do it. The House of Representatives says: Let's do it. We in the Senate have worked 18 months. At one point, we had 70 cosponsors of our competitiveness legislation: 35 Democrats, 35 Republicans. A good way to welcome the new year would be to pass the bill. We ought to be able to do it before the February recess. This bill is about growing our economy. It is about creating the largest number of good new jobs we possibly can. It is about recognizing we are very fortunate as a country to have just 4 to 5 percent of the people in the world, nearly 25, 26, 27 percent of all the money in the world, and that the principal factor in that has been our creative brain power advantage. But China and India and maybe other parts of the world have realized that their brains work just like ours--sometimes they are even smarter than ours--and they are working hard to make sure that they get their share of the wealth. This legislation is a progrowth investment that we must make if America is to set the pace in science and technology for the next generation. In August, a group of Senators met with a number of Chinese leaders in Beijing, including the President of China, Hu Jintao, and the Chairman of the National People's Congress in China, Wu Bangguo. Just 2 months earlier, President Hu had gone to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering to outline a 15-year plan to make China a technology leader. In his speech, President Hu said China must ``promote a huge leap forward of science and technology; we shall put strengthening independent innovation capability at the core of economic structure adjustment.'' We all know that when a Chinese leader talks about a great ``leap forward'' it is a pretty big deal in China. This was the center of their economic policy. In our conversations with the top two leaders in China, we found when we talked about North Korea or Iran or Iraq, the area in which they were most animated was this whole idea of innovation and technology. The Science section in the New York Times this Tuesday has a column entitled ``With An Improved Particle Accelerator China Sees Golden Opportunity For Collaborative Research.'' China knows if it wants a larger share of the world's wealth, it needs to have a brain power advantage. That should remind us of the importance of keeping ours. We have seen the same thing in India, in a trip by Senators to Bangalore last year, their version of our Silicon Valley, we saw that their research is cutting edge. They are creating new jobs. They understand how to improve the standard of living in the people of that great country. The challenge facing America is about brain power and jobs. We are not about to fall over the cliff. Actually, in the last 10 years our share of the world's wealth has grown, according to the International Monetary Fund. Ten years ago we had 25 percent of all the gross domestic product in the world. Last year it was 28 percent. Yet we know we need to keep on our toes to keep our jobs. Most of this good fortune comes from that brain power advantage an educated workforce and technological innovation. We have the finest system of colleges and universities. That system attracts 500,000 foreign students today. Many of them are the brightest young people in the world. They are here creating good new jobs that improves our standard of living. No country has the national research laboratories we have. We have won the most Nobel Prizes in science. We have registered the most patents. Such innovation has been responsible for as much as half of the Nation's growth in productivity--in plain English, the reason we have such a disproportionate share of the world's best paying jobs. Yet we see what is happening--not just in China and India, but also in Finland, Singapore, Ireland, and more. They understand this, too, and are working hard to catch up, get ahead, and get their share. That is why last year Senator Bingaman and I, with Senator Domenici's encouragement, walked down to the National Academy of Sciences not far from here and asked: What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that Federal policymakers could take over the next decade to help the United States keep our advantage in science and technology? We figured Members of Congress probably weren't the right ones to make that list. So we asked the people who should know. They, in turn, assembled an all-star panel of business, government, and university leaders, headed by Norm Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin. The group included three Nobel Prize winners. It happened to include the President of Texas A&M who is now about to be the Secretary of Defense. We asked for 10 recommendations. They gave us 20, in priority order. Then a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senators Bingaman and Domenici, introduced what we call the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act, or PACE, to implement those recommendations. This included increasing Federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences by 10 percent a year for 10 years; doubling our investment in basic research as we recently did for medical research; providing 25,000 undergraduate scholarships and 5,000 graduate fellowships for future scientists; allowing foreign students who come here to earn a Ph.D. in the sciences to stay 1 year after graduation, and, if they find employment, to become automatically eligible for a green card; recruiting 10,000 new science and math teachers with 4-year scholarships; training 50,000 current teachers in summer institutes at national labs and universities; creating a new coordinating office to manage a centralized research infrastructure fund of at least $500 million per year; giving American companies a bigger research and development tax credit so they will keep more good jobs here instead of moving them overseas. As I mentioned earlier, our bill, the PACE bill, attracted 70 cosponsors: 35 Republicans, 35 Democrats. There was no other piece of legislation quite so popular that was that important in this session of Congress. We made a lot of progress since we introduced that legislation. I mention the President's State of the Union Address and the $5.9 billion in his budget for fiscal year 2007 for his American Competitiveness Initiative. In March, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported a bill with eight provisions related to energy research, as well as math and science education for students and teachers in association with the national labs. In May, the Commerce Committee reported a bill that included ideas not just from the Augustine Report but also from the excellent Council on Competitiveness and from the President's own proposals. Then the immigration bill that passed the Senate in May included three provisions to attract the brightest minds in our country. They drew from the Augustine Report. Then the Defense authorization bill that passed the Senate in June included a provision related to support for early career researchers funded by the Pentagon. The so-called tax extender bill, which has been held up, includes the research and development tax credit that was the cornerstone of both the Augustine Report and the President's initiative. It appears likely to pass before the end of this week. Then, at the end of September, just before the Congress left town for the election, a bipartisan group of 14 Senators, led by Senator Frist and Senator Reid, our Republican and Democratic leaders, introduced the National Competitiveness Investment Act, a bill that will help America keep its brainpower advantage so we can succeed in a more competitive global economy. The bill includes provisions from the bills that passed the Energy and Commerce Committees and adds an important education component that Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy took the lead on. It focuses on the areas that are important to maintaining and improving U.S. innovation in the 21st century. One, it increases research investment; two, it strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school. Several sections in the bill are derived from proposals in the PACE Act, which I introduced earlier this year with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and Mikulski. This is a critical effort. We face what has been called a new ``flat'' world where more and more countries can compete with us, and we must rise to the challenge. That is why this bill would double funding for the National Science Foundation from approximately $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $11.2 billion in 2011. It sets the Department of Energy's Office of Science on a track to double its funding over 10 years, increasing from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011. It would strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the national laboratories and by increasing support for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at the National Science Foundation. It would expand the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to recruit and train individuals to become math and science teachers. It would assist States in establishing or expanding statewide specialty schools in math and science that students from across the States would be eligible to attend. Tennessee wants to do that, as they already do in North Carolina and in other States. It would expand advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs by increasing the number of teachers who are prepared to teach these math, science, and foreign language programs. This would allow thousands of new students, who are bright enough but may come from families with low incomes, to take these outstanding college prep classes. The Frist-Reid bill would provide grants to universities to establish programs modeled on the successful UTeach program at the University of Texas--which the current Presiding Officer knows a great deal about-- where students getting a bachelor's degree in math or science can concurrently earn teaching credentials and become the new generation of math and science teachers. And finally, it creates partnerships between national laboratories and local high-need schools to establish centers of excellence in math and science education. The bill authorizes $20.3 billion in new spending over 5 years. This is a significant savings over what was originally reported by the committee and what was originally included in the PACE bill. About $4.6 billion over 5 years in authorized funding has been cut from competitiveness bills passed by the Energy and Commerce Committees. Our friends in the White House should appreciate that, and the taxpayers will as well. The bill avoided duplicative undergraduate scholarship programs that were proposed in earlier legislation. That was a priority of many Members of the House of Representatives. It reduced the cost of a number of other proposed and existing programs. In the end, this is a small price to pay to secure our competitive edge. I would emphasize, this is a pro-growth investment. This creates jobs. This puts money in our pockets. That is what we are talking about when we are talking about keeping our brainpower advantage. The potential for what this legislation could do for our country was illustrated in the community of Oak Ridge, TN, just this week. Oak Ridge is the home of one of the Department of Energy's national laboratories--the most important energy laboratory in the world, as a matter of fact. Three students from Oak Ridge High School--Scott Molony, Steven Arcangeli, and Scott Horton this Monday won the team prize in the National Siemens Competition, which recognizes and rewards students willing to challenge themselves through scientific research. This is not a small honor. The winners will share a $100,000 scholarship as encouragement to continue in math and science careers in the future. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings was on hand to present the award. The students used supercomputers to analyze tens of thousands of genes so they could figure out how to engineer biofuel production by micro-organisms. Because of the hard work and ingenuity of these three students, their project may one day provide a tool that could enable scientists to genetically engineer bacteria that would cost-effectively turn plant matter into bioethanol used to fuel automobiles. Their project has contributed to a growing body of research on creating micro-organisms that can produce alternative fuels. In fact, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory received a major grant to continue the research that this student project began. Part of the reason these three students succeeded is they were able to connect with the work and expertise at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Their lead adviser, Dr. Nagiza F. Samatova, is a senior research scientist in the Computational Biology Institute, Computer Science and Mathematics Division, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The National Competitiveness Investment Act will give more young Americans across our country the opportunity these bright students have had. The bill provides for student internships and summer programs at national laboratories such as Oak Ridge across this country. The bill would allow more scientists such as Dr. Samatova to spend more of their time working with such bright students. The Senate should act quickly, in January, on the National Competitiveness Investment Act. It should be a Reid-McConnell piece of legislation. It should have the support of every Member of the Senate. It would, I hope, be passed before the February recess and sent to the House of Representatives, where I know Congressman Gordon and Speaker Pelosi and Republicans and Democrats who care about this as much as we do will be coming up with their own version of competitiveness legislation. This legislation would invest in basic scientific research and help educate the next generation of scientists. It would help us keep pace with other nations that are moving swiftly to overtake our scientific leadership. More young people would have the opportunities these three students at Oak Ridge High School have had. There is broad bipartisan support. I hope the new majority leader will make this one of his first initiatives in the Senate next year, just as he made it an important initiative toward the end of this session. If America is to continue to be the global economic leader, we cannot afford to let this wait. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, former Senator Lyndon Johnson used to say about himself that having Lyndon Johnson as majority leader was good for the United States of America and it hasn't hurt Texas one bit. When I think of our country and Bill Frist, I think of lower tax rates, I think of two Supreme Court Justices, I think of a record number of judges who would interpret the law, rather than make it up as they go along. I think of the personal imprint of Senator Frist on the prescription drug Medicare benefit millions of Americans need and are enjoying, and I think of the $15 billion generous gesture of this country toward Africa to combat HIV/AIDS, which would not have happened were it not for Bill Frist. When I think of Bill Frist and Tennessee, I think of our new TVA board to keep our rates low and reliable. I think of our ability to deduct our sales tax from Federal income tax and dozens and dozens of other things that have been good for Tennessee. When I think of Bill Frist, I think of civility, of decency, a good smile, hard work, and an ego that is surprisingly under control for a Senator in the midst of all of this and an example of which his parents would be proud. So I think we can say today, and Lyndon Johnson wouldn't mind, that having Bill Frist as majority leader of the U.S. Senate has been good for our country and it hasn't hurt Tennessee one bit.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of the session and 10 of our colleagues are retiring. I want to say a word about them, especially one of them, my colleague, Senator Bill Frist, from Tennessee. Bill Frist I can still remember when Bill Frist came to my office in Nashville in 1994 and said he wanted to run for the Senate. I didn't know what to think. Bill Frist lived in the neighborhood where I lived in Nashville, but I didn't know him very well. Our ages are a little bit different and he had been away while I was Governor of Tennessee, practicing medicine and honing his skills. What I did know about him was that he was extraordinary. He was one of the pioneers in our country of heart and lung transplants. He performed the first one in Tennessee, the first one in the Southeast. When he decided to run for the Senate, only a handful of physicians in the world had made as many heart transplants as Dr. Bill Frist. He had almost no chance of being elected to the Senate in 1994. However, he was elected. He had almost no chance, after having been elected, to help the Republicans gain the majority in 2002, but he did that. No one expected him to be the majority leader of the Senate, but he has been and he has done it very well. As we look at the record of the accomplishments over the last 4 years, Senator Frist can take credit for his leadership in creating an environment where we have had tax cuts that have benefited Americans, where we have confirmed judges who will interpret the law rather than make it up as they go along. His hand was in the Medicare prescription drug benefit which benefits millions of seniors. We would not have had the $15 billion for HIV/AIDS in Africa had it not been for Bill Frist. In Tennessee, we have had a sales tax deduction against our Federal income tax and a new governing board for the Tennessee Valley Authority, neither of which would have been accomplished were it not for Bill Frist. When Lyndon Johnson was majority leader, he often said, having Lyndon Johnson as majority leader is good for the country and hasn't hurt Texas one bit. I would say, having Bill Frist as majority leader has been good for the country and it hasn't hurt Tennessee one bit. He has been the perfect colleague. His ego has been completely under control in a body where that is rare and difficult. And one thing is certain: Anyone who knows Bill Frist won't underestimate him again. History has proven that is a dangerous thing to do. I don't know very many people who have ever been in public life who have as many interesting and important and viable options open to him as he does as he looks forward to the next step in his contributions to public service. One of the joys of being a Senator is simply the privilege of serving with other Senators. Each one of the Senators has something remarkable and special. For example, Senator Frist was president of the skydiving club at Princeton when he was there. He spends vacations in Sudan, doing surgery on poor people. He once got up at 4 in the morning and went to the National Zoo to operate on the heart of a gorilla--which I guess is a pretty good way of preparing for coming to the Senate floor and dealing with what he has to deal with here. He is not the only one who is a very special Senator. Conrad Burns My friend, Conrad Burns, who is retiring, was a marine, an auctioneer, had his own radio program and TV program in Montana. He would sometimes pick up hitchhikers on his way in to work in the Senate--a pretty good surprise for a Government employee to be picked up by a U.S. Senator. Mike DeWine Or Mike DeWine, with his eight children and ninth grandchild, whose heart is nearly as big as he is. He lost a child, and he and Fran have gone to Haiti time after time after time to help people there who need help. George Allen Or George Allen. I remember vividly the first time I met him, I campaigned for him in Virginia. He was 40 points behind. I went back to Tennessee and I said, I believe he will win, he is such a good candidate. We haven't heard the last of him in public life. Rick Santorum Or Rick Santorum, Karen, and their six children whom they home school, and his Italian heritage--which explains a lot about his enthusiasm and vigor for the things he believes in most strongly. Paul Sarbanes Or Paul Sarbanes, who was in the same Rhodes Scholar class with Senator Dick Lugar. Jim Talent Or Jim Talent, who was the outstanding political science student at Washington University in St. Louis when he was there. No one would be surprised to learn that. Lincoln Chafee Or Senator Linc Chafee, also retiring, was a wrestler in college. He spent several years in the United States and Canada as a professional blacksmith before he got into politics. Mark Dayton Or Mark Dayton, whose interest in the environment in Minnesota has been so exceptional. Jim Jeffords Or Jim Jeffords, a former Navy captain, who has had so much to do with offering legislation for clean air and children with disabilities. When the most recent class of Senators was sworn into office nearly 2 years ago, in the gallery were three women. One was the grandmother of Barack Obama. She was from Kenya. One was the mother of Senator Salazar, a 10th generation American. One was the mother of Mel Martinez, the new Republican National Committee chairman, who, with her husband, put her son on an airplane when he was 14 years old and sent him from Cuba to the United States, not knowing if she would ever see him again. In a way, each one of us who is here is an accident. None of us knew we would be here. Each of us is privileged to serve, and one of the greatest privileges is to serve with our colleagues. We will miss them and we are grateful for their service. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here to support the Lugar-Biden legislation that would implement changes in law necessary to secure our Nation's civil-nuclear agreement with India. This is very important to our future for two reasons: No. 1, India is one of the great powers of the 21st century, and this agreement represents an important step toward a new strategic partnership between our two countries; and No. 2, nuclear power is a source of clean energy that is good for us, and it is good for India. As we look at the beginning of this new century, we have witnessed the emergence of three great powers or influences in the world--three major shifts that will help define the many years to come. One is the rise of China. One is the emergence of a new political Islam. And the third is the arrival of India as a great power. I asked Secretary Rice about these three new forces shaping the coming century at the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the United States-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, and she agreed with my assessment. And if you look at those three emerging forces, one presents the greatest opportunity for us to be a partner, and that one is India: India, the largest democracy in the world; India, where English is an official language; India, where the legal system, like ours, is descended from that of the British; and India, where a diverse ethnic and religious population has joined together to form one nation with a democratic government. India. I was fortunate to travel to India earlier this year with a group of Senators led by Senator Enzi. We went to look at what India is doing to improve its economic standing by improving its brainpower through better education and research and an emphasis on science and technology. And we saw a country that is rapidly advancing. Both our President and this Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, are showing real vision by recognizing that in this new century there may be no more important two-country relationship than the one between the United States and India. And we share an important strategic interest: we are facing the same sort of energy and environmental issues. India's needs are even more acute. When I was there a few months ago, I was told that India hopes to bring online 50,000 MW over the next 10 years in order to meet demand. That is an incredible figure. If each power plant has a capacity of 500 MW, that is 100 new power plants. And they are going to build them with us or without us. The question for us is: What kind of power plants will they build? From an environmental perspective, the only technology that is ready to go, today, to provide large amounts of reliable power without emitting noxious gases into the air is nuclear power. As new studies are emerging that India's air pollution and China's air pollution is also our air pollution because air pollution both deposits locally and moves around the globe and that their greenhouse gases cause just as much global warming as our greenhouse gases, then it is in our interest for India to build nuclear power plants rather than more dirty coal power plants that emit sulfur and nitrogen and mercury and carbon. Seventy-two percent of India's electricity needs are currently provided by coal-burning plants. Gas provides 12 percent; oil, 2 percent; nuclear, 3 percent; hydro, 10 percent, and renewables, 1 percent. This agreement won't radically shift those numbers overnight, but each new nuclear powerplant is a powerplant that is not emitting noxious gases into the air. It is one more powerplant that is not putting out sulfur or nitrogen or mercury or even carbon. So, Mr. President, before us is legislation to implement the United States-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This is not an agreement about nuclear weapons--it is about cooperation for nuclear power. This is an agreement that puts us on the path to a new strategic partnership with India--one of the three great rising forces in this new century. And this is an agreement that meets energy needs while being good for the environment. I am glad that we have taken this matter up in a bipartisan manner and look forward to its passage today.