Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 4, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, across the country today, thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, are marching in a nationwide rally. Many are saying that they, too, want to become Americans. But I am afraid the message is quite literally getting lost in translation. As part of these demonstrations, a new version of our national anthem, ``The Star-Spangled Banner,'' has been produced--in Spanish. According to an article in the Washington Post on last Friday, at least 389 different versions of our anthem have been produced over the years in many musical styles, including rock and roll and country, but the Post also noted that never before has it been rendered in another language. This may be a first, but it is a big first step in the wrong direction. It is a mistake precisely because our Nation is a nation of immigrants. Almost all of us are descended from immigrants from Britain or Germany or Italy or France or China or Mexico or some other country around the world. Our forefathers who came from these many different countries spoke many different languages, but in coming here they agreed to speak one common language, one language to unify us as a nation, one language so we can all speak with one another. And that language is English. In fact, in order for a legal immigrant to become a citizen of the United States, one requirement is that he or she demonstrate at least an eighth grade level understanding of the English language. A century and a half ago, we created common schools--the public schools--so that mostly immigrant children could learn English, learn how to write and read in English as well as to do math, and learn what it meant to be an American with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. Only 2 weeks ago, this Senate encouraged the speaking of English by saying that it would knock a year off the waiting time to become a citizen if an applicant became proficient in English and authorizing $500 grants for people who are legally here who are seeking to become citizens. So for a long time, we have recognized that English is a part of who we are as Americans. It is a part of what unites us, just as we are united by our history and our shared values, such as liberty, equal opportunity, and the rule of law. I worry that translating our national anthem will actually have the effect of dividing us. It adds to the celebration of multiculturalism in our society which has eroded our understanding of our American culture. Ours is a diverse nation, proudly diverse, but diversity is not our greatest accomplishment. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. What makes America unique is that we have taken all that magnificent diversity and turned it into one nation. Translating our anthem into multiple languages also erodes our sense of having a common language that allows us to speak with one another as one nation. Our national anthem is a symbol of all of those things which unite us. It is a product of our history. ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' was written by Francis Scott Key in 1814. Our Nation was then in the midst of the War of 1812. On September, 13, 1814, just a few weeks after the invasion of Washington, British forces began a 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore. Through the day and all through the night, the rockets and bombs flew. And the next day, on September 14, standing aboard an American ship 8 miles out from Baltimore, Francis Scott Key looked and saw the stars and stripes were still waving over the fort, and the British were forced to withdraw. Our flag was still there. I went to see that very same flag a few months ago at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. The museum is in the process of carefully preserving it so that our grandchildren's grandchildren will be able to see the original flag that inspired our national anthem. That flag and song are part of our history and our national identity.

Mr. ALEXANDER. It declares some of our national ideals, in being ``the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' That is why we should always sing it in our common language: English. And that is why today I will introduce, along with Senator Frist, Senator McConnell, and Senators Stevens and Isakson and Roberts, and I hope others, a resolution that affirms that statements of national unity, especially the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem, ought to be recited in English. We wouldn't recite the pledge in French or German or Russian or Hindi or even Chinese, which, after Spanish, is the second most spoken foreign language in the United States, and we shouldn't sing the national anthem in Spanish or any other foreign language. So in conclusion, in this land of immigrants, let's sing it together as one American Nation in our common language: English.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy. This will permit me to chair a hearing at 2:30 on time. I thank the chairman of the Energy Committee and the Senator from Louisiana. May I ask the Chair to inform me when there is 30 seconds remaining of my 5 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Five minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate passed a resolution to designate the week of May 1 through May 6, 2006 as National Charter Schools Week. I was joined in offering this resolution by Senators Lieberman, Gregg, Frist, Carper, Vitter, Landrieu, Burr, Coleman, Allard, DeMint, and Martinez. One of my last official acts as U.S. Secretary of Education in 1992 was to write a letter to every school superintendent in America urging them to create charter schools. That year, the Nation's first charter school had opened its doors in St. Paul, Minnesota. I saw charter schools as ways to remove burdensome rules, regulations, and overhead so that teachers could have more opportunities to use their good judgment