Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 14 years ago, when I was the U.S. Secretary of Education, I received an invitation to the annual Italian- American dinner in Washington, DC. To tell the truth, I really didn't want to go because there are lots of dinners in Washington, DC, and the hours were long when I was working in the President's Cabinet. I wanted to stay home with my wife and children. But that year, 1992, the dinner was in honor of my law school roommate, Paul Tagliabue, who is known to most Americans as the commissioner of the National Football League and the person who likely will be presiding over his last NFL draft this weekend. So I decided I would go to this one more long, I expected, Washington, DC, dinner in honor of my friend Paul Tagliabue. When I got there, the place was bursting with enthusiasm. Nobody could have doubted that it was the Italian-American dinner. Italian-ness was everywhere. Stallone was there, Pelosi was there, Justice Scalia was there and, of course, the National Football League commissioner Paul Tagliabue was there. It was wonderful, and I was delighted that I went. The room was filled with emotion. But the reason I tell this story is that the height of emotion on that emotional evening was when everybody in the room paused, put their hands over their hearts, and said the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and sang ``The Star-Spangled Banner.'' There were a lot of tears at that moment. The point of it is that in that room of people who were so proud of the country of Italy, from where they had come or their parents or grandparents had come, and there was no mistaking that they were proud to be from Italy, but they were prouder to be American. I mention that because this week we will begin to discuss immigration again. I believe we are missing the fundamental issue in the immigration debate. Of course, border security is important. Of course, a proper allocation of temporary students and temporary workers is important. There will be a lot of debate about what defines amnesty in any sort of legislation. But I believe the real underlying emotion in the immigration debate, the part that we are missing, is the question of how many new men and women can we absorb at one time in this country. How many men and women can come into this country and become Americans and accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship? I believe what underlies a lot of the emotion, a lot of the concern about the debate we are having, is that Americans are afraid that we may be exceeding that limit. They want to make certain that almost all of those who come to live here expect sooner or later to become Americans, to accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. My rough calculation is that, in a country of about 300 million people who live in the United States of America today, about 10 percent of us are not citizens of the United States. We have about 570,000 students from other countries. They are welcome here. They help improve our standard of living while they are working here, and when they go home, they usually spread our values better than any foreign aid we have ever passed. We have about 500,000 temporary workers of one kind or another who are important to our free market system. We have 11.6 million permanent legal residents, people with so-called green cards, some of whom are on their way to becoming citizens. But an increasing number of them are not electing to become citizens of the United States. Then we have 10 million or 12 million people who are illegally here. They are here mostly to work. Some estimates are that they comprise about 5 percent of our workforce. So, all in all, that is probably more or less 30 million people of the 300 million of us who live here who are not citizens of the United States, and there are another 2 or 3 percent of us who are dual citizens, citizens of the United States and of another country. An important part of this debate is, how many is too many? We know the benefits of immigration in the United States of America. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and we say that proudly. That spunk, bravery, and courage that caused people to come and still come to our country has defined our character. No other country in the world believes anything is possible, that anyone of any background can rise to the top. My grandfather, who was a railroad engineer, used to say: Aim for the top, there is more room there. Most people think that is a silly statement. But we don't. That is an essential part of the American character. A lot of it comes from being a nation of immigrants. The diversity that comes into our country because of immigration makes our country more interesting. I once heard Robert Mondavi, the famous California winemaker, say that--and excuse me in Iowa for saying this-- 20 years ago we could not get a good meal in Des Moines, and into Des Moines came people from different cultures and different countries, and they brought their own recipes. And what makes the food so good today in Des Moines, said Mr. Mondavi, is not that one was an Indian dish or a Sri Lankan dish or a French dish or a Colombian dish, but they mixed it together and created an American cuisine. The diversity brought to us by people regularly coming to our country makes a difference. And then the patriotism that comes from those who become new citizens enriches us. Our most patriotic citizens are often those who have just become citizens, reminding those of us who have been here, as our family has for seven, eight, nine generations, that it is nothing to be taken for granted. As our population growth reduces in this country, and in our free market system as we produce a disproportionate number of the new jobs here, we find new workers coming into our country, whether they are skilled workers helping to win new jobs or win Nobel Prizes or whether they are unskilled