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, although most cannot hear it right now, I want to say how much all in the Senate appreciate the extra hours and the skill with which the staffs met and worked through August and over the last several weeks to bring the three committees together. Senator Ensign played a major role, and his staff did. There were many staffs. This was not a bill that Republicans wrote and Democrats looked at or vice versa. We did it together. Future of Higher Education Mr. President, today the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, made an important speech at the National Press Club. In her remarks, she discussed the report from her Commission on the Future of Higher Education. This commission was chaired by Charles Miller, who was the former chairman of the board of regents of the University of Texas system and a leader in education reform at all levels. I am very impressed with Secretary Spellings. I know her job. I once had it. I do not think we have had a more effective Secretary of Education. I am very impressed with Mr. Miller. I know about his work in Texas as part of a group of business leaders over the last 20 years who have led the country in terms of helping to set accountability standards in elementary and secondary education. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to read Secretary Spellings' speech from today. Secretary Spellings is the first U.S. Secretary of Education to assume the role of lead adviser to coordinate all of higher education. I am glad she is doing that because almost every Department of the Federal Government has something to do with higher education. Currently, no one is the lead person for that. It ought to be the Secretary of Education. She stepped up to do it. I applaud her, and I applaud President Bush for asking her to do that. The Secretary's recommendations in her speech today are sensible and respect the prerogative of Congress to make major changes in higher education policy. In plain English, she laid out some very good recommendations, but she recognized that is one branch of Government, we are the Article I branch of Government, and if there are major changes in policy, we will make them here, and then it is their job to implement it. But among the strong recommendations in her report are the following: Simplify the financial aid system. We are already doing that, having worked with the Secretary on a commission, and it is included in the higher education bill that has not passed. That is a very good recommendation. Another recommendation is expanding more access to more students. The initial cost estimates of her commission's report suggest its recommendations might cost $9 billion or $10 billion more in terms of Pell grants. That is a lot of money, but it is an important goal. Another recommendation is increased competitiveness. The Secretary's commission spent quite a bit of time urging the Congress and the country to adopt the recommendations of the Augustine commission, to adopt the recommendations of the Council on Competitiveness, and to adopt the President's recommendations on competitiveness. That was a help in getting us come to the point in this body where tonight Senator Frist and Senator Reid will introduce the National Competitiveness Investment Act. The Secretary's committee recommended less regulation for higher education, which is something I want to talk a little bit more about in a moment. I thoroughly agree with that. And, of course, another recommendation is to find ways to reduce costs, which every family who has a student headed toward higher education thinks about. In our own family, where we have two new grandchildren who are less than 1 year of age, the parents--our children--are already thinking about it: How in the world are we going to pay for college out of our budgets in 18 years? That is at the top of almost everyone's concern. I want to wave one bright, yellow flag, a cautionary flag, at one troubling aspect of the report of the Secretary's commission. That is best captured by the following sentence on page 13 of the commission's report, and I quote: ``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary education system has no comprehensive strategy, particularly for undergraduate programs, to provide either adequate internal accountability systems or effective public information.'' ``Our complex, decentralized post-secondary education system has no comprehensive strategy. . . .'' The commission apparently believes that is a weakness. I believe that is a strength. I believe that is the greatest strength of our higher education system. The key to the quality of the American higher education system is that it is not one system, but that it is a marketplace of over 6,000 autonomous systems, independent systems. These autonomous or independent institutions--such as the University of Tennessee, or Fisk University, or the Nashville Auto Diesel College, or Yeshiva University--these institutions are regulated primarily by competition--competition for students, for faculty, and for research dollars--and by consumer choice, which is fueled by generous Federal dollars that follow more than one-half of American college students to the institutions of their choice. There is, in addition, a system of independent accreditation to help regulate these independent and autonomous institutions. To be sure, there is still plenty of the traditional kind of command-and-control Government regulation. That is very hard to get away from. Every State has a regulatory body, such as the Tennessee Higher Education Commission. And each of the 6,000 institutions I described that accepts students with Federal grants or loans must wade through over 7,000 Federal regulations and notices. Those regulations exist today. The president of Stanford University has said that 7 cents of every tuition dollar is spent on compliance with Government regulations. The last thing American higher education needs is a barrage of new Federal regulations requiring sending new data to Washington so someone here can try to figure out how to improve the Harvard Classics Department or the Nashville Auto Diesel College, both of whose students are eligible for Federal grants and loans. I believe the overregulation of higher education is the greatest deterrent to maintaining the quality of American higher education, and that autonomy, competition, and choice are the greatest incentives to excellence. I would, therefore, wish to lead the bandwagon or be on the bandwagon or push the bandwagon for more deregulation and to increase the autonomy of institutions of higher education and to preserve competition for research dollars and to give students the broadest array of education choices possible. Today in America we are doing that much better than any other country in the world. It is instructive that China and several European countries are deregulating their overly bureaucratized colleges and universities to try to catch up with the quality of ours. Of course, better information informs choices. And, of course, easier transfer policies between or among institutions could increase opportunities. Much is to be gained from research that will help institutions measure what value their classes add to students. But I do not want rules about transfer policies to diminish institutional autonomy. I do not want to see rules from Washington substitute for choice and competition as the principal regulators of the quality of our colleges and universities. I do not want to see even more tuition dollars go to pay for complying with costly Government regulations instead of to improving research and teaching in the classroom. By design or luck, the United States has created a magnificent marketplace environment that has resulted in, by far, the best higher education system in the world with remarkable access for students of all incomes. Our goal should be to improve that system, not to replace it with some command-and-control structure. Mr. President, I spoke before the Secretary's Commission on December 9 of 2005, and I hope that those remarks were useful to the Commission. Mr. President, I want to comment that it is important to keep all of this discussion in some perspective. For example, there is a great concern about the rising cost of tuition. Secretary Spellings, in her remarks, says she wants to know why. Well, I know why it has gone up. It has gone up because State funding for higher education has been flat. It has actually gone down in many cases. As State funding of colleges and universities in Minnesota or Tennessee or South Dakota has gone down, colleges and universities have had to raise their tuition to have enough funds to maintain quality. Now, of course, there are plenty of ways to reduce costs, and we need to push that and encourage that. And the Secretary has many suggestions for that. She is right about that. But let's not overlook the fact that Federal spending for higher education has gone way up in the last several years, but State spending has been flat. If anyone wants to know why your tuition bills are higher, it is because your Governors and your legislatures have not been paying their fair share of what it takes to have a quality system of higher education in America. I talked about that in my testimony to the Commission, and I hope they listened to that. I hope the Administration and my colleagues understand that as well. For example, during the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004, State spending for Medicaid, which is where the Governors have to put most of their extra money, was up 36 percent; State spending for higher education was up barely 7 percent. As a result, tuition went up 38 percent. There is another way I think about it. When I left the Governor's office nearly 20 years ago in Tennessee, Tennessee was spending 51 cents of every State tax dollar on education and 16 cents on health care--mainly Medicaid. Today, instead of 51 cents on education, it is 40 cents on education. And instead of 16 cents on health care, it is 26 cents on health care. So if we do not get control of Medicaid spending here in this Chamber, and in the other Chamber, one of the unintended consequences will be that we will drive down the quality of higher education all across America because it will not have appropriate State funding and we will not create the new jobs that will help us compete with China and India. On the question of cost, two other things: One is, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record a short column by the president of the University of Maryland, William E. Kirwan, who discusses State funding that I have just talked about, and talks about what some colleges and universities are doing to reduce costs to help control the rise of tuition.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sometimes we talk so much about the high cost of higher education where families hear that and think no one can go to college. I was president of the University of Tennessee. Tuition has gone up there for the reasons I just talked about. But today tuition at the University of Tennessee, which is one of the leading research institutions in this country--the manager of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory--is $5,300 a year. It is $5,300 a year for tuition at the University of Tennessee. That is more than a lot of people have, but that is a very good bargain in today's marketplace. Volunteer State Community College, a public 2-year college--we encourage many people to go to community colleges, and then to our research universities--the tuition there is $2,383 a year. At Tennessee State University, in Nashville--an excellent institution--it is $4,300. It is the same story in many other States. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for North Carolina students--one of the best universities in the world--it is $4,500 a year. At the University of Phoenix--a different kind of university, but I had a distinguished scientist from the University of Texas tell me he looked at colleges of education all over America, and he thought the college of education at the University of Phoenix was as good as any to get your teacher's degrees--the comparable cost there for a year's tuition is about $6,669. They do things a little differently, but they provide an education and a service that many people are asking for, and I think that reflects the strength of our autonomous system of higher education. Now, if you want to go to Harvard, it is a lot more. If you want to go to Vanderbilt, it is a lot more. But the rest of that story is, if you show up at Harvard, or if you are admitted to Vanderbilt, and you do not have the money, they are going to do their best to help you pay for that. So I would hope as we talk about the cost of higher education that we recognize that many of the State institutions are reasonably priced, that the failure of State funding over the last several years is the principal culprit in the rising increase for public schools, and that we do not get carried away up here in Washington by thinking if we pass some more regulations here, somehow we are going to solve the problem, and we are going to make our higher education system better. My main point is this: Our greatest threat to quality higher education is overregulation. And our greatest incentive for it is deregulation, choice, and competition. Those are the incentives I would like to preserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is overly generous. I learned as a staff aide in the Senate that if an idea has many fathers and many mothers, it has a much better chance of moving along than if it just has one. Senator Domenici is being overly modest about his own role. This would not have gotten to first base--by ``this,'' I mean the competitiveness legislation--had not Senator Domenici created the environment in which it could succeed, and if he and Senator Bingaman had not had such a good partnership and been able to work together, set a good example and have been willing to step back and allow other good ideas that were progressing through the Commerce Committee and the HELP Committee. It has been a remarkable exercise in restraint for many distinguished Senators, some among the most senior Members of the Senate, and at a time when politics is at a pretty high level. I thank the Senator for what he said. It means a lot to me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a summary of the National Competitiveness Investment Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the role of Senator Ensign in this competitiveness piece of legislation. It would not have gotten started without him and the work he did with Senator Lieberman in the Council on Competitiveness, and it would not have been finished without he and his staff taking a lead role in helping to bring the Senators together. It is important the way he characterized this as a progrowth initiative. This is progrowth legislation. It is part of a progrowth agenda. Sometimes we forget that. It is a great pleasure to work with him on this legislation. I wanted to acknowledge his leadership. I want to say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I appreciate his leadership on this legislation. He was already a veteran when I was a Senate aide here many years ago. He has been deeply involved in these issues for a long time. He and his staff made it possible for us to bring this to a conclusion. There are many ideas about how to do this. To have three committees basically unanimously agree that this is how we should begin--there are many other issues to be dealt with. Many of them may be dealt with in amendments after the recess. But without Senator Kennedy's leadership and without Senator Ensign, nothing would have happened. After Senator Kennedy's remarks, I would like to say a word about Secretary Spellings' speech today. I appreciate him allowing me to speak now.

Mr. ALEXANDER. We met with President Hu for about an hour, those of us from the Senate. We talked about a variety of issues with him: North Korea, Iran, Iraq. He was more animated about this subject than any other subject, which is why I suppose we had 70 Senators--35 Democrats, 35 Republicans--who cosponsored the Domenici-Bingaman bill that was the Augustine report. We all understand it is very important. We have seen what is happening in India. India is another great country with a distinguished group of scientists, and they now recognize if they want a bigger share of the world's economic pie, the way to do that is through science and innovation. The challenge America faces today is really a challenge about brain power and jobs. I appreciate the way the Augustine report especially put this into perspective. It didn't say the United States of America is about to fall off a cliff or that China and India are going to catch us tomorrow. It said we face a gathering storm. We need to realize how fortunate we are in the United States of America when it comes to our standard of living. We constitute between 4 percent and 5 percent of the world's population. Last year we had 28 percent of the world's wealth. The International Monetary Fund says the gross domestic product of the United States last year was 28 percent of the global total for just 4 to 5 percent of the people. The average Chinese person probably has a share of the gross domestic product that is one-twentieth of the average American. By some estimates, China may be moving fast enough to have a gross domestic product as big as that of the United States by the year 2040. But even then, the average American's share of that amount of wealth will be four to five times as much as that of the average Chinese person. So we are not about to fall off the cliff. But at the same time, we know if we want to keep our high standard of living for all Americans, we have to constantly create a large number of good new jobs. And the way we do that is brain power. Our good fortune comes from that advantage in brain power. We have the finest system of colleges and universities. We attract 500,000 of the brightest foreign students. They come here because these are the best institutions. Many stay here, creating good new jobs for us. Many go home. Many are going back to China and India to help their countries succeed. No country has national research laboratories to match ours. Americans have won the most Nobel Prizes in science. We have registered the most patents. That innovation has been responsible for at least half of our good new jobs. That is why we introduced this bill today. That is why we went, together, the Democratic side, the Republican side, to the National Academy of Sciences and said: We see this coming. Tell us what we should do. Tell us specifically what we should do, 1 through 10 in priority order. If you tell us, if you are specific about it, I bet we will do it. Some who watch Congress might think that is a little bit naive because we disagree about a lot and there are a lot of politics here. But the National Academies came back with 20 recommendations. The Council on Competitiveness already had a very good report. The President made his own proposal, which was very substantial. Lo and behold, we have worked together for 18 months and came up with an even better piece of legislation than any of us introduced to begin with. And we have virtually a unanimous agreement about it, among three of the largest and most important committees here, and the majority leader and the Democratic leader are sponsoring the bill themselves. We should pass this legislation this year. We should not go home without doing it. We can't do it this week. But by introducing the legislation today, Senator Frist and Senator Reid give our country a chance, while we all are at home in the next 4 weeks, to tell us what they think about it. There are a lot of people running for the Senate. I hope in every single Senate race this year someone asks the question, Are you in favor of the Frist-Reid competitiveness legislation, and do you believe it ought to pass the Senate before the end of the year? I hope that question is asked. I believe the answer will be yes. Our friends in the House of Representatives have been working hard on this issue, too. Again, it is not just a Republican initiative, not just a Democratic initiative, they have plenty of bipartisan effort there, too. It would be my hope that we can take what they have done and what we have done and do it before the end of the year. This is just the beginning of what we are able to do. Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman did a good job of suggesting what the bill includes, so I will not belabor that. But I would simply like to conclude my remarks to try to bring these lofty words down to Earth a little bit in terms of how this legislation might actually affect one State. For example, if this legislation is enacted, many bright Tennesseans could receive 4-year scholarships to earn bachelor's degrees in science, technology, engineering, or math while concurrently earning teacher certification. The new teachers would be expected to teach in poorer schools for at least the first few years after graduation. That would be available in every State. There could be summer academies for math and science teachers in Tennessee. In our case, it could be at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, providing opportunities for those teachers to work with distinguished scientists and go back to the classrooms and inspire their students. There would be more advanced placement training for 400 Tennessee math and science teachers so more students could learn math and science, we could have more home-grown scientists. There would be support for a proposed math and science specialty high school. Our Governor has recommended that. North Carolina has had one for 20 years. We never felt we could afford it in Tennessee, but this would give some help to our State in terms of having a specialty high school in math and science. There would be high-tech internships for middle and high school students across our State, and there would be growing support Tennessee-based researchers that would lead to new high-tech jobs. This is in addition to the increases in funding for the physical sciences authorized in this legislation, which would especially affect our research universities and our National Laboratories. So I am delighted to have had the opportunity to be a part of this. I look forward to advancing it. I certainly intend, as I go across Tennessee, to let our citizens know what the Frist-Reid competitiveness legislation offers our country. I intend to let them know that this is the way we keep our high standard of living and that we should be expected to act on it before the end of the year. I congratulate all those Senators who have worked on it, and I invite every single Member of this body to be a cosponsor Exhibit 1 Address by Hu Jintao at 13th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and 8th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE), Beijing, June 5, 2006 Dear academicians and comrades, Today witnesses the opening of 13th CAS academician conference and 8th CAE academician conference. First of all, on behalf of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, I would like to extend my warm congratulations to the conferences, and my sincere greetings to the academicians of CAS and CAE and all scientists and technicians in China! The conferences of CAS and CAE are held in this crucial moment of turning on the 11th Five-Year Plan. The success of the conferences will have great significance in giving play to the leading role of academicians of CAS and CAE in China's scientific and technological development, and encouraging scientists and technicians to build China into an innovative, well-off society in an all-around way. Today I would like to talk about three issues. i. Current Situation and Science and Technology Tasks of China China has maintained a sound momentum of economic growth in the 28 years since reform and opening up. The process of industrialization, urbanization, marketization and globalization has been accelerated, social productivity, technological strength and overall national strength have been significantly enhanced, and people's living standard has been improved. Socialist political and spiritual civilization construction has been fully strengthened, China's standing has been elevated and its international influence has expanded. We have successfully completed the 10th Five-Year Plan, and are striving for goals of the 11th Five-Year Plan on a new starting point. At the beginning of this year, the State Council issued China National Mid- and Long-Term Science and Technology Development Plan. Meanwhile, CPC Central Committee and the State Council decided to implement the Plan and enhance independent innovation capability, while holding a National Conference for Science and Technology, calling for building our country into an innovative country within 15 years. The scientists and technicians around the country are striving vigorously for the strategic task. The more achievements we have made and the more promising outlook we are facing, the calmer shall we remain. While