Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Economic Development in Indian Country.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 10, 2006, at 5:45 p.m., in closed session for a discussion on the situation in Afghanistan.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Fostering Permanence: Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America's Child Welfare System''.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 10 at 11:30 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 at 10 a.m. in SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the implementation of the Sugar Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. How much time remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on Monday night, with unanimous support, the Senate passed resolution No. 458 that I sponsored, along with 12 other Senators, affirming that the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem be said or sung in the language that unites us as one Nation, that language being English. This was more than bipartisan. It was unanimous, with one dissent expressed on the other side. It should be virtually unanimous. This is the land of immigrants. Almost all Americans know we need and must value our common language, which is English. Yet during the last week, the idea of a non-binding resolution expressing the Senate's thought that whenever we say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the Star- Spangled Banner, take the oath of citizenship, that it ought to be in our common language, produced quite a little storm across the country. Some said we were restricting liberty. But this not about what we are free to do; this is about what we ought to do at the opening of the Senate, at the opening of a ball game or Boy or Girl Scout troop meeting. As Americans, we are free to sing the Star-Spangled Banner in Swahili, we are free to say the Pledge of Allegiance in pig Latin, but that is not what we ought to do. And the Senate, by unanimous consent, said that on Monday night. Some said this was disrespect for other languages. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe our official documents ought to be in our common language. I have always favored, including when I was Education Secretary of this country, what I call ``English plus.'' The luckiest among us are those who know more than one language, but one of those must be English. Children should learn it as quickly as possible if they want to succeed in the United States of America. The real reason for the storm of reaction to the singing of the Star- Spangled Banner in a foreign language is that most Americans instinctively understand that while diversity is important, unity is more precious. That is why we pledge allegiance to the American flag rather than the flags of the countries from which our ancestors came. That is why most of our politics is about principles upon which we agree, principles found in our founding documents. That is why we give rights to individuals instead of to groups. That is why we honor our common language, English. In Sunday's Washington Post, a Chilean-American playwright, a professor at Duke, said our country is well on its way to becoming a bilingual nation and that he thought we would endure just fine. I respectfully disagree. I think it would make it harder for us to endure. I think it would make us more a United Nations than the United States of America. Now the Senate unanimously agrees. So does the mayor of Los Angeles, an Hispanic American. Antonio Villaraigosa said: I was offended by the idea of a national anthem in another language because for me the national anthem is something that deserves respect. Without question the vast majority of people in the United States were offended, as well. Our anthem should be spoken English. So says New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic American, who said on the ``CBS Early Show'' last week: I agree. The national anthem should be in English. Most immigrants want to become American. They want to learn English. They want to be part of the American mainstream. Twelve cosponsoring Senators agree. Many Democrats in the House of Representatives have joined as cosponsors. Senator Conrad from North Dakota spoke on this in the Senate last week and said: A common language is absolutely essential to our Nation. I look to our neighbors to the north [meaning Canada] and see incredible traumas they have been through because they are speaking in two different languages. My own strong belief is we ought to say the pledge in English and sing the national anthem in English. Ramon Cisneros, the publisher of a Spanish language newspaper in Nashville, e-mailed me: Thank you for the resolution. Our common language as Americans is and will always be English. Our national symbol should always be said and sung in English. We have worked hard to make English our common language, creating common schools, requiring new citizens to learn English to the eighth grade level. The Senate last week passed grants to help prospective citizens learn English. We welcome legal immigrants to this country. But we expect they will become American, that they will learn our common language, English, that they will learn our history, that they will subscribe to our values as found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and when they became citizens, they will renounce allegiance to their former government and swear allegiance to our laws and Constitution. That is what holds us together as the United States of America. So I am glad, in conclusion, that as the Senate stood together for our economic identity as Americans, it did it unanimously and passed our resolution affirming that statements of national unity, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, should be said or sung in our common language, English.