workers who add to our free market system. We know the value of immigration to the United States. We know two other things as well. One is that those who come here expect to come to a nation that honors the rule of law. In many cases, immigrants have come here fleeing a nation that didn't have rule of law, where you might be ordered to this place by the whim of a dictator or a potentate or someone who was above the law. That is what most people are fleeing from--nations and countries without the rule of law. It is important that we honor the rule of law here. New Americans, new people who come to live here understand very well that they have the freedom to drive across State lines, but they cannot run a stop sign. They have the freedom to make contracts with whom they please, but they have to keep the contract. They have a second amendment right to own a gun, but they cannot shoot anybody. This is a nation that honors the rule of law, and new immigrants and those who are already here understand that. The other thing is that new people coming into our country for the most part understand as well as we do, those of us who are already here, that we are a nation based upon an idea. We are not a tribe. We are not a racial culture. Our ancestry isn't what's most important to us. What matters to us most is the motto that is engraved in stone above the Presiding Officer's desk, ``E Pluribus Unum''--from many, one. This country's most magnificent accomplishment is that we have taken people from all different parts of the world and turned this into one Nation. We have done this by insisting that new citizens become Americans. Becoming American--those two words have always been serious business in this country. In Valley Forge in 1778, as I mentioned on this floor several times, George Washington and his officers took an oath whereby they renounced their allegiance to their former ruler--King George III--and pledged their allegiance to this new country. Ever since then--since 1795 at least--the oath of allegiance that new citizens have taken has been essentially the oath of allegiance that George Washington and his officers took. They didn't renounce--in the case of those at the Italian-American dinner--their Italianess; they are proud of that. But they renounce loyalty to the Italian government and pledge allegiance to this country. They are clear about that, and we have been clear about that for more than 200 years. When we have large numbers of new people coming into our country, as we did just 100 years ago, which was the last time we had such a large percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States, we went to great efforts to try to help them become Americans. Albert Shanker, the late president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said in a meeting in Rochester, which I attended, that the common school, our public school, was created primarily for the purpose of helping immigrant children learn the three Rs--reading, writing, and arithmetic--and what it meant to be an American, with the hope they would go home and teach their parents. The common school was an ``Americanizing'' institution. So was Ford Motor Company 100 years ago, as were many businesses. Robert Putnam, in his book ``Bowling Alone,'' talked about how in this country civic associations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, and Rotary Club were all set up with the idea of reminding ourselves--those who are already here--to help new people coming into our country learn what it means to become an American, to learn our common language, learn our history, and to learn the principles that unite us as a country. Other countries now are looking at the American experience and wishing they had some of it. Last year, France and England experienced great difficulties with the bombing in the London subways and the riots in France. What was it about? It was about people who had come from other countries to live in France and England and who didn't feel part of the country. They wanted to feel French; they wanted to feel English. People are starting to think how do you become French or English or German, when 5 or 6 years ago you had to be the son or daughter of a German in order to be a German. How do you become Japanese or Chinese? That is a foreign concept in most countries. It is hard to become German or French or Japanese. But to become a citizen of the United States, you must become an American. We don't want to lose that. That should be the central focus of any immigration debate on the floor of the Senate. I was in Rome last week, and I visited with our Ambassador to Rome, who is the grandson of an Italian immigrant. He said they have formed a council there in Italy to try to deal with the problem of how do you become Italian because Italy needs more people. It has a population of 58 million, the second lowest birth rate in Europe, the largest percentage of elderly, 2.9 million legal immigrants, over 500,000 illegal immigrants, increasingly Muslim. A large number of Muslims--1.5 million--who live there don't feel they are a part of Italy. If Italy doesn't have people coming from other countries, the number of people who live in Italy will go down and down and so will their economy. They formed a council in Italy. Four people who were Muslims and who live in Italy were sent to the United States, and one who came back--a woman from Algeria who came to Italy when she was 14 and is now 30--said to our Ambassador to Italy: For the first time, I feel Italian. He asked why. She said: When I went to America, the Muslims I met there felt American. They may be against the war in Iraq, but they all thought of themselves first as Americans. That is a concept which we don't dare lose. All of us know that the importance of becoming American has been gradually diminishing in our culture, especially since the 1960s. Our schools don't teach U.S. History in the way they once did and in