affirming the achievements, we shall analyze correctly the opportunities and challenges we are facing. Seen from an international perspective, peace, development and cooperation is the irresistible trend of the times, world multipolarization and economic globalization are progressing, science and technology are advancing rapidly, international industry and technology transfer is accelerating, and there is a growing tendency of foreign countries to cooperate with China. Meanwhile, international situation is experiencing profound and complicated changes, instabilities and uncertainties that affect peace and development are increasing, international competition is being intensified, and our country is still pressed by economic and technological advantages of developed countries. As for domestic development, our economic strength has been notably strengthened, and socialist market economic system is improving. Abundant labor resources, huge market and stable social politics lay solid foundation for the economic development of our country and promise us a bright future. However, China, the large developing country with over 1.3 billion people, is now in the primary stage of socialism and will remain so for a long time to come. For the time being, we are challenged by such acute problems: low productivity, unbalanced development, low living standard, weak agricultural foundation, extensive economic growth mode, growing limitation by energy resources, worsening environmental pollution and ecology contamination. We shall make long-term efforts to tackle such problems and achieve the goal of modernization. Now turn our eyes to the world's scientific and technological development. Science and technology, especially strategic hi-tech has become an increasingly decisive factor of economic and social development, as well as the focus of overall national strength competition. Science and technology are advancing rapidly, creating many new cross-subject fields through overlapping and penetration between subjects, between science and technology, and between science and humanities. Scientific discoveries are providing more favorable conditions for technical innovation and productivity development, leading to shortened S&T result industrialization cycle, faster technological updating, and rapid development of hi-tech and industries represented by information technology and biotechnology. New scientific breakthroughs and economic growth points have been created to mark scientific innovation and advanced productivity, while driving economic and social development. A nation's core competition increasingly reflected in cultivation, configuration and controlling capability of intelligence resource and scientific results, as well as ownership and utilization of intellectual property. In the surging waves of world scientific development, it is clear that whoever masters the new features and trends, grasps opportunities and constantly improves scientific strength especially independent innovation capability will hold priority in overall national strength competition. Now, major countries are accelerating their steps of scientific R&D. Rapid scientific progress and its impelling influence have posed inevitable challenges before us. The only way out for us is to catch up with the developed countries with persistent spirit and independent innovation capability, enhancing our core competitiveness and boosting our productivity in order to win in the fierce international competition. Through long-term efforts, we have made brilliant achievements in science and technology, formed a complete subject layout, and fostered a team of scientific scholars who are in scientific innovation. Our R&D ability in some crucial fields has ranked top in the world. However, compared with the world's advanced level, we still have a long way to go. There are problems that hamper economic and social development, including weak independent innovation capability, few invention patents, high dependence on key technologies abroad, low proportion of hi-tech industry, enterprises not truly becoming the mainbody of technological innovation, scientific results not industrialized yet, and lack of excellent talents etc. We have to make great efforts to tackle them. In a word, seen from any angle, we are facing both opportunities and challenges. Under the circumstance of intensified international competition and complicated tasks on domestic reform, development and stability, we must be prepared for any eventualities, facing, meeting and defeating challenges while recognizing, seizing and taking opportunities. Furthermore, we should put more attention to varied challenges that may affect current or long-term development of our country, focus on vital contradictions and problems, and promote the better, swifter economic and social development based on technological development. To build an innovative country is a strategic decision made by CPC Central Committee and the State Council based on the consideration of building a well-off society in an all-round way and creating a new situation in building socialism with Chinese characteristics. To realize this objective, we shall raise strengthening independent innovation capability to a strategic position, create a new way for independent innovation with Chinese characteristics, and promote a huge leap forward of science and technology; we shall put strengthening independent innovation capability at the core of economic structure adjustment and economic growth mode transformation, build a resource-efficient, environment- friendly society, and push forward swifter and better development of national economy; we shall take strengthening independent innovation capability to be our national strategy and implement the strategy throughout modernization construction; we shall inspire the nation's innovative spirit, cultivate high-level innovative talents, form a system or mechanism favorable for independent innovation, promote innovations in theory, system and technology, and continuously consolidate and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics. With strong sense of historical responsibility and worldwide vision, and under the guideline of ``independent innovation, key breakthrough, sustainable development and leading the future'', we shall persistently take science and technology as primary productive force, implement strategies of Invigorating China through Science and Education and Reinvigorating China through Human Resource Development, stick to the principle of ``rely economic construction & social development on science & technology, and science & technology progress serves economic construction & social development''; develop major policies and relevant measures for scientific development, push forward national innovation system construction, strengthen studies on basic science, hi-tech field and sustainable development, quicken the transformation of knowledge and technology to actual productivity in order to provide strong technological support to economic and social development, and make science and technology modernization the true drive forces for rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. ii. Build a Large-scaled Team of Innovative Technical Talents Talents, especially innovative technical talents, play a key role in building an innovative country. It is impossible to realize this goal without the support of a powerful team of innovative technical talents. The worldwide competition of overall national strength is actually a competition for talents especially for innovative talents. Only those who cultivate, attract, and make good use of the talents especially innovative talents can hold priority in the fierce international competition, and realize the development goals as well. Here, I would like to talk about how to intensify the cultivation of innovative talents. The whole technical innovation history has proved that innovative technical talents are creators of new knowledge, inventors of new subjects, leaders of technical breakthroughs and development approaches, and strategic treasures for a nation's development. Cultivation of innovative technical talents with no hesitation is essential for improving independent innovation capability and building an innovative nation, and is also indispensable for realizing the state's development goals and rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. We should persist in the strategy that considers talents to be primary resources, take cultivation of innovative technical talents as a strategic measure to build an innovative nation, and quicken our steps of building a large-scaled team of innovative technical talents. To cultivate innovative technical talents, we should thoroughly carry out the strategy of paying respect to labor, knowledge, talent and creation, follow the requirements of building an innovative nation and the rules of talent development. We should attract the talents with business, shape the talents with practices, spirit up the talents with our system and protect the talents with our laws so as to enlarge the team of the technical talents. The cultivation of innovative technical talents is complex program that requires joint efforts from all party committees, governments, relevant departments, universities, scientific institutions and the whole society. We should highlight the following aspects in our work: First, improve the cultivation system. The cultivation of innovative technical talents is a long comprehensive process, and we must begin from education. We should further enhance education reform and the education for all-round development according to China's economic and social development especially technological development, in order to establish an education system favoring for innovative technical talents. We should take systematic control of primary schools, middle schools, universities and employment in order to establish an effective mechanism to cultivate innovative technical talents. In addition, we should change the traditional indoctrinatory way of education into a new innovative manner, paying more attention to students' initiative and creative thinking mode while respecting the guiding role of teachers. We should reduce the homework burden of primary and middle school students, inspire their curiosity and exploration enthusiasm so that they will make all-round development based on their interest and potential. We should reform the course arrangement of colleges and universities, update teaching materials, and pay more attention to the combination of theory and practice, in order to cultivate the students' innovation spirit and capability. We should lay great emphasis on the cultivation of technical development and practice capability, and improve the ability to turn scientific achievements into project application. Moreover, we should provide continuing education for on-the- job technicians at different layers through multiple channels, and accelerate the establishment of an open, independent networking life-long education system, so that the technicians will learn new knowledge and skills continuously to improve their capabilities of technological innovation. Second, use talents without prejudice. We should establish and complete a targeted management system and method to distinguish and cultivate talents on an equal competition basis. Instead of paying sole attention to one's educational background, qualification or status, we should provide more opportunities for excellent talents, especially young innovative technical talents. We should carry out the state's and industry's plan for technical talent cultivation, actively push the building of the innovation team, and create a good environment for cultivation and development of innovative technical talents under the support of the state's talent cultivation programs, important researches and projects, major industry projects, key subjects and research bases and international academic exchange projects. We should carry forward the innovation culture, build harmonic interrelationship, keep a free working environment, create a solidaric organization system, understand the personalities of the innovative talents, allow them to express their new academic thoughts and ideas, encourage and cultivate their innovation spirit, inspire their enthusiasm in innovation, and ensure that they make innovations dedicatedly. The technological innovation is risky and unpredictable, which requires tolerance of failure during innovation. Therefore, we should take good care of the talents facing frustrations, and support their future work based on past experiences. In addition, the leaders and managers of the technical team should improve their leading and management capability, make every