to help children and so parents could have more choices of schools. This was the time when General Motors' newest automobile plant was a start-from-scratch facility making Saturn cars. Al Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, said then, ``If we can have a Saturn plant, why not a Saturn school?'' A lot of educators agreed. Today, there are over 3,600 charter schools serving more than 1 million students in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Over half of these schools report having waiting lists, and there are enough students on these waiting lists to fill another 1,100 average-sized charter schools. Charter schools play a unique role in public education by offering students a variety of options to meet their different learning needs and styles. They vary in specific mission and focus, but not in their commitment to excellence and preparing students to succeed. In return for autonomy and freedom from burdensome regulations and policies, they accept strict accountability for academic and fiscal success. If charter schools fail to educate their students well and meet the goals of their charters, they are closed. Charter schools are raising student achievement. Research shows that charter school students are more likely to be proficient in reading and math than students in neighboring traditional schools, and that the greatest achievement gains can be seen among African American, Hispanic, and low-income students. Research also shows that the longer charter schools have been in operation, the more they outdistance traditional schools in student performance. It is worth noting that not all charter schools are high-quality, and not all are outperforming traditional public schools. But charter schools whose students don't perform academically will close--as they should. It is also worth noting the impact charter schools are having on their neighboring traditional public schools. Districts with a large number of charter schools have reported that they are increasing interaction with parents and creating new education programs, many of which are similar to those offered by charter schools. These improvements benefit all our students, not just those who choose charter schools. I am pleased that twelve charter schools have opened in Tennessee since passage of the State's charter school law in 2002. Ten of these charter schools are located in Memphis, where they enjoy critical support from local school officials, dedicated private partners, and philanthropic organizations. Options for Memphis students range from programs for elementary students that stress mastery of reading, math, and foreign language skills to middle schools focused on health sciences and business. High school options include charter schools that emphasize science, liberal arts, or visual and performing arts. I had an opportunity to visit one of these outstanding charter schools, the Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering (MASE), which was the first charter school established in Tennessee. MASE provides an academically challenging program to prepare at-risk students for college through an intensive math, science, engineering, and technology curriculum in grades 7-9, including the first ninth grade AP Biology class in the state. The school was established as an innovative public/ private initiative aimed not only at training a well-educated workforce for the city's rapidly growing bioscience industry, but also helping students excel in a technology-based environment, regardless of the career path they choose. I am impressed by the school's clear record of achievement results. By the end of eighth grade, MASE students--who were failing or at risk of failing in their previous schools--more than doubled their pass rates on State reading, math and science tests compared to their achievement in sixth grade prior to entering MASE. Last year, MASE was the second highest performing school--public or charter--in Memphis, and a University of Memphis study found that MASE seventh graders scored better on the state math assessment than similar students in public schools. Unfortunately, Tennessee's highly restrictive charter school law does not create the conditions that would enable more students to benefit from attending schools like MASE. The law received a grade of C in a recent Center for Education Reform study, which found that higher student achievement and higher-quality, more viable charter schools are found in States with stronger charter school laws. Strong laws grant the power to approve charter schools to more than one entity, including local school boards, State education agencies, colleges and universities, and non-profit organizations. Strong laws also grant greater freedom and independence to charter schools, guarantee full per-pupil funding, and do not restrict the number of schools that may open or students who may enroll. States should take the opportunity during National Charter Schools Week to examine their statutes and ensure that they create the conditions necessary to allow high-quality charter schools, and thereby options for students, to flourish. Charter schools are also a key element of the education revival taking place in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina dealt a devastating blow to a school system already plagued by low achievement and corruption. The city has a truly historic opportunity to transform its education system into a network of high-performing charter schools that could serve as a model for urban education in the rest of the Nation. So far, 25 of 117 public schools have reopened in New Orleans. 