the way they should. In fact, the lowest score our high school seniors have on national tests is not in math, not in science, it is in U.S. History. Our colleges don't require a course in U.S. History. Our colleges of education don't turn out very many teachers of U.S. History. In an age of globalization, some people say, well, nationality doesn't really make much difference. Increasingly, official business in States and counties is conducted in more than our common language, English. Even some of our political leaders extol diversity over unity. They extol the pluribus over the unum. Make no mistake, diversity is important to the United States. It is a great advantage to us, but diversity is not our greatest strength. Jerusalem is diverse. Iraq is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Our most magnificent accomplishment and greatest strength, and one we should not forget during this debate, is that we have taken all this diversity and formed it into one nation. That is why I was pleased to see that the Senate adopted, before the immigration bill got off track, an amendment I proposed with a number of other Senators that would help prospective citizens become Americans. It would do it in a number of ways. In the first place, it would raise to the level of law George Washington's oath, slightly rewritten, the same oath that a half million to a million new citizens have taken every year, an oath that recognizes that someone has waited that 5 years, learned English to an eighth-grade level, passed a test in our history, demonstrated their good character, and said: I foreswear allegiance from where I came, and I pledge allegiance to the United States. The amendment, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, would also create grants to prospective citizens who needed help learning English. It would reduce from 5 years to 4 years the amount of time you need to wait to become a citizen if you were fluent in English. That is a level higher than eighth grade. It would create a foundation to help with grants to encourage the teaching of civics and English in the same way that we did throughout civic organizations 100 years ago in this country. In addition, we should also look carefully at other parts of what we do in our Government. We should have more support for English as a second language in the schools. We should not have waiting lines of adults who want to learn English in this country, our common language. People want to learn it. We should help them. We should have more summer academies for outstanding teachers and students of American history and civics. This Congress approved that for the first time last year. We will have two this summer. We should have many more. And we should do more teaching through the traditional American history program that Senator Byrd and others put into the No Child Left Behind Act. Those things do cost money, but in a $2.6 trillion budget, surely we can find something to take out so we can put those things in because nothing, I submit, is more important than making sure our children know what it means to be an American and to know that our new citizens do as well. I am here today to remind myself and my colleagues of that story of my visit to the Italian-American dinner 14 years ago. I wish every Member of the Senate could have been there. I wish they could have seen the pride in the Italian-ness of all there to honor Paul Tagliabue, Justice Scalia, now the ranking Democrat in the House Nancy Pelosi, and Sylvester Stallone. It is important to be reminded that in that room, the greatest emotion was for the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America. They may be proud of where they came from, but they are prouder of where they have come. I will ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed, one entitled ``Citizenship is the Key'' by Noah Pickus, who is the associate director of the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University and who writes about the importance of hometown associations in the United States that link immigrants to their native community and culture while serving as a vehicle for engagement with American society. He says: All of these approaches--new citizenship processes, new structures and strategies for incorporation and new coalitions--can focus our attention on the important and difficult work of building a nation here at home. And secondly, an article from the Memphis Commercial Appeal about the teacher Christine Byrd who teaches children in Memphis who don't know English, our common language of English, and she wrote down what immigrant children have told her about their first impressions of America. It reminds us of the strength and vitality of new people coming here. ``You can take a shower with hot and cold water running at the same time,'' said a third grader from Sudan. ``You can have a fluffy towel to dry after a shower,'' said a first grader from Nigeria. ``You can go to school for free,'' said a student from Vietnam. ``You can go to a pet store and buy a pet,'' said a student from China. ``You can be rescued by the [Transportation Department] on the freeway,'' said a student from Vietnam. ``You can have ice cream any time you want,'' said a student from China. I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the whip. I have three or four remarks on another subject.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the whip. May I be granted time to finish my remarks?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, dated April 18, entitled ``Democracy by Decree.