effort to be the talent scout, and make good use of the talents. Third, improve the system and policy support. We should continue deepening the science & technology system reform to give full play to the leading role of the government and the fundamental role of market in the distribution of technological resources. A comprehensive system pertaining to talent training, utilization, appraisal, assignment and flow should be established. By changing attitudes, practices and systems that block the growth and accomplishment of talent, we should guarantee the successful implementation of systems and policies that encourage technological innovation in scientific research institutions. Considering one's moral character, performance, knowledge and capability, a comprehensive appraisal system should be established to realize management by objectives (MBO) for the innovative talent's contributions and further curb the usual practice of ignoring capability and performance while focusing on educational background and seniority during appraisal. Improve the mechanism of encouraging enterprises to increase scientific investment in order to give play to their leading role in technological innovation and diversify the pattern of scientific investment. Establish an enterprise-centered, market-oriented scientific innovation system that combines production, education and research; encourage innovative talents to gather in enterprises. Improve the intellectual property system to inspire people's zest for innovation, safeguard their rights and interests, and provide legal protection for technological innovation and utilization of innovative achievements. The title evaluation should be restructured to encourage all kinds of talents to engage in knowledge-based and technological innovation. More attention should be put on key industries and human resource-intensive organizations, technology extension in remote and poor areas, industrial and agricultural production bases, various enterprises and institutions that have brought significant social and economical benefits, as well as young and middle-aged technicians. Income distribution and incentive systems that encourage innovation should be established; priority shall be given to key positions and distinguished talents, and talents with remarkable contributions will get rewards. In this way, we can form a mechanism in which posts are obtained by competition, salaries depend on contributions, and eminent talents have enviable income. The talent flow system and talent information management system should be improved to wipe out institutional obstacles in talent flow, promote the orderly and rational flow of talents, let rare talents and professionals demonstrate their full capabilities, and ensure the reserve of talents for the state's major scientific and technological projects. Fourth, adopt open cultivation. No innovative technical talent, especially the pioneers, can be cultivated without going deep into the reality. Under the critical situation that international scientific and technological level surpasses ours, it's hard to cultivate a group of innovative talents in a short time without adopting an open manner. Improving independent innovation capability based on introduction and assimilation is an effective way to catch up with international advanced level, while open cultivation is the right method of bringing up internationally recognized, top-notch talents and pioneers in science and technology. Having studied abroad and communicated with the foreign companions, most academicians in CAS and CAE and outstanding technical workers have demonstrated their talents in international exchange and cooperation, while learning advanced innovation concept and latest technologies. By sticking to the opening-up policy and communicating with international scientific institutions in various forms, we can benefit from global technological resources and learn from all civilizations that human beings have created. Scientific institutions and universities are encouraged to cooperate with overseas R&D institutions to build joint laboratories or R&D centers. International programs shall be promoted under the protocol of bilateral and multilateral scientific cooperation. National enterprises are encouraged to establish R&D institutions or industrial bases in foreign countries and multinationals are also encouraged to set up R&D institutions in China. We should actively participate in large international scientific projects and academic organizations. Chinese scientists and scientific institutions are encouraged to join or organize large international or regional scientific projects. Utilize human resources from both home and abroad by combining domestic talent cultivation with introducing overseas talents. While developing human resources at home and training talent independently, we should step up efforts to introduce foreign talents as well as new and high technologies. Various measures can be taken to attract talents studying abroad to come back and start their own business; highly-qualified overseas talents or talents urgently needed for our social and economic development are warmly welcomed. Fifth, create a social environment that fosters technological innovation. Innovation culture and technological innovation promote and encourage the development of each other. The Chinese culture has long been advocating innovation and our ancestors emphasized, ``A gentlemen shall strive along with perseverance''. We shall encourage the spirit of innovation so as to provide a powerful cultural support to building an innovative talent team and an innovative nation. Innovation awareness should be raised in the whole society. We encourage people to think innovatively, act initiatively and take risks in the hope of creating a favorable social environment that supports talents to start business and succeed. Scientific knowledge, methods, ideas and spirit should be widely spread to equip more common people with scientific knowledge, which in turn will lead a trend of doing things scientifically, loving science, studying science and applying scientific findings. Publicize exemplary stories and figures in technological innovation to make people realize the role of innovation in driving economic and social development. The value that ``innovation is glorious'' should be emphasized, enabling technological innovation to be a kind of work and activity respected by the whole society. Science popularization should be strengthened to foster a notion of technological innovation in teenagers' minds and inspire them to become the main force in technological innovation and scientific development in the future. It is proved that innovative technical talents, especially the pioneers, are all endowed with basic qualities and characteristics necessary for their development and technological innovation. In sum, there are six qualities to become an innovative scientific talent in China today. First, you must have high ideals for life, love the country, the people, and science and technology, be qualified in both ability and moral integrity, and realize your values of life in making scientific contributions. Second, you shall have enough aspiration and courage to seek truth, emancipate your mind, draw conclusions from facts, keep pace with the times, keep strong desire for innovation and exploration, have sharp eyes on new things and knowledge, dare to challenge authority and traditional concepts, and run forward without fear to seek truth and innovation. Third, you must be competent in precise and scientific thinking, master the thinking method of dialectic materialism, and keep lifelong studying by using scientific methods to constantly update your knowledge and theories, build a wide, profound knowledge structure, and foster comprehensive scientific and cultural quality. Fourth, you must have solid professional knowledge, international vision and keen insight to grasp the trend of scientific development and innovation, and be adept at providing key solutions for major scientific problems. Fifth, you must have strong team spirit to lead the innovative team in implementing major scientific programs or tackling front- line science difficulties by organizing multi-subject experts and collecting knowledge on all fronts. Sixth, you must be honest and serious about your work, indifferent to fame and wealth, have strong ambition and high ideals, hardbitten and determined, unafraid of hardships and frustration. You must have the courage to defeat difficulties in technological innovation in order to make great achievements continuously. These qualities can be found in successful scientists of any country, as well as our academicians, excellent scientists and technicians. We shall inherit and carry forward the fine traditions and styles of Chinese scientists and technicians, which will play a very important role in cultivating a large group of innovative scientific talents. There is a Chinese saying, ``It is easy to recruit thousands of soldiers, but it is not so easy to find a general.'' A leading scientific elite, an international scientific master or pioneer can lead a team of excellent innovative scientific talents to make world-leading scientific achievements, giving birth to competitive enterprises and new industries. There are many such leaders among our academicians, but there's shortage of such talents in our whole country. So our work of cultivating innovative talents shall focus on such talents esp. youth or middle-aged leaders. Meanwhile, we shall cultivate innovative talents at different levels, who will act as backbone of academic and technical innovation and form a talent structure suitable for scientific innovation, thus promoting innovation practices in each field and at different layers. The scientific and technological development in China is now facing many opportunities for huge leap forward. Under the background of reform, opening up and modernization construction, it is urgent to develop science and technology, and the scientists and technicians are able to exhibit their brilliancy. The aspirant scientists or technicians shall seize the opportunity to contribute to the construction of an innovative country while realizing their own dream in this course. III. Academicians of CAS and CAE Display their Talents in Building an Innovative Country Academicians of CAS and CAE represent our country's highest academic level in science and engineering technology. They enjoy highest honor and are respected by the whole society. As leaders of national science and technology, academicians of CAS and CAE has long been committed to our country's scientific and technological development as well as economic and social development. Thanks to their painstaking efforts, we have made all these achievements from drawing of The 1956- 1967 Science and Technology Development Plan to successful development of ``two bombs and one satellite'' in hard times, from drawing and implementation of ``863 Program'' and ``973 Program'' that play a key role in our scientific development to the launch of manned spaceship of Shenzhou V and Shenzhou VI, from a series of discoveries including hybrid rice, nonmarine oilgeneration theory and application and high performance computer to the great projects of Three Gorges, south-to-north water diversion, west-to-east electricity and gas transmission, Qinghai-Tibet Railway, and high speed railway transportation. Mr. Wang Xuan who passed away recently is just one of the most outstanding academicians. He devoted all his life to science, and becomes the model of all scholars with the spirit of pioneering, earnest aid to young generation, and utter devotion. Academicians of CAS and CAE are truly the pride of our nation and people! It has been proved that the academician system with Chinese characteristics fits the real situation of our country. It is very effective in gathering scientific elites to contribute their ideas and tackle difficulties in economic and social development, organizing innovative team for national major scientific projects, and stimulating the scientists and technicians to work for our country's flourishing and prosperity. But after all, academician system has existed in China for only decades. To give better play to its functions, we shall continue improving the system based on real situation and experiences. The Central Committee of CCP, State Council and Chinese people have high expectations towards academicians of CAS and CAE. We hope that, with the advantages of cross-subject, cross-department and high academic level, CAS and CAE will carry out macroscopic, strategic, proactive and comprehensive decision consultancy on such major issues as promoting economic and social development, improving