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today the U.S. Civil Rights Commission announced its opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, which the Commission found to ``discriminate on the basis of race.'' It is possible that the Senate will be asked in the next few weeks to consider this legislation. I hope my colleagues will agree with the Civil Rights Commission and oppose this legislation. Here is what the Commission had to say: The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege. S. 147, the act to which the Commission refers, would create a separate, independent, race-based government for native Hawaiians. It would undermine our unity in this country. It would undermine our history of being a nation based not on race but upon common values of liberty, equal opportunity, and democracy. The question the bill poses is thus one that is fundamental to the very existence of our country. It creates a new government based on race. Our Constitution guarantees just the opposite--equal opportunity without regard to race. Hawaiians are Americans. They became United States citizens in 1900. They have saluted the American flag, paid American taxes, fought in American wars. In 1959, 94 percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that commitment to become Americans by voting to become a state. Like citizens of every other state, Hawaii votes in national elections. Becoming an American has always meant giving up allegiance to your previous country and pledging allegiance to your new country, the United States of America. This goes back to Valley Forge when George Washington himself signed and then administered this oath to his officers: ``I . . . renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to [King George III]; and I do swear that I will to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States. . . .'' America is different because, under our Constitution, becoming an American can have nothing to do with ancestry. That is because America is an idea, not a race. Ours is a nation based not upon race, not upon ethnicity, not upon national origin, but upon our shared values, enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation, and upon our shared language, English. An American can technically become a citizen of Japan, but would never be considered ``Japanese.'' But if a Japanese person wants to become a citizen of the United States, he or she must become an American. That's who we are as Americans, and when we forget that, we run the risk of undermining our greatest strength. Some say that diversity is our greatest strength. And it is a great strength, but hardly our greatest. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. Our greatest strength is that we have taken all that magnificent diversity and forged it into one Nation. My heritage is Scotch-Irish. In early America, the Scotch-Irish referred to themselves as a race of people. But despite Scotch-Irish contributions to American independence and some injustices before independence, they did not ask for a separate nation based on race. It is suggested that ``native Hawaiians'' are different because they lived on the islands of Hawaii before Asian and white settlers came there, and that their previous government was undermined by Americans who came. So, the argument goes, they should be treated as an American Indian tribe. But U.S. law has specific requirements for recognition of an Indian tribe. A tribe must have operated as a sovereign for the last 100 years, must be a separate and distinct community, and must have had a preexisting political organization. Native Hawaiians do not meet those requirements. In 1998 the State of Hawaii acknowledged this in a Supreme Court brief in Rice v. Cayetano, saying: ``The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.'' If the bill establishing a ``native Hawaiian'' government were to pass, it would have the dubious honor of being the first to create a separate nation within the United States. While Congress has recognized pre-existing American Indian tribes before, it has never created a new one. This is a dangerous precedent. This is not much different than if American citizens who are descended from Hispanics that lived in Texas before it became a republic in 1836 created their own tribe, based on claims that these lands were improperly seized from Mexico. Or it could open the door to religious groups, such as the Amish or Hassidic Jews, who might seek tribal status to avoid the constraints of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If we start down this path, the end may be the disintegration of the United States into ethnic enclaves. Hawaii itself is a proud example of the American tradition of diversity. According to the 2000 Census, 40 percent of Hawaiians are of Asian descent. Twenty-four percent are white. Nine percent said they were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders. Seven percent claimed Hispanic ethnicity and 2 percent were black. Twenty-one percent of Hawaiians reported two or more racial identities. Their two Senators are of native Hawaiian and Japanese ancestry. Their Governor is white and also happens to be Jewish. But what unites Hawaii is not its diversity, but its common Hawaiian traditions and the fact that Hawaiians are all Americans. The proposed new government for ``native Hawaiians'' would be based solely upon race. S. 147 makes individuals eligible to be ``native Hawaiian'' specifically by blood. Surely we have by now learned our lesson about treating people differently based upon race. Our most tragic experiences have occurred when we have treated people differently based upon race, whether they were African-Americans, Native American, or of other descent. In the documents to which we have pledged allegiance, the way we have sought to right those wrongs is to guarantee respect for each American as an individual, regardless of his or her race. This legislation instead would compound those old wrongs. It would create a separate government, and separate rules--perhaps later even separate schools-- based solely upon race. To destroy our national unity by treating Americans differently based upon race is to destroy what is most unique about our country. It would begin to make us a United Nations instead of the United States of America. The Senate should heed the advice of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and defeat this legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege and create a new, separate, race-based government for those of native Hawaiian descent. This idea is the reverse of what it means to become an American. Instead of making us one nation indivisible, it divides us. Instead of guaranteeing rights without regard to race, it makes them depend solely upon race. Instead of becoming ``one from many,'' we would become many from one.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 2 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as long as I shall require.