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, 25 of us in the Senate have introduced S. 489, a bipartisan piece of legislation--Senators Kyl and Cornyn on the Republican side and Senators Pryor and Nelson on the Democratic side, and a number of others--to try to put some reasonable limits on the use of Federal court consent decrees that take away from elected officials and State and local government the right to make policy decisions that they make so they can get on with their business without undue interference from the courts. It is based on a scholarship book called ``Democracy by Decree'' by two former lawyers for the National Resources Defense Council, David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandler. Their scholarship has been applauded by a broad range of people, including former New York City Mayor Ed Koch and former Senator Bill Bradley. It talks about the importance of taking Federal court consent decrees, which can be very useful tools, and making certain they don't last forever. To use a one-paragraph example: In New York, a 1974 federal consent decree has mandated bilingual education in the city's schools for more than 30 years--even though many parents want no part of it. In Tennessee--my State--a Federal consent degree from 1979 prevents the state from requiring generic, rather than brand-name, drugs for Medicaid patients despite the fact that this is standard practice for many private drug plans and other State Medicaid Programs. While the State waited for a Federal court to decide how much it wanted to intervene, it was costing the State enough to give every Tennessee teacher that year a $700 pay raise. And in Los Angeles, a 1996 consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to spend 47 percent of its budget on city buses no matter what the MTA deems to be its priorities. In the House of Representatives, the Republican whip, Roy Blunt, is the principal sponsor. Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Nashville, is the principal Democratic sponsor. Representative Cooper says this bill is about keeping democracy fresh. It has had hearings in the Senate. It is scheduled for markup. It is a good, reasonable bill. It is making progress in the House. We are going to have to bring the growth of Medicaid spending under control over the next several years. We cannot ask State governments to do that unless we give them more authority over their own decisions. This bill would help do that. I call this editorial to the attention of my colleagues. I thank the Republican whip for granting me this extra time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Choices for Seniors Act. My colleague from Tennessee, Representative Blackburn, has taken the lead in the House of Representatives, and I am proud to join with her by introducing this bill in the Senate. Our legislation is about giving seniors a new health insurance option by making it easier for them to create or continue using a health savings account (HSA) after they reach age 65. A growing number of Americans are using HSAs, which allow individuals to save for future medical expenses on a tax-free basis. The money you put into an HSA is tax-deductible, the money in your account grows tax- free, balances can be rolled over year-to-year, and you can take money out of the account tax-free to pay for a wide range of health care expenses. Plus HSAs are portable--you can take them with you from job to job. Many members of the Baby Boom generation are not planning to retire at age 65 and want more health care options. But the problem under current law is that seniors can't continue using health savings accounts after turning 65 because they are penalized if they don't join Medicare. The first penalty is that once you join Medicare, you can no longer make tax-free contributions into HSAs. The second penalty is that if you don't join Medicare, you can't collect your Social Security benefits. The third penalty is that if you delay enrollment in Medicare to a later age, you have to pay more. So, of course, almost everyone joins Medicare when they turn 65 instead of using an HSA for their health care needs. At a time when health care costs are rising sharply, we need to move in the direction of giving Americans more options for getting health coverage at an affordable cost. Rather than forcing people into Medicare at age 65, the legislation that I am introducing today would make it easier for seniors to delay joining Medicare and to continue using health savings accounts. First, you could delay joining Medicare without losing the ability to make tax-free contributions into your HSA. Those who delay enrollment in Medicare would be eligible for a monthly voucher of up to $200 for an HSA. Second, you could delay joining Medicare without losing your Social Security benefits. Third, if you use an HSA, you would not be penalized for putting off joining Medicare until age 70. With these changes, HSAs would become a real option for seniors in Tennessee and throughout the nation. I am a strong supporter of HSAs, which show the promise of holding down health care costs by putting more health care decisions in the hands of individual consumers and families. Health savings accounts only became available in January 2004, but they have seen significant growth in both individual and employer markets. A recent census by America's Health Insurance Plans showed that high deductible health insurance plans (HDHPs) offered in conjunction with HSAs covered 3.17 million people in January 2006, up from 1.03 million in March 2005. This bill is an important step toward giving seniors more options to manage their health care and to allow greater use of health savings accounts. I look forward to working with Representative Blackburn to build support for our legislation in both Chambers of Congress.