70 percent of these schools are charter schools managed by the Recovery School District, the Orleans Parish School Board, or the State Board of Education. New Orleans officials are working diligently to open more schools to serve students as they return to the city. They have been assisted by a $21 million Federal Charter Schools Program grant, which helped reopen charter schools damaged by the hurricanes, create new charter schools, and expand existing charter schools to accommodate displaced students. I am encouraged that Louisiana continues to receive applications to open charter schools in New Orleans, but more work needs to be done to ready facilities for approved schools to accommodate the substantial student enrollment projected for this fall. Charter schools in other parts of the country also leapt into action to serve students impacted by Katrina. After the hurricane, the high- performing Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP), in partnership with the Houston Independent School District and Teach For America, exhibited extraordinary leadership by quickly opening a new charter school in Houston--New Orleans West College Prep--to serve over 300 students in grades K-8 displaced by Hurricane Katrina. According to KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg, ``When there's a problem, we at KIPP roll up our sleeves and look for a solution. Together with the [Houston Independent] District and Teach For America, we hope to provide students not only with a safe haven, but also with a rigorous academic environment. Even if they are not at home, these students will receive a top-notch education with caring, committed teachers.'' Mr. Feinberg's comments exemplify the attitude that motivates so many in the charter school community--that of doing whatever it takes to get the job done. I expect that we will see charter schools continue to expand across the Nation as word of their success spreads. Four years ago, the President signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which contains several programs that support charter school development, and provides school districts with the option of converting low-performing schools into charter schools. As we prepare to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, we'll take a close look at how these programs are performing to ensure that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to help create and sustain viable, high-achieving charter schools. I commend the charter school students, parents, teachers, community leaders and others who, working together, are helping transform our system of public education. I encourage my colleagues to visit a charter school during National Charter Schools Week to witness firsthand the ways in which these innovative schools are making a difference in students' lives and in their communities.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Parity, Platforms and Protection: The Future of the Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution'' on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The witness list is attached. Panel 1: Anita Baker, Performing Artist, Toledo, OH; Todd Rundgren, Lead Singer, The New Cars, Darby, PA; Victoria Shaw, Songwriter, Nashville, TN; Edgar Bronfman, Chairman and CEO, Warner Music Group, New York, NY; Gary Parsons, Chairman of the Board, XM Satellite Radio, Washington, DC; Mr. Bruce T. Reese, CEO and President, Bonneville International Corp., Salt Lake City, UT; and N. Mark Lam, Chairman and CEO, Live365, Foster City, CA.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing to address the reauthorization of Finance and Entrepreneurial Development programs administered by the Small Business Administration on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, beginning at 10:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a field hearing regarding ``Ensuring Early Diagnosis and Access to Treatment for HIV/AIDS: Can Federal Resources Be More Effectively Targeted?''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.-India Atomic Energy Cooperation.

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, April 26, 2006 at 10 a.m., in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the state of the biofuels industry.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Global Climate be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on Marine and Terrestrial Systems.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation's Subcommittee on Technology be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Fostering Innovation in Math and Science Education.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting at 9:30 a.m. to consider the following agenda: Nominations: Richard Capka to be Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, James Gulliford to be an Assistant Administrator, EPA, William Wehrum to be an Assistant Administrator, EPA. Committee Rules: A proposal to amend Committee Rule 7(d) on the naming of public buildings and facilities.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Authorizations of Customs and Trade Functions''.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand the remaining time on the Democratic side is not needed and may be yielded back.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final 10 minutes of debate before the votes at noon be equally divided between the Democratic leader and the majority leader or their designees, with the final 5 minutes reserved for the majority.