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I turn my attention to another subject, one I have discussed several times. As a courtesy, I want to let my friends on the other side know that I intend to ask unanimous consent, at the end of my remarks, that my resolution be discharged from the Judiciary Committee. I hope that will be approved, but if it is not approved, I want my friends on the other side to know they need to have a way to register their objection before I make that request. Today is May 5. In Mexico and in Mexican restaurants across this country, today is known as ``Cinco de Mayo.'' That is because today is the day General Ignacio Zaragoza defeated the invading French forces of Napoleon III. In the United States, we often think of this holiday as a good reason to go to a Mexican restaurant and enjoy a margarita, but for our southern neighbors it is a very important holiday. France invaded Mexico in 1862, 41 years after Mexico had won its independence from Spain. It took the Mexicans 5 years, but once they succeeded in driving out the French occupiers, their country was finally free, and it has remained free since that time. As they celebrate this important day in their nation's history, I have no doubt that many Mexicans will be singing their national anthem, and I suspect they will all sing it in Spanish, their nation's common language. I make this point because at the beginning of this week, on Monday, I introduced a resolution in the Senate to affirm that here in the United States of America, statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be said or sung in our common language--English. I am not talking about what we are free to do as Americans, I am talking about what we ought to do as Americans. Last Monday, I offered this resolution which now has 12 cosponsors, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, because I thought it was important for this body to remember what unites us as Americans. Ours is a nation not based upon race, not based upon ethnicity, not based upon national origin, but based upon our shared values, enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation and, yes, upon our shared common language--English. Every Senate office received a request for this resolution of mine to be passed by unanimous consent. That request was agreed to by every Senator on the Republican side. But the other side, the Democratic side, objected. I can only assume that at least some on the Democratic side objected because at least some of them believe that Americans should, at least some of the time, sing our national anthem in Spanish or some other foreign language. Perhaps they also believe we should recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Chinese, which is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States. Yesterday, I tried again. I tried to pass this very simple and straightforward resolution. Again I was blocked by objections from the Democratic side. I am surprised by this reaction because leading Hispanic Democrats have said they agree with me. On Monday, Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa about singing the national anthem in Spanish. Here is what the Mayor of Los Angeles, a Hispanic and a Democrat, had to say in his conversation with Wolf Blitzer: Wolf, let me just say to you, let me just make it absolutely clear, I was offended, I was offended because, for me, the national anthem is something that I believe deserves respect. And I think that . . . without question, that the vast majority of people in the United States of America were offended as well. Continuing the quote from the Mayor of Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa: . . . our anthem should be sung in English. The Spanish and Mexican anthems should be sung in Spanish. The French anthem in French. So I was offended by it-- Said the Mayor of Los Angeles-- and I think most people were. And remember very few people bought into that. It really was a non-issue, but I think it was important to dismiss it as quickly as possible. Apparently a few of the very few people in America who buy into that are on the other side of the aisle. They are objecting to this resolution that says, when we start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance, when we sing the national anthem, when we take the oath of allegiance, we ought to do it in our common language, English. It doesn't require it. It doesn't make it a law. It doesn't say we are not free to do whatever we want to. It just says we ought to. And as the mayor of Los Angeles said, he was offended by the suggestion that we should not do it, and he thought very few people bought into that, it is a nonissue; let's dismiss it as quickly as possible. The way to dismiss it is to adopt this resolution sponsored by 12 Members of the Senate. I agree with Mayor Villaraigosa, we should dismiss this idea of singing the national anthem in foreign languages as quickly as possible, and that is what I tried to do by offering this resolution. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also a Democrat and a Hispanic, agrees. He appeared on the CBS ``Early Show'' with me on Monday morning. We were talking about the day without immigrants. After I explained my view on singing the national anthem in English and talked about this resolution, here is what Governor Richardson had to say: Well, I agree. The national anthem should be in English. And I believe that, again, most immigrants want to become Americans. They want to learn English. They want to be part of the American mainstream. They wear NFL jerseys. They want to be American. So I don't believe that view that immigrants want to learn the anthem in Spanish is accurate. I think that was a side show. But, definitely our anthem is English. That is Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But apparently some Senate Democrats disagree. Apparently some of them think we should at least some of the time sing it in a foreign language. But maybe I misunderstood, so let me try again. Let me say again, I understand from the other side that there is no one here to object, that the Democrats have all gone home, and that if I were to bring up my resolution today, as I had intended to do, that it would pass by unanimous consent without an objection from the Democratic side because no one is here to object. I think as a matter of Senatorial courtesy I should not do that. I respect my colleagues, and I don't intend to surprise them any more than I would like for them to surprise me. So I will not, today, ask for unanimous consent that S. Res. 458 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee and that the Senate proceed to its consideration and ask that the resolution and preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I will not do that today. But I would like to put my friends on the other side on notice that I intend to do this every other day, every other day that I am here and as long as this is not enacted