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Health Care Choices for Seniors Act. My colleague from Tennessee, Representative Blackburn, has taken the lead in the House of Representatives, and I am proud to join with her by introducing this bill in the Senate. Our legislation is about giving seniors a new health insurance option by making it easier for them to create or continue using a health savings account (HSA) after they reach age 65. A growing number of Americans are using HSAs, which allow individuals to save for future medical expenses on a tax-free basis. The money you put into an HSA is tax-deductible, the money in your account grows tax- free, balances can be rolled over year-to-year, and you can take money out of the account tax-free to pay for a wide range of health care expenses. Plus HSAs are portable--you can take them with you from job to job. Many members of the Baby Boom generation are not planning to retire at age 65 and want more health care options. But the problem under current law is that seniors can't continue using health savings accounts after turning 65 because they are penalized if they don't join Medicare. The first penalty is that once you join Medicare, you can no longer make tax-free contributions into HSAs. The second penalty is that if you don't join Medicare, you can't collect your Social Security benefits. The third penalty is that if you delay enrollment in Medicare to a later age, you have to pay more. So, of course, almost everyone joins Medicare when they turn 65 instead of using an HSA for their health care needs. At a time when health care costs are rising sharply, we need to move in the direction of giving Americans more options for getting health coverage at an affordable cost. Rather than forcing people into Medicare at age 65, the legislation that I am introducing today would make it easier for seniors to delay joining Medicare and to continue using health savings accounts. First, you could delay joining Medicare without losing the ability to make tax-free contributions into your HSA. Those who delay enrollment in Medicare would be eligible for a monthly voucher of up to $200 for an HSA. Second, you could delay joining Medicare without losing your Social Security benefits. Third, if you use an HSA, you would not be penalized for putting off joining Medicare until age 70. With these changes, HSAs would become a real option for seniors in Tennessee and throughout the nation. I am a strong supporter of HSAs, which show the promise of holding down health care costs by putting more health care decisions in the hands of individual consumers and families. Health savings accounts only became available in January 2004, but they have seen significant growth in both individual and employer markets. A recent census by America's Health Insurance Plans showed that high deductible health insurance plans (HDHPs) offered in conjunction with HSAs covered 3.17 million people in January 2006, up from 1.03 million in March 2005. This bill is an important step toward giving seniors more options to manage their health care and to allow greater use of health savings accounts. I look forward to working with Representative Blackburn to build support for our legislation in both Chambers of Congress.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that expresses the Sense of Congress that colleges and universities should continue to educate their students about the importance of intellectual property and the harm caused by copyright infringement. I am joined in introducing this resolution by Senators Leahy, Hatch, and Nelson of Florida, and I thank them for their support. The intent of this resolution is to help draw attention to the problem of digital piracy on campus through the use of university computer networks to illegally share copyrighted materials. Efforts to combat digital piracy were bolstered last year when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. That ruling has allowed the movie and recording industries to take additional steps to protect intellectual property and prevent what Justice Breyer described in the Grokster decision as ``no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.'' However, truly stamping out digital piracy requires that we challenge the widespread belief that there is nothing wrong with illegally downloading music and other copyrighted material, and that it doesn't hurt anybody except for rich performers and corporate executives who have plenty of money. I can tell you that's not true because I have personally met with songwriters from Nashville who have explained how illegal downloading has hurt their livelihoods. There are many other Americans without million-dollar bank accounts who have been hurt by copyright infringement as well. The place to start turning that belief around is at our institutions of higher learning. For many students, a college campus is the first place where they have high-speed Internet access and are exposed to technology that allows them to trade copyrighted files with other computer users. At the same time, college campuses are the source of some of our Nation's most valuable intellectual property. The combination of these two factors makes our colleges and universities the ideal place for students to develop a respect for intellectual property and to understand the harm caused by copyright infringement. The resolution that my colleagues and I are introducing today encourages colleges and universities to take a leadership role in educating students regarding the importance of protecting intellectual property, and to take steps to prevent unauthorized downloading on their computer systems. Throughout the country, many schools are already meeting this challenge. In my own State, Vanderbilt University has taken steps to instill respect for intellectual property in its students, while taking action to prevent its computer system from being misused. For example, Vanderbilt has created VUmix, a music downloading service, to help its students understand the digital piracy issue and provide them with a legal alternative. The VUmix service is part of the university's Digital Life Initiative, a comprehensive approach to offering music, film, and other forms of digital media to the Vanderbilt community. Other schools are doing similar things to combat copyright infringement, and this resolution encourages such efforts. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and promote respect for one of America's most valuable assets: its intellectual property.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development. There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I look forward to looking at what he has to say. I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil supply. That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States. The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America. The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we will spend our available money on research and development, as the Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before we clearly understand what we are doing. Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill policy; we need a national energy policy.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we are already beginning to see the results. There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But we could do much more. There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear power is important. That was in the bill. I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean power. Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but it doesn't amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope, finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a comprehensive energy policy. I see the Senator from Massachusetts. We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get from ANWR. My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of his efforts. I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from North Dakota for thinking boldly and focusing on an urgent need for our country. I look forward to studying his proposal and working with him, especially in the areas of conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that we can do more in conservation and efficiency. There is a consensus in the Senate, I believe, that we could do more in research and development. There is a consensus that we could do more in renewable fuels. So I look forward to looking at what he has to say. I think our goal should be within a generation to end our dependence on foreign oil. That wouldn't mean we wouldn't buy oil from Mexico or from Canada or from anyone, really, but it would mean that no other country could hold the United States of America hostage to the oil supply. That is a very constructive suggestion. There is one yellow flag I would wave a little bit, and we can talk about it as it makes its way through the process. The Senator mentioned wind power. In terms of the transportation sector, unless we begin to put these large, giant wind machines on the cars--which I fully expect someone to propose before very long, with a large subsidy--I think we ought to examine carefully just how much money we are already spending on giant windmills because it is a massive tax ripoff to the taxpayers of the United States. The last figures I saw showed that we were now, over the next 5 years, about to spend $3 billion supporting these giant wind machines, which are twice as tall as the football stadium at the University of Tennessee and extend from 10-yard line to 10-yard line and only work when the wind is blowing. They deface the landscape of America. The Senator has suggested a comprehensive policy that sounds very attractive to me, but I would like us to examine carefully, as we go through this, whether it is wise, for example, to extend the renewable tax credit another 2 years because that is just code words for more billions of dollars to the wind industry. They have a very good lobby. They are very effective. But there are other forms of alternative energy, especially regarding fuels, which is what we are talking about when we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is where we use most of our oil, in the transportation sector. I hope we will spend our available money on research and development, as the Senator has suggested, on conservation and efficiency, as the Senator suggested, and on other kinds of fuels--biodiesel, as the Senator suggested--and be very cautious about adding to the wind subsidy before we clearly understand what we are doing. Perhaps the figures aren't right, but the last figures I saw from the Department of Treasury is that the Congress has now authorized $3 billion for giant wind machines. We don't need a national windmill policy; we need a national energy policy.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the Senator's remarks. He has presented this the same way he dealt with the budget issues. He and Senator Gregg did a very good job with that and helped the Senate through a difficult area. The last energy bill, the one in July, was a very good bill because it began to shift our policy toward producing large amounts of low-carbon and no-carbon energy. It takes a while to do that. It is like turning a big ship around. But we are already beginning to see the results. There was more conservation and efficiency in that than we had before, which avoids building new natural gas plants, for example. But we could do much more. There was significant support for nuclear power, which we should do more of. All those who want to solve global warming in a generation should be helping to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our carbon-free energy in the United States today comes from nuclear power. Seventy percent of the carbon-free electricity that we produce comes from nuclear power. There is a growing consensus that we should begin to proceed with that in the United States, and even help India and China avoid dirty coal plants that pollute the area. If we want clean air and low-cost power that is reliable, the approach toward nuclear power is important. That was in the bill. I encourage steps towards clean coal, which would be coal gasification, which would limit the amount of nitrogen and sulphur and mercury that would come from the