people's living standard and ensuring national defense. Meanwhile, they shall organize scientific research team to play a leading role in professional fields, provide the Party and government with valuable opinions, and make major decisions more scientific and democratic through real efforts. We hope that academicians of CAS and CAE will endeavor to become pioneers standing at the frontier of scientific innovation with the patriotic spirit of love for our homeland and conscientious devotion, scientific spirit of being practical and innovative, exploration spirit of being unafraid of hardships, and team spirit of being cooperative and indifferent to fame and wealth. They shall bear in mind the major scientific problems in economic and social development, combine national demand and micro-deployment with free exploration, continue to drive original innovation and R&D of core technology and integrated technology, promote introduction, assimilation and re-innovation, industry- academy-research integration, and work hard for huge leaps of independent innovation capability as well as construction of an innovative country. We also hope that academicians of CAS and CAE can take lead in all-out efforts of building an innovative country; carry forward the scientific spirit of seeking truth from facts, foster socialist concept of honor and disgrace--Eight Honors and Eight Disgraces; bear the responsibility of demonstrating innovative behavior and achievements to the public and promoting innovative culture; develop the people's interests in science and technology, deepen their knowledge about scientific innovation, and build innovative culture together. Meanwhile, I sincerely hope you will shoulder the heavy task of cultivating talents especially innovative scientific talents, develop academic echelon, and make every effort to support the innovation and rapid growth of youths. Dear academicians and comrades! We all bear the time-honored mission to provide strong scientific support for the construction of a well-off society by improving our independent innovation capability and building an innovative country. I hope that our scientists and technicians will strive hard to make brilliant achievements and constantly contribute to our country and the people.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico and the senior Senator from New Mexico for their leadership and their comments. This is important legislation. It is worth pausing today to notice that this is legislation which will be introduced tonight by the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, and by the Democratic leader of the Senate, Senator Reid. There are not very many things this year in this Congress that have been introduced by our distinguished two leaders. They do that for a reason. They usually don't even cosponsor legislation. But they have decided that in this case, this issue is so important that they wanted to send a signal to our country, to the rest of us in the Senate, to the Members of the House of Representatives, to all of us. The Presiding Officer and I deeply believe it is urgently important for our country to do what it takes to keep our edge in science and technology so we can keep our share of good-paying jobs in the United States of America and not see them go overseas to China and India and other places. This is the way to do that, and this is an important beginning. It would not have happened but for Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and a variety of other Senators--so many, it is hard to mention them all. In fact, the reason I think the bill is having such success as it moves through the Senate is that it has so many fathers and mothers, it is not possible to tell who they are because this is a subject matter which many Senators have been working on for a long time. This bill is about growing our economy, creating as many good new jobs as we can, so that in 20 years we don't wake up and wonder how countries such as China and India passed us by. This is a pro-growth investment. This $20 billion of new spending over 5 years is as much a pro-growth investment as a tax cut is. In my experience as a Governor of a State, we had low taxes, and that helped to create new jobs. But we also needed to make investments in centers of excellence and good teaching and distinguished scientists because we knew what most of the world now is learning: most of our good new jobs come from brainpower, from our advantage in science and technology. We are in a constant state of losing jobs every day as most healthy economies are. So the key to our success is how many good new jobs we can create, and the key to that is our brainpower advantage. We are not the only ones in the world who understand this. We have a Democratic leader who understands it. We have a Republican leader who understands it. We have a President of the United States, President Bush, who understands it and who made it a central part of his State of the Union Address. But let me mention just one other President who understands it. Just about a month ago, a group of Senators, led by Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, traveled to China. We met with the President of China, President Hu Jintao. We also met with the Chairman of the National People's Congress, the No. 2 person in China, Mr. Wu. Just 2 months earlier, in July, President Hu went to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering to outline a new 15- year plan to make China the technology leader in the world. In his speech, the President of China said China must: Promote a huge leap forward of science and technology; we shall put strengthening independent innovation capability at the core of economic structure adjustment. His plan included reforming China's universities and massively investing in new research. The President of China concluded his speech this way: We all bear the time-honored mission to provide strong scientific support for the construction of a well-off society by improving our independent innovation capability and building an innovative country. I hope that our scientists and technicians will strive hard to make brilliant achievements and constantly contribute to our country and the people. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete remarks of President Hu to the Chinese Academies of Science and Engineering in July be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank my friend from Tennessee and agree that the Department of Defense should consider all options when managing municipal waste on military bases and facilities. The waste management testing that my colleague from Tennessee references suggests that waste management costs for military bases can be reduced over the long term and that landfill space needs can be greatly reduced. The technology in question addresses two major needs faced by our military bases. First, all bases produce large amounts of municipal solid waste, which is sent to a declining number of landfills. Executive Order 13101 directs the Department of Defense to develop targets for landfill diversion and directs the Department of Defense, along with other Federal agencies, to take the lead in pollution prevention efforts. The second need is military test and training ranges, which are often severely depleted of vegetation. The resulting soil erosion and increase of dust in the air impairs our ability to rapidly train military forces at these facilities, and the application of sterilized, processed waste to vegetation depleted training grounds can reduce erosion and airborne dust. This technology could solve both problems, and I agree with my friend from Tennessee that this process should be considered by the Department of Defense when examining base waste management and overall facilities operations. northern california institute for research and education

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Domenici, Senator Sessions, Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, Senator Martinez, and many others who have worked hard on this piece of legislation. Two years ago, the idea of giving additional authority for offshore drilling for oil and gas was an unmentionable subject around here. No one would bring it up in polite conversation. Last year, with the price of natural gas reaching $14 a unit, we had about 50 Senators who would support it, but that wasn't 60. Yesterday, I believe we had more than 70 on the cloture vote. We recognize there are environmentally sound ways to go a long way offshore, as we are here, where we cannot see it from the shore, and look for oil and gas. We have learned to do that in a way that is so safe that less oil and gas seeps into the ocean from that process than comes from natural seepage out of the ground. We have learned to do that and to do that well. We have also come a long way in recognizing that it is good policy to say if we are going to spend an asset--and by that I mean create an environmental burden--drilling for oil and gas, we ought to create an asset and spend some of the money for wetlands in the more affected States and through the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in all of the other States. This is an important piece of legislation. It helps blue-collar workers. It helps farmers. It helps homeowners who are paying skyrocketing bills to deal with 100-degree heat. It helps reduce our reliance on parts of the world such as the Middle East where we should not be importing as much oil and gas, and it establishes for the first time good clear policy about how and when we take initial steps of offshore drilling. We not only should do it in an environmentally sound way, but we should use some of the revenue to create other conservation and outdoor recreational assets. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for his statement about the efforts we are making today to reduce the price of natural gas and to use the revenues to pay the bills of the Federal Government, while at the same time to spend some of those dollars for conservation purposes, which is a subject that the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, has advocated both as a Member of the House and while he has been in the Senate. I would like to speak today to the Energy bill, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security bill. I would like to speak on three points. The first is to emphasize why it is important, exactly what are we doing, and why is it important to the blue-collar workers, the chemical workers, the autoworkers in Tennessee and in Michigan, to people who are trying to pay their home cooling bills as the temperature soars above 100 degrees, and to farmers who have seen their fertilizer prices double in the last several years all because of the high price of natural gas. Second, I would like to put this single piece of legislation into some perspective and reemphasize why it is the rest of the story. Most of what we are doing to try to reduce the price of natural gas came with the comprehensive Energy bill last summer. This finishes the job-- not completely. We have more to do, but this is something we should have done a year ago. We couldn't command 60 votes then. We didn't have a formula for passing it in the Senate last year, so we left it undone. This finishes that part of the job. Third, I would like to say a word about what I like to call the outdoor recreation and conservation royalty that this legislation establishes to help create soccer fields and city parks with what we call the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This Fund, for 40 years, has provided modest but very important Federal dollars to help Americans enjoy our outdoor spaces. First, why is this so important? We hear a lot of talk about the high cost of gasoline because we are reminded of it all the time when we fill up our tank. It is $3 a gallon, or $2.80 or $3.10. We hear it might go higher. All across the country in American restaurants people are eating out a little less and thinking a little bit more about long drives because of the high price of gasoline. What if the price of the gasoline at the pump were $7 a gallon? What do you suppose the reaction would be in the United States if the price of gasoline at the pump were $7 a gallon? That is exactly what the situation was in terms of natural gas last year. The price of natural gas went up to $14 a unit. Testimony before the Energy Committee showed that if we translated that into gasoline prices, it would be the same thing as if gasoline prices were $7 a gallon. That is how big the hurt is. Where does the hurt apply when the price of natural gas is too high, when it is $14? Let's start with manufacturing jobs in this country. We hear a lot of speeches being made about manufacturing jobs. Let's