Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Frist and Senator McConnell be added as cosponsors to S. 1815, the Strengthening American Citizenship Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Five minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for allowing me these few minutes. There are a number of grave issues facing our country. The Senator from Virginia has talked about the management of ports. The governors from across America are meeting here to talk about National Guard strength and about the rising costs of Medicare. We are all interested in those issues, but this issue I rise to speak about is one that threatens our national unity as much as any of those graver issues. Let me put it this way: Where is Dave Barry when we really need him? As he would say, what I am about to say to you, I am not making up. Apparently someone has discovered that it may not be true, as is now suggested at the beginning of each airline flight, that using our cellular phones will cause our planes to plunge directly to the Earth. As a result, airlines and cell phone companies, as the presiding officer, who is chairman of the relevant committee, well knows, are encouraging the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the approximately 2 million Americans who fly each day to talk on their cell phones while they are traveling. There are many issues facing our country, but as I say, I can't think of one that threatens our national unity quite so much as this proposal to turn airplanes into cacophonous, steel-sheathed missiles of Babel rocketing through the skies. Imagine squeezing into your 17-inch middle seat between an oversized gentleman shouting into his Blackberry and an undersized teenager yapping into her cell phone, while in front of you a foreign traveler orders dinner and across the aisle a saleswoman lectures her child--all of them raising their voices to be heard. It would be 5 hours of perfect hell from Dulles to Los Angeles--a rising, deafening chorus of ``Can you hear me now?'' In multiple languages. I can promise you that this noisy symphony will cost the airlines money. To begin with, passengers will demand expensive headphones to drown out the noise. These headphones will be twice as expensive to replace when passengers begin wrapping them around the throats of the yapper in the next seat. Not to mention the added cost of the medical bills that will be the result of fistfights or the cost of emergency landings to remove brawling passengers. To prevent these airplane fistfights, the airlines would need to hire three times as many air marshals. And I cannot imagine how many they would have to hire for a long flight to Alaska. Stop and think for a moment about what we hear now in airport lobbies from those who wander aimlessly or stand next to us yelling every imaginable personal detail into a microphone dangling from one ear. We hear them babbling about last night's love life, rearranging next week's schedule, or lamenting their children's behavior. We hear them barking orders to an assistant, dictating messages, or engaging in negotiations. All of this is done, of course, in a loud, unnatural cell phone voice and completely oblivious to those of us nearby who are being forced to learn more about this person than we would ever want to know. An airplane is a close environment, and we are assigned to one seat, strapped in, and limited in our choice of seatmates. We are also limited in the ability to walk around or walk away. I have just one cell phone to turn off for my country, but I will assure you that there are many other airline travelers who will gladly make the same sacrifice. I offer as evidence the statement of a senior member of the House Transportation Committee and former chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, which he made on July 14 of last year; the thoughtful comment by Court Television anchor Fred Graham from USA Today, November 14, 2002; and another USA Today article, this one by Craig Wilson on June 1, 2000. I ask unanimous consent that each of these articles be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, each of these travelers argues for preserving one of the last refuges of privacy--the quiet of an airline cabin where one may read a book, listen to music, sleep, or be left alone. This privacy may not be enshrined in the Constitution, but surely it is enshrined in common sense. If there must be cell phones on airplanes, common sense suggests following Fred Graham's advice: Create soundproof conference rooms in the back of the which passengers may rent for the privilege of yelling into their cell phones. Or perhaps technology itself will rescue us. Perhaps the Federal Communications Commission or airline plane executives in a real outburst of common sense will earn the gratitude of 2 million Americans who fly each day by deciding text messages, yes, but conversations, no. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, these are some of the big ideas in Washington, all of which may be laudable. The idea of freeing high- speed Internet from overregulation and subsidizing it, the idea of national ID cards administered when you get your driver's license so that we can do a better job of protecting our borders, and the idea of reengineering computer systems on college campuses so that it will be easier for us to fight the war against terrorists--all three may be wonderful ideas, but all three amount to unfunded Federal mandates, if they are done the wrong way. I began my remarks by reminding all my colleagues--and especially our colleagues on this side of the aisle, those in the majority--that the Republican Party came to a majority in 1994 on a platform of no more unfunded mandates. Republican leaders said: If we break our promise, throw us out. I don't want us thrown out any more than I want any more unfunded Federal mandates. So my purpose today, as the Governors begin to come to town, is to wave the lantern of federalism a little bit and raise a red flag to remind my colleagues that there is now a 60-vote point of order for any unfunded Federal mandates going through here and that I and others will be watching carefully to make sure that we keep our promise. This is a body in which we debate principles, and one of the most important principles that we assert is the principle of federalism. It does not always trump every other principle that comes up, but my feeling is it has been too far down. I want to raise it up higher, and I intend to use that 60-vote point of order to assert the principle of federalism when unfunded Federal mandates appear on this floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the National Governors Association meeting will be held in Washington during the week we return from recess. That brings back some fond memories for me because I remember the 8 years I served as Governor. Each time we came here, and the highlight of it every year, was a dinner in the White House with the Chief Executive of the United States and the chief executive of each of our States. While the Governors are in town, or as they are coming to town, I want to take the opportunity to wave the lantern of federalism on a few issues under discussion here in the Senate that will affect strong State and local governments. I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about the same issues because his service as mayor made him aware of those issues, just as I was as Governor. During the year after I came to the Senate, when we were debating the Internet tax issue, someone said in exasperation that I had appeared not to have gotten over being a Governor. I hope that can be said on the day I leave here, because most of our politics here in the Senate is about how we resolve conflicts of principles. One of the most important principles upon which our country is founded is the principle of federalism, the idea that we are a big, diverse, complex country and that we need strong States and strong cities and strong counties and strong communities to absorb all of our differences. We are not a small, homogeneous nation and our federalism is absolutely key to our success as a country. I have not gotten over being Governor. It causes me especially to remember how the Republican majority came to power in 1994, a majority of which I am proud to be a part. There was a Contract with America. I wasn't part of the Congress at that time, but I remember it very well. I remember one of the most important aspects of the Contract With America was: no more unfunded Federal mandates. I remember also that a large number of Republicans, along with Leader Gingrich, stood on the Capitol steps and said: If we break our promise, throw us out. Since I wish to make sure our majority doesn't get thrown out, I want to remind all of us, including many who serve in the Senate, who voted in 1995 to stop unfunded Federal mandates, this still is an important part of our responsibilities here. I have three examples of that in our discussions. The Senate recently reaffirmed its commitment to the idea of avoiding unfunded Federal mandates. I suppose I should stop for a moment and explain what I mean by ``unfunded Federal mandate.'' That is a Washington phrase we throw around. Here is the way I understand it. Nothing used to make me madder as Governor--and I daresay it might also be true of the Presiding Officer, who was a mayor--than for some Senator or Congressman to come up with a big idea in Washington, pass it into law, hold a press conference and take credit for it, and send the bill to me to pay at the State capitol. Then the next thing you know, that same politician would be back somewhere in Tennessee making a big speech about local control. That is an unfunded Federal mandate-- when the big idea is here and the law is passed here and then the bill is sent down to the county commissioner or to the mayor or to the legislature or to the Governor and it is said: It was our idea but you pay for it. Ten years ago when Bob Dole was the majority leader, the first thing the new Republican Congress did--it was called S. 1 at that time--was to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It created a new point of order that could be raised against legislation imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State and local governments. Everyone felt pretty good about that because they said this new law will create a so-called penalty flag that can be thrown when some Federal official came up with a good idea, passed it into law, and sent the bill back to us in the States. However, until recently that penalty flag has never been thrown, not in the first 10 years of its existence. However, last year, in our Budget Act, that point of order was given some more teeth. In the budget resolution under which we operate today, an unfunded mandate point of order raised in the Senate requires 60 votes in order to be waived instead of the simple majority required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In October of last year, 2005, this 60-vote point of order was raised for the first time in the Senate against two amendments to an appropriations bill that would have raised the minimum wage. That would have been an unfunded Federal mandate. This new provision was put into the Budget Act by Senator Gregg, who had been the Governor of New Hampshire. It had my support as well as that of a number of