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I do not suppose there is a row of seats in the U.S. Senate that produces more passion and eloquence than the back row on the other side of the aisle. I enjoyed listening to the Senator from New York and the Senator from Massachusetts on this subject. I was especially struck by the Senator from New York, who spoke about budget deficits and talked about history and talked about an ocean of red ink and made a very impassioned speech. Then, when she got to the end of her speech, she volunteered to be on the list of big spenders that is going to be created at noon, which will be those who vote for the Reid amendment. The Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment are identical. They are about border security. All the Reid amendment does is they took the Gregg amendment, which is a carefully structured approach to try to help maintain our border security on the southwest border, just at its present level, and they just struck out ``Gregg'' and they wrote in ``Reid'' and they did something else: they struck out the way to pay for it. So they are going to pay for it from thin air. They are going to pay for it with cotton candy. There was talk about a brazen smokescreen. That is a brazen smokescreen. That goes on all the time here. I am on the Budget Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is the chairman. We sat in the Budget Committee and voted down--I think it was 17 ``no'' votes--as the Democrats sought to add $128 billion over the next 5 years. Then the debate moved to the floor, and they tried to add $273 billion over the next 5 years. So I guess it is all right to be fiscally irresponsible, but at least you ought to stand up and say: Yes, I am the one doing it. I am the one who has the good idea and then does not want to pay for it--which is exactly what the Reid amendment does. The Senator from New York said: Oh, there must be other ways to pay for it. Why doesn't she suggest one? Why doesn't she cut something? The Gregg amendment does not cut anything. This is a supplemental emergency appropriation for the war on terror. The war on terror is mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the Middle East, but it is also along our southwest border. I believe the Senator from New Hampshire believes that, and I believe most American people believe that. I believe it is appropriate to include that with the additional money that we are appropriating to support our men and women in uniform. So the false choice--the false choice--is to stand up and say: We want to support border security, but we have no money to pay for it. That puts you on a list of big spenders. So as it stands today, the Gregg amendment is the responsible amendment. And the Senator, I am sure, will speak, as I have spoken earlier, on exactly what it does to help maintain our current infrastructure. The Reid amendment is the identical amendment, except it is a smokescreen. There is no way to pay for it. So as to the list of those on the Reid amendment, those votes will be a handy list of big spenders, which can be taken to your blog, which can be taken to your dinner table. And when somebody says: Who is it in Washington who keeps coming up with these good ideas but then never pays for it with real dollars, and so as a result we have runaway spending, then you will have a list of people who do that. This is not about the last 5 years. It is not about the next 5 years. It is about today's vote: the Gregg amendment, which is the border security paid for amendment; or the Reid amendment, which is the same amendment not paid for. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, there will be a rare opportunity about noon on the Senate floor. There will be a chance for the American people to have for themselves a handy list of big spenders, something they can put on their blogs, something they can put in their newsletters, something they can speak about at the dinner table, something they can read to friends. There is always a lot of talk around here about who is responsible for the fact that the Federal Government is spending more money than it ought to. We are about to see a good example of who is responsible for that, if things go true to form, because we will have two amendments before us at noon. One is by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and one by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Reid. Both of them are border security amendments. There will not be very many votes in this body, I suspect, against border security. I want to speak about border security because the Gregg amendment takes very important steps to maintain our current level of security on the border, which is a minimum level of security. I am proud to cosponsor that. And the Gregg amendment pays for it by taking money from other parts of the President's budget. That is the Gregg amendment. The Reid amendment, as I understand it, which we will be voting on side by side, does identically the same thing on border security the Gregg amendment does, except it pretends that money comes out of thin air, that it grows on trees, that it comes from nowhere. It is the thing we see time and time again around here, whereby someone comes up with an essential, good idea but with no way to pay for it. So we print the money, make it up, and the runaway spending goes on and on. I wish to talk this morning a little bit about those two issues-- first, border security, the subject of the Gregg amendment and why I believe it is essential that we adopt it as part of the supplemental appropriations bill that is before us. I also want to talk about the difference between how it is paid for so the American people can get ready to make their handy list of big spenders because those who vote for the Reid amendment will be on a handy list of big spenders because that amendment is not paid for. Let me start with the Gregg amendment and the condition of border security. Americans are angry about border security, or the lack of it. They have a right to be angry about border security, or the lack of it. That is not the responsibility of the Governor of the State of Arizona or the Governor of Texas or the Governor of California. It is a Federal responsibility. Immigration is our job. Border security is our job. It is a Washington job and it is a job that has been neglected for a long period of time. At least to the credit of the majority leader, he has forced this Senate to deal with this issue and we are in the middle of it and we ought not rest nor go home again until we deal with the issue of border security. There are a lot of other issues that do not have to deal with immigration. How many temporary students do we want here in the United States? We have 572,000 of them today. They are an important part of our