I intend to do it, and each day I will do it in a constructive way. I will try to help the American people have a short civics lesson on what unites us as a country. This is not a country where our identity is based on our race. This is not a country where our identity is based on our ethnicity or where our ancestors came from. This is a country that is based on a few ideas that are found in our founding documents, based on our common history, and based on our common language. We are proud to be from wherever we come from or where our ancestors came from. We are prouder to be American. Almost every American agrees with that. That's why we created our common schools 150 years ago. In the words of Al Shanker, as I said yesterday, we created the common school to help mostly immigrant children learn to read and write in English and learn math and to learn what it meant to be an American. In 1906 we passed a law that anyone who becomes a citizen of this country needs to pass a test in English. Today we require it to be an eight-grade level of understanding of English. This Senate, by a 91-to-1 vote last month, said that as we consider an immigration bill, we better focus especially, and redouble our efforts, on helping prospective citizens become Americans because when we have a lot of people from other countries come here, the real limit on that is how quickly we can assimilate them into our culture, how quickly they can become Americans. We want new legal immigrants, but we do not want enclaves of people living here who have their allegiance to other countries and who permanently decide to speak another language and who don't pledge allegiance to our flag. That underlies our debate on immigration as much as anything else. So this is a very fundamental issue for me, and I believe it is so for a great many Americans. It is important for the people of this country to know that 12 of us in the Senate have before this body a very simple resolution, not about what we are made to do but about what we ought to do, and what we ought to do--whether we are at our Boy Scout or Cub Scout meeting or whether we are opening the day in the Senate, and we say the Pledge of Allegiance--we ought to say it in our common language. If we are singing the national anthem before a football game, it ought to be in our common language, English. If we are taking the oath of allegiance required for citizenship in the United States of America, which a half million to a million new citizens do every year, we ought to do so in English. We ought to say that as Senators. The mayor of Los Angeles said it. He is offended by the idea, he says, that our national anthem should not be sung in some other language. Governor Bill Richardson says it. He agrees. He doesn't think it ought to be an issue. This bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives. It has strong Democratic support there. What is wrong with the Senate Democrats? Why do they insist, day after day, that our national anthem, our Pledge of Allegiance, and our oath of citizenship ought to be said or sung in some other language than our common language, English? I would like to get this cleared up. Out of respect for my colleagues in the Senate and the fact they are not here to object, but they do object, I will not ask unanimous consent today. But I again wish to say to my friends that this floor is for the debating of important issues. This is an important issue. We have so little civics and U.S. history taught in America's schools today that perhaps we need a little civics lesson every single day on the floor of the Senate. I intend to provide it every single day I am here until this legislation is voted on. And when it is voted on, I predict it will pass by a wide margin with bipartisan support; it might even pass with unanimous support. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address two topics today. The first has to do with medical liability, and the second has to do with my resolution to have the Senate express what I think almost every American understands, which is that when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, when we sing the National Anthem, when we take the oath of allegiance for citizenship in America, we should do it in our common language: English. Medical Liability Reform Mr. President, first let me express my concern about the medical liability crisis that is occurring in Tennessee and across our country. I am particularly concerned about a crisis in access to medical care for mothers and babies in Tennessee. In 45 of Tennessee's 95 counties, pregnant mothers have to drive for miles to get prenatal health care and to deliver their babies. In 15 of those counties, pregnant mothers have no access whatsoever to any prenatal care within their counties. Only 1 of 104 medical students graduating from Vanderbilt University Medical School in 2004 chose to be an OB-GYN, according to Dr. Frank Boehm, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Dr. Boehm cautions that: We must not lose sight of the fact that one of the side effects of our current medical malpractice crisis in OB-GYN is a steady loss of medical students choosing to practice one of our most important medical specialties. If this decline in OB-GYN doctors continues, patients having babies or needing high-risk gynecologic care will be faced with access problems this country has not seen. That is Dr. Frank Boehm, Vanderbilt Medical School, as reported in the Tennessean on July 20, 2004. Dr. Ron Blankenbaker, associate dean of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Chattanooga, said four of the six doctors at UT Family Practice who provided obstetrical care have stopped working in this specialty because of fears of malpractice lawsuits. That was in the Chattanooga Times Free Press in February of 2005. It is clear that we are in a medical crisis and we must do something to improve access to care for mothers and their babies. For this reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. 23, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act, a bill to protect access to care for mothers and babies by providing medical liability reform for obstetric and gynecological care. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of S. 22, the Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2006, a comprehensive medical liability reform bill. This is the third time during my tenure in the Senate that I have come to the floor to discuss medical liability concerns. While we have debated solutions every time, we have not had the votes necessary to enact those solutions. Sadly, during this time of inaction, the situation has gotten much worse in my home State of Tennessee. In February of this year, Tennessee was declared a medical liability ``Crisis State'' by the American Medical Association, joining 20 other crisis States where broken medical liability systems are jeopardizing access to health care. I have heard from doctors and hospitals from one end of Tennessee to the other, all concerned with the skyrocketing costs of medical liability premiums. The average medical liability insurance premium for Tennessee doctors has increased 84 percent since 1999 due, in large part, to our out-of-control jury awards. That is according to the Tennessee Medical Association. In the past 10 years, 100 percent of cardiac surgeons, 92 percent of OB-GYNs, 92 percent of orthopedists, and 70 percent of all doctors in Tennessee have faced legal action-- again, according to the Tennessee Medical Association. The medical liability crisis is driving up the cost of health care for all Tennesseans. The annual cost of defensive medicine,--that is the extra tests and procedures performed by doctors to protect them from lawsuits--is estimated at $70 to $120 billion per year, nationwide, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Defensive medicine adds $2 billion to health care costs just for Tennesseans. That is almost $1,000 for every Tennessee household that is spent on unnecessary defensive medicine costs--tests, and procedures performed by doctors to keep them from getting sued--and they are still getting sued. In Tennessee, 78 percent of doctors report ordering extra tests and procedures due to litigation fears. Nearly half of those doctors estimate that 20 percent or more of their procedures fall into the defensive medicine category. Again, I believe it is pretty clear we are facing a crisis. Here is what the bills would do. The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act and the Medical Care Access Protection Act would help us get out of this crisis. I hope we can pass these bills and see them signed into law. These bills ensure fair and just compensation for patient injury by providing full compensation for economic damages. In plain English, if you are actually hurt, this bill permits you to be paid 100 percent of the value of those damages. It does not interfere with that at all. If a patient is injured, he or she will have unlimited access to economic damages to pay for recovery. These bills also place a sensible cap of up to $750,000 on awards for non-economic damages. The caps on non-economic damages are fashioned after the Texas State law. After Texas passed statewide medical liability reform in 2003, medical malpractice rates decreased, access to care has been increasing, new doctors are moving to Texas, current doctors are staying in Texas, and new insurers are entering the Texas medical liability market, creating more choices for physicians. I am happy for Texas. A lot of our family lives in Texas. But I would like to see Tennesseans and other Americans have some of these same advantages. Our Senate bills are modeled after the Texas law, and I hope to see this success story spread to Tennessee and spread nationwide because Tennessee mothers and Tennessee babies and all medical patients deserve access to health care.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10:30 a.m. to markup an original bill entitled ``Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a markup S.J. Res. 12, the Flag Desecration Resolution, on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 1 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent Practices in the Moving Industry.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Housing and Urbanization Issues in Africa.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism and Economic Development be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Promoting Economic Development Opportunities Through Nano Commercialization.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 4, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho to be Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda is attached. I. Nominations: Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit; Milan D. Smith, Jr., to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Renee Marie Bumb, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Noel Lawrence Hillman, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Peter G. Sheridan, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Susan Davis Wigenton, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey. II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, DeWine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer. III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I think that makes my point. Apparently, I did not misunderstand. Apparently, the Democratic Party in the Senate does not agree that we should say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the national anthem, and take the oath of citizenship in our common language, English. That is a grave misunderstanding of our country's greatest accomplishment. Our diversity is a magnificent achievement, but our greater achievement is that we have taken all of this diversity and formed it into one country so that we are the United States of America. It is a central part of becoming American. I am extremely disappointed by this objection.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here today because I may have misunderstood the actions on the other side of the aisle. Something rather surprising has occurred. It would appear from their actions that my colleagues in the Democratic Party seem to believe that we ought to sing the national anthem, say the Pledge of Allegiance, and take the oath of citizenship in this country in something other than our common language, English. Here is why I say that. On Monday, along with several other Senators, I introduced a very simple resolution, a resolution affirming that statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be recited or sung in our common language, English. That is all it says. Let me read the relevant part of the resolution. It says: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Senate affirms that statements or songs that symbolize the unity of the Nation, including the National Anthem, the Oath of Allegiance sworn by new United States citizens, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States, should be recited or sung in English, the common language of the United States. This is not a resolution about what we are free to do in the United States; this