other Senators. So I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues, and the Governors as they are coming to town, three issues that are currently under discussion here that raise the specter of unfunded Federal mandates. No. 1 is the taxation of Internet access issue. State and local governments and members of the telecommunications industry, I believe, need to come up with a solution to that question before the current moratorium expires in 2007. No. 2, the Federal Government needs to fully fund the implementation of the so-called REAL ID Act, which we passed last year and which has to do with border security. No. 3, the Federal Communications Commission needs to exempt colleges and universities from expensive new requirements that will require colleges to modify their computer networks to facilitate surveillance, which will have the effect of adding about $450 to every tuition bill across this country. Let's take those one by one. First is the Internet access tax moratorium. My colleagues will remember that after we had a spirited debate that went on for about a year and a half, President Bush signed into law the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. There was a lot of discussion, a lot of compromise, a lot of negotiation. What we were arguing about was, on one hand we wanted to increase the availability of high-speed Internet access to all Americans--that is a national goal--but at the same time we didn't want to do harm to State and local governments by taking away from them, as a part of our act, billions of dollars upon which they relied for paying for schools, paying for colleges, paying for other local services. The bill we came out with at the end of 2004 was a good compromise for several reasons. First, it was temporary, not permanent. It called for a 4-year extension of the Internet access tax moratorium that was already in place, so this one will expire in a year and a half. Second, our agreement allowed States already collecting taxes on Internet access to continue to do so. That was a part of the ``do no harm'' theory that many of us championed. Finally, it made clear that State and local governments could continue to collect taxes on telephone services even if telephone calls are made over the Internet, which they increasingly are. In January of this year, the General Accounting Office released a report interpreting the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. The GAO interpreted the moratorium in a more limited way than what I, and I am sure many of the other Senators, intended when we were drafting the bill. While the interpretation may suit me fine because it goes in the direction I was arguing, the GAO interpretation may demonstrate very clearly how important it is to deal with this complex issue in some other way. That is why it needs to be resolved by representatives of industry and by mayors and Governors working together to suggest to us a path for the future. I understand the National Governors Association has convened meetings with representatives of the telecommunications industry and State and local governments. I hope all the parties will take those negotiations seriously, reinvigorate those efforts, and present us with a workable compromise we can then consider and enact. Let me suggest again the principles that I believe should guide this discussion. No. 1, separate the issue of taxation and legislation. Both are very complex issues that can have serious implications for industry and State and local governments and consumers, but they are not the same effects. The goal should be simplicity. Regulations surely ought to be streamlined to allow new technology to flourish. Voice over Internet protocol or, in plain English, making telephone calls over the Internet, is very different than plain old telephone service, and our regulatory structure needs to recognize that and be welcoming to this change. The goal in taxing the industry should also be simplicity and certainty. For example, a company that operates in almost 11,000 State and local jurisdictions, all of whom might tax telecommunications, might have to file more than 55,000 tax returns a year. No one wants to see that happen and that is far too big a burden for a large company, much less a small startup company. But in searching for a solution, we do not want to do harm to State and local governments. The Senator from California, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Ohio--many Senators pointed out that State and local governments rely heavily today on telecommunications taxes as a part of their tax base. In our State of Tennessee, our Governor said it is a matter of $300 million or $400 million in State revenues. That would be as much money as we would raise from instituting an income tax. It is a lot of money. So we should not take an action in Washington, even for a good purpose, that has the effect of undercutting State and local decisionmaking. My point very simply is, deregulate voice over Internet protocol? Yes. We absolutely should do it. But we must find a way to do it that doesn't force States and local governments to provide subsidies to the telephone companies. If the Federal Government wants to provide a subsidy to the telephone companies, the Federal Government ought to pay for it and not create an unfunded Federal mandate. The second example of the possibility of an unfunded Federal mandate came with the passage of the REAL ID legislation. We are about to enter into a debate about immigration. We hear about it all the time. It is a serious problem. We have 10 million to 15 million people living in our country who are illegally here. That is not right for a country that honors the rule