country, contributing to our standard of living. When they go home, they usually spread our values and our good will better than any foreign aid ever has. We have about half a million people who are here each year and we give them new temporary worker status. It is important to have them here as well, because in a vibrant, growing economy, we need more workers. We have an important debate to have about what to do about the 10 to 12 million people who are illegally here, and what I think is the most important part of the whole immigration debate and that is how do we make sure those who are not citizens of this country are, for the most part, becoming Americans so we do not leave this country a large enclave of people whose allegiance is to some other country. We are a big country, 300 million people. We have about 30 million people, or 10 percent of us today, who are noncitizens--about two- thirds legally here and one-third of those illegally here. But we need to make sure that for the most part, people who are here who are not citizens are learning English, are learning the saga of American history, are learning about our founding documents and are willing to take the oath which foreswears allegiance to where they came from and adopts allegiance to this country. There are many important debates about immigration, but there is nothing more important than border security. Border security is the first issue before us because it is based upon the bedrock principle of the American character which is the rule of law. Most families who have come to this country are immigrant families. Almost all of us descend from those. Most of those families, in addition to wanting to make a dollar, wanting to improve their lives, wanting to gain freedom, wanted to come to a country where there is the rule of law. They did not want to live in some other country where some potentate could snatch you out of your bed in the middle of the night and, based on the whim of that ruler, decide your fate. Or where a contract that you made would be decided by some person, not by the rule of law, and where some people are higher than the law and some people lower than the rule of law. They wanted to come to this country, the United States, which honors the rule of law and upholds the rule of law. Yes, people came here because they wanted freedom. They wanted to be able to drive across State lines, but they expected to have to stop at stop signs. They wanted to come to a country where they were free to make contracts with whomever they wanted, but they expected the contracts would be enforced. They wanted to come to a country where they have second amendment rights to own a gun, but they expected they wouldn't be allowed to shoot people with that gun. This has been a country with the rule of law, and we have been ignoring that for the last number of years by looking aside while millions and millions of people stream back and forth across our borders illegally while millions of other people patiently wait in line, attesting to their good character, learning at least eighth grade English, passing a test on American history, waiting for 5 years, and preparing themselves to take an oath where they foreswear their allegiance from where they came and pledge allegiance to the United States. Those people are bypassed by these people running back and forth across the border. It is unfair to them. Principally, it is an offense to the principle of the rule of law. There may not be anyone in this Chamber who does not agree with the principle of the rule of law and that we ought to secure and control our borders. If we believe that, we ought to do it. I am growing increasingly to think that Senator Isakson is right as he suggests that the first thing we ought to do in this immigration debate is secure our borders, perhaps allow the President to certify they are secured, and then begin to deal with temporary workers and other issues that come up. In any event, we want to secure or borders. That is why the Gregg amendment is so important. Senator Gregg has proposed we provide $1.9 billion in emergency funding as a critical investment in border security in this supplemental appropriations bill which is now before the Senate. This is an integral component of the war on terror. Key critical capital improvements that are part of this bill include: No. 1, stemming the tide of illegal aliens entering the country; No. 2, ensuring that terrorists and weapons of mass destruction are not capable of slipping through our arguably porous borders; No. 3, decreasing the illegal drug flow. The subject matter of the debate, the bill before the Senate, is an emergency appropriation for the war on terror. This is an integral part of the war on terror except that the border is on our southwest border and not somewhere in the Middle East. It is at home. It is part of what we ought to be talking about. Here are a few examples of exactly what the Gregg amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor along with others, would do. These are improvements necessary to secure our borders. For example, we have an outdated fleet of aircraft. The P-3 fleet which serves as our border security's primary air surveillance is over 40 years old, 20 years beyond the average life of this type of plane. Last month, the entire fleet was grounded due to safety issues uncovered during a routine inspection. The entire fleet needs to be overhauled to extend its service life. Example No. 2, outdated vehicles. Nearly 1,700 vehicles are virtually unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme environments and hard use, forcing border patrol agents and investigators to use vehicles with a high breakdown rate. Example No. 3, lack of sufficient patrol boats. There are not enough patrol boats today, resulting in fewer patrol boat hours now than we had in 1998, about half the number of hours needed to meet the mission requirement. Next example, lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect 3 out of every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by a patrol aircraft, we stop 75 percent of them. More aircraft are needed to act on intelligence regarding human and drug smuggling activities. Next, unmanned aerial vehicles. We have only one unmanned aerial vehicle operating along our southwest border. In 7 months it has assisted in the apprehension of over 1,000 aliens. Yesterday morning it crashed while surveying the Arizona border. The department has only begun to grapple with how to replace this surveillance capacity until the next unmanned aerial vehicle is delivered in August. The department indicates that up to 18 are needed. Armed helicopters is another example. So the $2 billion increase in border dollars will replace--or repair, when that is sufficient-- outdated vehicles, aircraft, helicopters, and boats. The money will also be used to improve law enforcement communications. The point I am seeking to make is that these essential capital improvements on border security, the $1.9 billion this year, which is in addition to the amount of money that Senator Gregg and this Congress added to the budget in the last two budgets, will make capital improvements necessary to merely maintain our current capacity to enforce our borders. There is no need to pass any kind of immigration bill unless we have both the authority and the money to secure the borders. We should want to send a clear signal to the American people that before we establish a system of temporary workers and confirm our system of student visas and put into place other applications to help people legally here become American citizens, we should make sure we are doing our job of ensuring that border is secure. Let me talk about the money. There are a great many urgent ideas expressed in the Senate. That is what we are for: Let ideas percolate, ideas that need resolution, debate them and solve them. It is a wonderful system. The more I travel and see the rest of the world, as I have over my lifetime, the more I admire the system we have, messy as it often is. The No. 1 issue that might light up the switchboards would be border security. I judge No. 2 would be runaway Federal spending. That is why I say it is important for those paying attention to this debate to be ready to make a list of big spenders. For those who believe in voting for a good idea but then getting the money out of a tree or up off the ground or out of some imaginary printing press to pay for it, that is why we have a big Federal deficit. We vote for a big idea, and then we do not pay for it. Senator Gregg pays for it. He does it by saying we will take the $1.9 billion from the 2.775 percent reduction in the $69 billion in funding provided for the Department of Defense in title I, chapter 3, and title II, excluding military construction money. Senators Cochran, Stevens, and Frist all believe that leaves the committees with sufficient flexibility to support our needs in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as our needs along the border. The President has said he will veto a supplemental appropriations bill that just balloons to the sky, that goes over $92.2 billion. The letter came last night, and it does not say ``advisors predict'' or ``someone said.'' It says the President will veto anything over $92.2 billion. I intend to support the President if he does have to veto. I hope we will be fiscally responsible. The Democratic amendment takes $106 billion and adds another $2 billion to it for this good idea, border security. The Gregg amendment says let's pay for it out of funds we have, keep it within the budget. At noon today, we will have a chance, No. 1, to vote for border security. That is essential. Both amendments do the same thing. The second thing we have a chance to do is compile for the country a list of big spenders, those who believe in taking the money out of the air somewhere, printing it in a printing press. You can do a lot of talking, but if you do not offset the dollars, you are a big spender and you go on the list. Perhaps one should be proud of being on such a list, but I would rather vote with Senator Gregg, which is why I am cosponsoring his amendment rather than the Democratic leader's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield to myself 15 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if, through the Chair, I might ask the Senator from New Hampshire a question. Typically, a piece of legislation that is paid for has a better chance of making it all the way through to the end than a piece of legislation that is not paid for; is that not correct?

Mr. ALEXANDER. There is some talk about a brazen smokescreen on the other side. I suggest the brazen smokescreen might be to first stand up and say we are going to have more border security but we are not going to pay for it, and then turn around 30 seconds later and claim to be the guardians of fiscal responsibility. You can't do that. That is a smokescreen. Another way to have a brazen smokescreen might be to stand up and make an impassioned speech and say: Let's spend $2 billion for border security without paying for it, knowing full well that many amendments that are not paid for then get lost somewhere in the process and never are passed. And then the American will people say: What happened over there in the Senate? I saw them say they were for border security, but the money never came through. The American people want us to maintain the border, pay for it, and do it. The Gregg amendment does it. The amendment offered by the distinguished Democratic leader does not.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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 Monday, April 24, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding the economic and environmental issues associated with coal liquefaction technology and on implementation of the provisions of the energy policy act of 2005 addressing coal liquefaction.