is about what we ought to do in the United States. It is very straightforward. It does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech, or prohibit translation. It does not say Americans should not learn a second language. In fact, I encourage our children to learn a second language or even a third language to better compete in this global economy. The resolution does say that we believe that we Americans ought to recite the pledge and sing ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' and other statements and songs that unite us as a Nation in the language that unites us as a Nation, English. Last Monday, every Senate office received a request for the resolution to be passed by unanimous consent. I would not expect this resolution to just be bipartisan, I would expect it to easily be unanimous. That request was agreed to by every Republican, but on the other side someone objected. Should I assume that the Democratic side objected because they believe we Americans should, at least some of the time, sing our national anthem in Spanish or some other foreign language? Do they believe we should recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Chinese, which is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States? This is important. It is important enough that we inscribed in this Chamber, above the Presiding Officer, our original motto for this country: ``One from many.'' It is not ``Many from one.'' Our greatest accomplishment as a country is not our diversity, which is a magnificent achievement; our greatest accomplishment is we have taken all of this diversity and made it into one country. And we have a few things that unite us: our common history, the principles of our founding documents, and our common language. If we should lose that, we would be a United Nations, not the United States of America. This is important because this is the emotion which underlies most of the immigration debate we are having. The concern among many Americans, other than the rule of law which has to do with securing the border, is to make sure that those who come to our country become Americans. And we do not do that by race, we do not do that by ethnicity, we do not do that by what country an immigrant comes from, we do it by a few simple uniting ideas: our founding documents, our common history, and our common language. This has been true for a long time in our country. When a legal immigrant comes to the United States--and this has been the law for 100 years--and he or she applies to become a citizen, he or she must, by law, demonstrate an eighth grade level of understanding of the English language. It was 150 years ago we founded common schools. We call them public schools today. Albert Shanker, the former head of the American Federation of Teachers, said the reason for the common school was so we could teach mostly immigrant children to read and write in English, to do math, and what it means to become an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. We have always known it is important as Americans to have a common language because that is how we can communicate with one another. Immigrants to our country understand this. That is why they come here. They want to be part of our country that shares the values of liberty and equal opportunity. They want to contribute to our history of striving toward those values. They want to learn our common language, and usually do, as evidenced by long waiting lists for a number of English as a second language adult education courses across our country. That is why this Senate, just a few weeks ago, passed an amendment to the immigration bill by a vote of 91 to 1 to help legal immigrants learn English and to allow those who become fluent in English to become American citizens 1 year faster. We value our common language. It isn't an argument that is hard to understand. In fact, when I first announced this resolution, the first supportive e-mail I received in my office came from Mr. Ramon L. Cisneros, the publisher of La Campana, a Spanish-language newspaper in Nashville with 18,000 subscribers. He wrote: . . . Thank you for this resolution. We are Hispanic Americans and sometimes we write in Spanish for the benefit of those newcomers who are in the process of learning English. However, our common language as Americans is and will always be English. And our national symbols should always be said and sung in English. I didn't ask Mr. Cisneros to write to me, but I am glad he did. He is proud of his Hispanic heritage. He performs an important service for Hispanics in the Nashville area, which is a growing part of our State, but he is also a proud, patriotic American. Our country is enriched by citizens like Mr. Cisneros. I am puzzled by the reaction from some of my colleagues in the Democratic Party who seem to want to endorse the idea that we should sing the national anthem in some other language and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in some other language. We salute the American flag. We pledge allegiance to the United States, and we speak in our common language. That is how we unite ourselves. Also, we might do a little bit better if we taught more U.S. history and civics in our public schools, which is another subject I have been working on with strong support on the Democratic side from Senator Kennedy, from Senator Reid, and especially from Senator Byrd. I might note that in the House of Representatives, some Democrats have already chosen to cosponsor this same identical resolution. It has been offered by Congressman Ryun of Kansas. I have a hard time understanding why Democrats in the Senate are not supportive. Maybe I just made a mistake. Maybe I misunderstood what has happened. So let me try once again. I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 458 be discharged from the Judiciary Committee; further, that the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask that the resolution and preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration en bloc of the following nominations: No. 617, Brian Cogan, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York; No. 618, Thomas Golden, to be U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I further ask consent that the following Senators then be recognized to speak: Senator Specter for 5 minutes; Senator Leahy for 5 minutes; Senator Santorum for 5 minutes. Further, following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes on the confirmation of the nominations in the order listed above; provided that following the votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.