of law, and we have to fix it. One way some have suggested to fix it was the so-called REAL ID law. But the effect of that was basically to turn driver's license examiners in Tennessee and every other State into CIA agents by making State driver's licenses national ID cards, and then forcing the States to pay for it. I don't want to talk today about whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to turn State driver's license employees into CIA agents, or whether we should have a national ID card. The fact is the law says that is what they are going to do and that is what we are going to have. What I want to talk about today is how do we pay for that. REAL ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislators, will cost States $500 million over 5 years to implement. That is $100 million a year. This is not technically an unfunded mandate because the law actually gives States a choice, but here is the choice: In Minnesota or Tennessee or any other State, either upgrade your driver's licenses according to the Federal rules, or your residents will not have the ability to collect their Social Security check or board an airplane. So that is not much of a choice. All across the country, because of the REAL ID law, this is a new responsibility for States and it is going to cost a half billion dollars. Yet in fiscal year 2006, only $38 million was appropriated for States to cover the cost of REAL ID. In fiscal year 2007, the President's budget contains no funding for REAL ID, even though $33.1 billion is to be spent on homeland security. I intend to work this year to see that REAL ID does not become an unfunded mandate. If the Federal Government wants to create a national ID card and they want to force the States to do it, then the Federal Government ought to pay for it. My final example: the Federal Communications Commission needs to make sure that compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, called CALEA, does not become an unfunded Federal mandate on colleges and universities. This CALEA law is a law that communications systems have to be engineered in such a way as to make it easy for Federal agents to subject phone calls to surveillance. In August of last year, the Federal Communications Commission, recognizing that more and more telephone calls are being made over the Internet, extended the requirements of this law to colleges and university computer networks. Implementing this order, according to technology experts, could cost $5 billion to $6 billion, a figure that translates into a $450 increase in annual tuition at most American universities. The pages here who are listening to this are already looking forward to tuition increases when they go to college that are high enough, and they don't need another $450 on top of it. Over the last several years, tuition college costs have increased faster than inflation. Public school tuition jumped 10 percent in 1 year--in 2004. Even though Federal funding for colleges and university has gone up, State funding has been fairly flat. So we have seen a big increase in tuition, and this is another $450. Given these concerns, even though the FCC might have a laudable objective in making it easier to overhear or keep track of phone calls in computer networks on college campuses, if the Federal Government wants to order that, the Federal Government ought to pay for it. I have written to the FCC urging it to exempt colleges and universities from the requirement of August 2005 in order to allow time for the development of an alternative to this $450 tuition increase. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the FCC on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I wish to add to those remarks. This morning I met with a number of Tennesseans here in an event we call Tennessee Tuesday. It is a meeting we have every Tuesday. Senator Frist and I host it for Tennesseans who are visiting Washington, and it is a chance to let them know what we are working on. I talked with them about asbestos. One of my friends on the other side of the aisle began this debate, which should have started earlier, by saying: Why are we talking about asbestos when we have a war, when we have deficits out of control, when jobs are going overseas, when kids are not learning in schools, when Medicaid costs are rising and prescription drug benefits are not being delivered as efficiently as we would like? Why are we talking about asbestos? I think we have an obligation to say to the American people, and to ourselves, we know exactly why we are talking about asbestos. We are talking about asbestos because it has to do with tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of American jobs. We are talking about asbestos because it has to do with whether we are going to retain our preeminence as the leader in the world in competitiveness, whether we are going to be able to lead the world in terms of the standard of living we have. We are talking about asbestos because we have thousands of Americans who have been hurt and who deserve compensation and who cannot be compensated. Asbestos is right where it ought to be. It is at the top of our agenda. We have Democrats and Republicans working together to solve the problem because it is about jobs, it is about America's role in the world, and it is about Americans who have been hurt and who have no way to be compensated unless we decide to help them. Let's take the first point. The FAIR Act, as we call it--and that is a good name for it--is about jobs because since the 1980s, more than 70 companies have gone bankrupt as a result of asbestos lawsuits. These lawsuits have occurred because people were working for those companies and they