not send them overseas, people say. I agree with that. We don't want them to go overseas. What will send them overseas in the chemical industry? There are 1 million blue-collar and white-collar jobs--jobs at Eastman Chemicals in east Tennessee. I have spoken about this many times on the Senate floor. My uncle used to work there. For three or four generations, Eastman Chemicals has been a part of east Tennessee and the Great Smokey Mountains. People came to depend on Eastman Chemicals. It led to strong families, high wages, good schools, and low crime rate. It is hard for people to imagine what life would be like in the Appalachian Mountains in upper east Tennessee if Eastman had not been there for three or four generations. But how long is Eastman going to stay in upper east Tennessee if the price of natural gas is at $14? Not long, if what it does is make chemicals. The chief executive of Dow Chemical testified that when the price is that high, his raw material cost is 40 percent of his costs. When the price, as the Senator from Alabama was saying, of natural gas in other parts of the world is $2, $3, $4, or $5 a unit, and it is $14 here, where do you suppose the new chemical plants are going to be built? Not here, not in Tennessee, not in New Hampshire, not in Kansas, not anywhere. In fact, there are about 100 new chemical plants being built around the world today. One is being built in the United States. There are several reasons for that, but a primary reason is the unpredictable and high cost of natural gas. It is $7 or $8 today per unit. But our economy was built on $2 natural gas. Every little addition to costs in the manufacturing process increases the likelihood that a job, or a plant will go to Mexico or some other place. It is incumbent upon us to do everything we can to keep the prices down: First, to stabilize and then begin to keep the price down. That is why it is important to begin with manufacturing jobs, and not just the chemical industry. At a roundtable I had with the Farm Bureau in Tennessee, the chief executive of Saturn, the auto manufacturing plant, said to me: We have done about all we can to save on costs by efficiency. The price of natural gas is raising the price of our cars. If you raise the price of cars and the supply parts are made in the United States, where do you suppose they are going to be made? They are going to be made in some other country where the price of natural gas is a lot less than it is in the United States. One-third of all the manufacturing jobs in Tennessee are automotive jobs. In Tennessee, there are not just manufacturing jobs and automotive jobs but jobs in our agricultural community. The Tennessee Farm Bureau was helping to sponsor that natural gas roundtable because in every part of a production-oriented enterprise, which agriculture is, energy adds to cost. It especially adds to cost when we are talking about the price of fertilizer. As with Eastman Chemicals, natural gas is the main raw material in making fertilizer. So we can begin to see pretty quickly why it is difficult for our economy, on us as families and individuals for the price of gasoline at the pump to be high. I would argue that it is even worse for us for the price of natural gas to be too high because of the effect of high natural gas prices on our jobs and because of its effect on agriculture. Finally, we are today reminded, certainly in Tennessee and in Washington with the heat going over 100 degrees, of the cost of heating our home in the winter and cooling our home in the summer, which many people do with natural gas. The price of natural gas is tremendously important. This legislation opens up the most promising new area for the most rapid large amount of new natural gas that is under the control of the United States to come into our system: 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico where we are already busy producing a lot of oil and gas, where we know what we are doing. There are a lot of ways to talk about it, but one is to say it is enough to heat and cool nearly 6 million homes for 15 years. Will this by itself stabilize the price of natural gas, by itself lower the price of natural gas back to $3 or $4? No. But it is an important part of the whole picture--a part that was left undone last year when we passed the comprehensive Energy bill. That is my second point. Some have said we can't drill our way out of this problem of high gasoline prices and high natural gas prices. I think we agree on that. Nobody is suggesting that we do so, which is why we passed the comprehensive Energy bill last year. Here is what we did. We started with conservation. In fact, the name of the bill probably should have been the Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005 because that is the way we began to think about it. We were looking for ways to produce large amounts of clean, low-carbon, or carbon-free energy. The United States of America uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. We are not on some desert island. We need a lot of energy. We increasingly understand that it has to be reliable energy. And we increasingly understand it has to be less expensive energy. Now we understand it has to be clean energy. In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in east Tennessee where I live, we have too much sulfur, too much nitrogen, too much mercury in the air. That produces asthma, that produces particulate matters which harms our health. The Smokies has become the most polluted national park in the country. So clean air is important. A great many people are concerned about global warming--a majority of this Senate is. That is why we in our bill said let's have more carbon- free, low-carbon energy. What did we say? First, we had major incentives for conservation and efficiency. Conservation is the place to start in any effort to have large amounts of reliable, low-cost, carbon-free energy. Second, nuclear power. There is a renaissance of nuclear power in this country. Hopefully, it will continue. Nuclear power not only produces 20 percent of all of our electricity, it is 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. If you care about global warming, for example, it is not enough just to care about it--we need to do something about it. The two ways to do something about it are conservation and nuclear power--at least in the next generation. Third, we had major incentives in the Energy bill last year for clean coal. Many people prefer that as a strategy because it doesn't run into some of the problems in waste disposal and the possibility of nuclear proliferation that nuclear power might. But there are significant problems with clean coal. One is it is dirty. Even clean coal production is dirtier than nuclear power. Finally, we don't know exactly what to do with all of that carbon we produce. We have some inventing to do in order to sequester and recapture the carbon and perhaps bury it. Because we wanted to get on with natural gas price reduction, we also made it easier to bring in natural gas from other places in the world-- freeze it, bring it in, unfreeze it, put it in terminals, and put it back into our pipelines. That is an elaborate process. But for the next 5 or 10 years, we are going to have to rely on that. We did some things to make it easier for refineries to operate. There are a variety of other things we did. Last year, we did conservation, nuclear power, clean coal, liquefied natural gas--a number of other things. But the one thing we didn't do enough about was more natural gas supply. We are not going to drill our way out of this problem. We are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower the price of natural gas in a variety of ways. In this transition period, it helps to take the most obvious area of supply and take it and do something with it, which is what we are doing here. My second point is we have to finish the job that we started last year. I suspect--I know--there is much more to do. We should be more aggressive with conservation and efficiency, more aggressive in support of nuclear power, more aggressive in research for clean coal. I would like to see us accelerate our efforts for hydrogen fuel cell production and give more incentives for fuel-efficient cars as a way of dealing with reducing our supply of oil on the transportation side. Here we are doing what we need to do to finish the job. Finally, I will say a word about where the money goes. Before the money goes into the Federal Treasury, it first goes into two important royalties. Royalties are not a new concept. Land owners get royalties when someone finds oil or gas. Then the money goes to the production company or to the State or the Federal Government. The idea of State royalties is not a new concept. If you are drilling for oil in Wyoming, the first 50 cents of a dollar goes to the State for various purposes. If you are drilling in Alaska, 90 cents goes to Alaska and the other 10 cents to the Federal Government. Senator Domenici and the Framers of this piece of legislation wisely said the first 50 cents of the money we get from this deep sea exploration will go to the States. States along the gulf coast get the bulk of it, 37\1/2\ percent for wetlands, coastal renewal, and conservation purposes, and the other 12\1/2\ percent goes to the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. It was recommended in 1958. It was called the Rockefeller Commission, headed by Laurance Rockefeller. Congress enacted it in 1965. The idea was very simple. When we spend an asset, we create another asset. In 1977, Congress authorized that one of the sources of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund would be receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf mineral lease--in other words, the kind of revenues from the oil and gas drilling we are authorizing today. Congress has authorized in the law that we spend $450 million a year on the State side. It goes to States for city parks, soccer fields. The amount of money has gone up and down over time, so in 1985 and 1986 President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors, which he asked me to chair, and I did, recommended we make some of that money permanent. So for the first time in 40 years, this legislation does just that: 12\1/2\ percent of the revenues go for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Exactly what are we talking about? Since 1964, the State side has created improved parks and forests in all 50 States, helped to create more than 40,000 athletic and playing fields, 12,000 hiking trails, 20,000 family picnic locations, 5,000 campgrounds, 10,000 swimming and boating facilities, and 600 hunting and nature areas. In Tennessee, since 1965, our State has received 170 Land and Water Conservation Fund grants totaling $67 million in Federal dollars. It has been vital to stretch local matching dollars to fund the acquisition of parks, ballfields, trails, and playgrounds across Tennessee. The funding has been modest. The new funding in this bill is modest, but it is important. It will grow over time. It has been recognized by those who have worked for a long time to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have a letter from Patrick Noonan and Henry Diamond. Mr. Noonan is the founder of the Conservation Fund and is chairman emeritus. Henry Diamond is the former commissioner of New York Parks and Environment and was involved in the writing of the original Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1962. They say: If the precedent of a conservation royalty can be established, it would be an important first step in the right direction, one that we have spent 40 years attempting to achieve. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Mr. Noonan and Mr. Diamond, written in their individual capacities.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Senator from New Mexico support an appropriation of $100 million in fiscal year 2007 for stateside LWCF?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would the Senator from New Mexico clarify whether this conservation and outdoor recreation royalty would prevent additional appropriations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside program?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for his leadership in moving this bill to the floor. Is it his understanding that the conservation and outdoor recreation royalty established by his legislation has tremendous value for the stateside program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the long term?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from New Mexico, and look forward to working with him to ensure adequate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Maine. Securing Our Energy Future