use of coal--we have a lot of coal in the United States--and research for carbon sequestration. If we could recapture the carbon, we could then use coal for large amounts of clean power. Then we had significant support for renewable energy, for ethanol. The President has now suggested that we extend that to different kinds of ethanol. I am sure there are appropriate places for wind power, but it doesn't amount to much. It is not very reliable. And there is no excuse for spending $3 billion over the next 5 years on gigantic windmills that give big subsidies to investors and scar the landscape when we could be spending it on conservation and efficiency. Of course, what I hope, finally, and in pursuit of Senator Conrad's goal, is that we redouble our interest in the hydrogen fuel cell economy. Major manufacturers are telling me they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars each year in hydrogen fuel cells which will have no emissions except water, and one major manufacturer said to me that his company, one of the largest in the world, would have a commercially available car on the market within 10 years, and that was last year. That seems soon to me. But the sooner that happens--the sooner that happens, the better. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil so that we are not held hostage, and to make sure that we have clean air and to make sure that we do our part not to add to global warming, we should do all these things. We do not need a national windmill policy. We need a comprehensive energy policy. I see the Senator from Massachusetts. We would have to put enough giant windmills to cover 70 percent of Massachusetts to equal the amount of energy in the oil we would get from ANWR. My main purpose is to say to Senator Conrad that I welcome his proposal. It is a serious, thoughtful effort, as is characteristic of his efforts. I wish to ask that we carefully consider where the tax subsidies go before we spend more billions of dollars on a source that is already oversubsidized, that scars the landscape, that only works when the wind blows, that requires large new power lines to be built and that can fend for its own in marketplaces where it is appropriate to be. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the University of Tennessee, Belmont University, and the University of Memphis men's basketball teams all deserve congratulations for qualifying for the men's NCAA tournament this year. The Lady Vols made it to the Sweet Sixteen in women's basketball for the 25th consecutive time. None of those teams made it all the way to the championship, but two Tennesseans who play for the University of Florida did. I want to congratulate them, especially since one is from my hometown, Maryville. Lee Humphrey was Tennessee's Class AAA Mr. Basketball when he attended Maryville High School. He is the school's all-time leader in points and steals. His dad, Tony, a middle school teacher in Maryville, had the key to the gym. And on many nights, Lee and his dad would go to the gym and while Lee took shots his dad rebounded. Apparently, the practice paid off. Dick Vitale said that Lee was the ``X factor'' in the Final Four. In the championship game he scored 15 points, making 4 of 8 shots from the field. Coincidentally, the game was played in the current home stadium of Lee's boyhood idol, Peyton Manning. Lee's teammate Corey Brewer from Portland, TN, was 1 of 24 seniors named nationwide as a 2004 McDonald's All-American player. He scored 29.4 points a game and averaged 12.8 rebounds his senior season at Portland High. He received a lot of honors that year, including being named grand marshal of Portland's Strawberry Festival. Corey has credited his success to hard work in practice and a childhood spent playing sports with his older brother Jason and Jason's friends. He is a role model who returns to Portland and talks to elementary school kids, urging them to study and warning about the dangers of drugs. He follows the lessons he learned from his mother, Glenda, a teacher. Recruited for his tenacious defense as well as his scoring ability, Corey has been a big game player for the University of Florida all year. In the championship game, he scored 11 points and grabbed 7 rebounds to go along with 4 assists and 3 steals. Mr. President, we Tennesseans are proud of our State's basketball teams. We want them to win. But we are also proud of our young scholar- athletes who play for other teams. They are Tennesseans, too, and we want them to know we are proud of their accomplishments.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Objection is heard.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Democratic leader.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The majority leader.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The minority leader.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the agreement be modified to permit the Senator from Alaska to speak for 3 minutes before my 15 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cornyn be allowed the next 15 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl, after which I be allowed up to 15 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona, who has the next 15 minutes, has generously agreed to allow the Senator from Alabama to have up to 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified so the Senator from Alabama has 3 minutes, Senator Kyl has 15 minutes, and then I have 15 minutes after Senator Kyl.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Mikulski.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I believe Senator Kyl and Senator Cornyn are coming to the Chamber to talk. I believe they have just arrived. I defer to Senator Cornyn and to Senator Kyl. We will be voting tonight on an amendment about helping prospective citizens become Americans, those who are legally here. I would like to talk a few minutes about that before 5:30 p.m.