were exposed to asbestos and many of them died or were seriously ill. More than 60,000 workers lost their jobs since the 1980s because 70 companies have gone bankrupt over asbestos lawsuits. If we picked up the paper and read in the morning that 60,000 jobs had gone to China, there would be speeches made all across this Senate floor about whose fault it was. It will be our fault if we do not solve the asbestos problem and 60,000 more jobs are lost. Those are real, good-paying, manufacturing jobs that will be lost if we do not solve the asbestos problem. My State of Tennessee has its share of those jobs. The auto industry, as an example, has one-third of the manufacturing jobs in Tennessee. We are glad that Saturn and Nissan have come to our state, and that we have gone from a handful of suppliers to nearly a thousand. But those companies, those suppliers, those jobs are at risk if we do not solve the asbestos problems. The FAIR Act is about America's role in the world. It's about our competitiveness. The President talked about that in his State of the Union Address. He talked about it in Nashville. He is now talking about it wherever he goes. We are confident in our ability to lead the world. We know we are only 5 percent of the people and that last year we produced 30 percent of the wealth. We know the rest of the world is eyeing that statistic and saying, If American brainpower and economic conditions produced a growth economy that gives Americans 30 percent of the wealth for 5 percent of the people, we want to emulate that. So we have to work hard every day to make sure we create an environment in this country in which American businesses can grow the largest number of new American jobs. The last thing we want to do is lose American jobs. How do we do that? We keep costs down. We stop runaway lawsuits. We solve the health care problem. We invest in science and technology because 85 or 90 percent of our new jobs since World War II have come from advances in science and technology. That is why we have introduced the Protecting America's Competitive Edge or PACE Act in this Senate, where we have 31 Democrats and 31 Republicans who have signed onto legislation recommended by the National Academies that would invest 9 billion new dollars this year in keeping our advantage in science and technology. We want to stay competitive. According to a report from NERA Economic Consulting, ``Asbestos litigation has damaged U.S. competitiveness.'' For example, if you are worried about asbestos lawsuits, you want to put your plant somewhere overseas and your jobs somewhere overseas, and we lose out. Productivity growth in the United States, according to that report, in asbestos-affected manufacturing sectors has lagged behind growth in their counterparts in other countries by half a percent. We Tennesseans worry about that because we like manufacturing jobs. As I said, one-third of them are auto jobs, and many of them are chemical jobs. We don't like lagging behind. We like our standard of living. That report says we lose $51 billion annually, with a total loss of $303 billion. The dollars are hard to comprehend. But jobs and competitiveness are what we are talking about here. Finally, the FAIR Act is about compensation to Americans who have been hurt. We say the words ``compensation to victims,'' but that doesn't really say it as plainly as ``Americans have been hurt.'' Here is a fact that got my attention. This is one reason I am speaking about this issue. This is the reason I am a cosponsor of the bill offered by Senator Specter and Senator Leahy. Seventy billion dollars has been spent on asbestos litigation through 2002. Asbestos litigation is litigation to help people who have been hurt, who are going to die, in many cases, from asbestos. Nearly 60 percent of that $70 billion was spent on attorney's fees and other transaction costs. In other words, the people who are hurt got 40 percent of the $70 billion. That is not right. In addition, it is taking up to 3 years for victims to collect their compensation as a result of complex litigation. Some businesses have gone bankrupt, so you don't collect from them. Some people have died, so they are in no position to collect. The legal process has taken too long for them, and 60 percent of the money that is collected is going to the lawyers. This is not about plaintiffs' lawyers. Half the money goes to defense lawyers and half to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Whose fault is that? I don't know whose fault it has been, but I will tell you whose fault it will be if we allow this to continue. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Ginsburg both said it to us. They said: We can't fix this problem in the judiciary; the Congress needs to do it. In one case, the Supreme Court said: The elephantine mass of asbestos cases . . . defies customary judicial administration and calls for national legislation. That is us. That is what we are here for. That is why we get the big bucks. That is why we have the salaries. This is a big problem. We are supposed to solve it, and we ought to solve it. We have been trying to solve it. For the last 10 years, some of the best Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have been working on it. I could not begin to name them. I have heard Senator Specter say that Senator Gary Hart, more than 20 years ago, came to see him about it. Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have worked hard, as have Senator Hatch and many other Members. Some of them don't agree about the eventual result, but many of the best Senators are working hard because they see this as a problem of jobs and competitiveness and Americans who have been hurt. Where do we come at this point today? We have a budget point of order against the bill. If the point of order succeeds, the bill fails. Those of us who believe it is our job to solve the asbestos problem won't get to take the next step to actually debate the bill and see if we can bridge our differences and save jobs, improve competitiveness, and help Americans who have been hurt. I urge my colleagues not to let this point of order kill the asbestos legislation because we in Congress are the only ones who can solve this problem properly. I respect the fact that the point of order is being made. But a point of order, as the Senator from New Mexico, the former chairman of the Budget Committee for so long, has said, doesn't automatically kill a bill; it just says to us: Stop and think; consider the point of order. And when we consider the point of order, which is designed for the purpose of making sure we don't slip in the legislation provisions which will cause big expenses in future years, we find this doesn't cause big, unanticipated expenses in future years. In fact, a February 13, 2006 letter from the Congressional Budget Office concludes that ``this legislation would be deficit neutral over the life of the fund.'' So the point of order deserves respect, but this bill does not deserve to be killed by a point of order. I implore my colleagues. We have a job to do. This is a tough piece of legislation. We are divided on our side. We have some who like the trust fund, but we have other Members who like another approach. There are some Democrats who like the trust fund and some who prefer another approach. I believe it is our responsibility to the people who put us here to solve this big problem. It will save tens of thousands of jobs, it can help tens of thousands of Americans who have been hurt, and it will help to assure America's preeminence 10, 15, 20 years from now. I urge my colleagues, don't let the point of order kill the bill and kill our opportunity to solve this problem. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his impassioned advocacy for the people of Montana. I want to make sure he has completed his remarks. I have plenty of time to wait if he has not.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I want to honor Philip A. Francis, Jr., on his promotion as superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and his departure from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Since 1994, Philip A. Francis, Jr., has served as assistant superintendent of America's busiest national park. For more than 11 years, Phil did an exemplary job of keeping the Smokies on track and moving forward during a very dynamic period of the park's history. Phil served under a succession of three different Smokies superintendents and acted as superintendent himself for well over 2 years of his tenure. His leadership provided an essential element of stability to the park's operations and to improving its relationships with its many partners and surrounding gateway communities. In recognition of his organizational management talents and his ability to work with numerous and diverse stakeholders, Phil has recently been chosen to become superintendent of the Blue Ridge Parkway. With over 9 million annual visitors, the Smokies is the most visited national park in the country. But the 470 mile-long Blue Ridge Parkway, with nearly 19 million travelers a year, is the National Park Service's busiest management unit. While at the Smokies, Phil provided oversight and continuity to National Park Service managers at all levels as they negotiated through the complexities of making far-reaching decisions regarding the future of the immensely controversial Cades Cove and Elkmont Historic Districts in the Tennessee portions of the park. And he has played a key role in striving for a resolution to a 60 year-long debate over a proposed new road though the Smokies in North Carolina. Despite the often heated debate among the parties to these contentious discussions, Phil has gained a reputation for his willingness to listen to the concerns of all sides and to look for solutions that recognize their needs while still protecting the park's natural and cultural resources. Phil has also been an influential proponent for the Smokies in communities outside the park's boundaries and in working with its ever- expanding circle of support groups. Since their founding in 1993, the Friends of the Smokies has raised in excess of $15.5 million in support for improvements at the Smokies. By combining Friends support with assistance from the Great Smoky Mountains Association, the park has been able to broaden its educational programs, undertake the world's first all species biodiversity inventory, and expand environmental education opportunities. Phil has been a key participant in helping develop those new programs, and in creating new nonprofit organizations to manage them. In 2002, the National Park Service faced a challenge in finding a new superintendent for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. For those who care about the Smokies, as I do, there was lots of interest in who would be selected. Director Fran Mainella made a great choice when she appointed Dale Ditmanson, and we have grown to appreciate Dale's abilities and passion over the last few years. One of the reasons for Dale's strong start is the help he has gotten from Phil, and I look forward to working with Dale to preserve and carry on Phil's legacy in the Smokies. I join the park's many neighbors and friends in thanking Phil for his hard work and professionalism while at the Smokies. I extend my congratulations and best wishes to Phil on his new assignment at the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the life and contributions of an American civil rights icon, Mrs. Coretta Scott King. Many people know Mrs. King as the wife of one of America's greatest citizens, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King's enduring legacy of nonviolence and his quest for racial equality permanently altered the social fabric of America. Mrs. King will always be remembered as a part of Dr. King's life and legacy that are rightfully celebrated across our great land and throughout the world. However, Dr. King's towering accomplishments should not obscure the fact that Mrs. King held her own historic place in our Nation's struggle for equal opportunity. I am reminded of the time some 20 years ago when Mrs. King came to see me when I was Governor of Tennessee. We were working to establish a holiday in honor of her late husband. It was harder work than it should have been, and I am reminded of how far we have come even since that time. Mrs. King was the founding president of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change which continued to promote the noble philosophies of Dr. King. In addition to promoting the memory of her husband and his great work, Mrs. King created her own legacy as she traveled throughout America and across the globe to champion racial equality, women's rights, religious freedom, health care, and education. We all know that Mrs. King was born in a time when America was very different than it is today. Little Black boys and girls could not go to school with little White boys and girls. Plessy v. Ferguson had not yet been overruled, so ``separate but equal'' was the law of the land. Lynchings were common and in many places the Ku Klux Klan terrorized Black communities, often operating with near impunity. As we look back on the amazing progress we have made since then, we remember those who were responsible for helping America turn away from the sins of injustice and inequality. As a wife, a mother, and a leader of the civil rights movement, Mrs. King showed strength and dignity. With quiet determination, she preserved her husband's legacy and created her own place in the history of our Nation's struggle for equal opportunity.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. The Presiding Officer will be relieved because I am to preside at 3 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate until 3 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today, President Bush made an announcement of something he calls the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. It is part of the President's 2007 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy. In that budget, at a time when there is not much extra money, there is $250 million to deal with the objectives of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Part of the initiative we have heard about before. It calls for advanced technology for nuclear reactors--reactors from which we can produce clean energy, reactors which are smaller than the reactors that we have today that produce about 20 percent of all the electricity we use in the United States. But I want to call attention to a part of the President's proposal which we have not heard much about before--at least from him--that is the part about reprocessing and recycling the fuel that is used in nuclear reactors. That has been something we haven't been doing in the United States for a long time, except in limited cases, and it is something that requires a great deal of attention. My hope is that, while it is a small part of a large budget, the idea of reprocessing and recycling spent fuel from nuclear reactors would have a significant, measured, and careful bipartisan discussion on the floor of the Senate. Even though it is a small part of the big budget, dealing with the issue of reprocessing spent fuel can make a big difference in the solution to a number of large problems. For example, whether we are able to deal with global warming within a generation, the only technology we have, of which I am aware, which will produce large amounts of carbon-free energy which would permit the United States and the world to reasonably hope to deal with global warming in this generation is nuclear power. Even though it is 20 percent of our electricity in the United States today, it produces 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity. Solving the reprocessing and recycling problem which deals with the issue of energy independence--and it has been talked a lot about on both sides of the aisle--if we want to be independent of other countries, we have to have ways to produce large amounts of energy in a clean way. And other than conservation and efficiency, nuclear power, in my judgment, is the only way to do that today. A third area has to do with clean air. We have other forms of energy production such as coal, a very important form, but coal still produces large amounts of sulfur and nitrogen pollution. It produces mercury. The idea of recapturing the carbon and the integrated gasification process of making that coal-produced electricity clean is something we still have a lot of work to do on. Dealing with reprocessing will have a lot to do with solving the problems of proliferation concerns that we have about other countries getting hold of spent fuel and turning it into material that can produce nuclear weapons. We read about it every day in terms of Iran and North Korea. It has to do with a balance of payments in the United States. Some country is going to produce these advanced nuclear technology powerplants. Russia, for example, might produce 30 or 40 of these. When it does, it will have the technology available to sell those powerplants to India, China, and other parts of the world where they need large amounts of energy which is clean. The United States will be left behind if we are not a part of that process. I have mentioned all of these issues as if they were American issues--global warming, energy independence, clean air, proliferation, balance of payments. These are worldwide issues. By one account, 30 percent of pollution in the Los Angeles basin comes from Asia. If India and China aren't able to deal with the global warming issue, with the clean air issues, and with the proliferation issue, every American will be affected. Today, there are about 430 nuclear reactors in the world being used to produce electricity. About 100 are in the United States. We have a classified number--maybe it is about the same--of them which have been used in our nuclear Navy since the 1950s. It is not difficult to imagine a world with 1,000 nuclear reactors. There are 124 nuclear reactors on the drawing board today, or under construction. Until recently, none of those were in the United States. We haven't built one new nuclear powerplant from scratch since the 1970s. It is very odd because we have a large demand in this country for large amounts of low-cost, clean energy. We invented the technology. We have used it in our Navy since the 1950s without a single incident. France is now about 80 percent reliant on electricity from nuclear powers. And Japan, which suffered under our use of nuclear weapons, has used nuclear power to produce electricity. Things though are changing. While nuclear power has some problems, so does every other alternative for producing the large amounts of energy that we and the world needs. Coal, which I mentioned, produces pollutants, and no one has yet produced a way to deal with all of the carbon that is produced by coal to make it the strategy for future. Many environmental groups--I am one of those persons who is hopeful about that--but the idea of recapturing such large amounts of carbon and putting it underground is something we haven't able to do yet. Drilling for new oil produces lots of arguments in this body and close votes. Importing oil produces many resolutions and arguments in this body as well. Wind energy is appealing to some, but you would have to cover up the whole State of Massachusetts to produce what one or two nuclear powerplants would be able to produce. Today, solar energy is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of what we use in America. So we need nuclear power. In order to have nuclear power, we are going to have to deal with the problem of where we put the spent fuel and what we do about proliferation. I am glad that the President suggested in his budget today the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. I am glad he put $250 million in it to advance the idea of processing and recycling. First, we should move ahead with the advanced technology and loan guarantees, the investment tax credits, the risk assurance that was enacted in the Energy bill in July. Second, we should move ahead with research and discussion of reprocessing and recycling so that we can reduce by 90 percent the amount of waste that we would have to store at Yucca Mountain, or similar facilities, and reduce by more than that the heat in that spent fuel. And finally, we should discuss an international protocol so that while other countries such as the United States, Russia, and others might invent the technology for small, new nuclear powerplants, there would be some sort of international protocol that would lease the spent fuel, supervise its processing, and supervise its permanent storage so that we and the world in this generation can deal with global warming, energy independence, clean air, and a variety of other issues that deal with our lives. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act sponsored by Senators Specter and Leahy. The FAIR Act is a bill about American jobs. It will have a substantial effect on a number of jobs at Tennessee manufacturers such as Nissan, Saturn, and Eastman as well as hundreds of their Tennessee suppliers. That is because while it means faster, more efficient resolution of claims for those harmed by asbestos exposure, it also means certainty for manufacturers so that they can spend more of their money investing in their businesses and creating more American jobs. Americans injured by asbestos are waiting too long and paying too much to adjudicate these claims. According to estimates from the RAND Institute, of the $70 billion expended on asbestos litigation through 2002, nearly 60 percent was spent on attorneys' fees and other transaction costs. Put another way, asbestos victims are only getting a little more than 40 cents of every dollar that is being paid out on asbestos claims. In addition, in many cases, these claimants are waiting more 3 years to collect this compensation as their cases wind their way through the tort system. As a result, many of these victims are not able to cover the costs of medical treatments that cannot be delayed. The FAIR Act will help claimants by capping attorneys' fees at 5 percent--and thereby putting 95 percent of the compensation paid out into the pockets of the victims. It will also ensure that victims get a ruling on their claim within 90 to 180 days from the Department of Labor--not 3 years or more. Since the 1980s, the number of companies defending themselves from asbestos claims has risen from 300 to more than 8,400. More than 70 companies have gone bankrupt, resulting in more than 60,000 workers losing their jobs and retirees seeing their retirement funds shrink. In Tennessee, according to the 2002 Economic Census, more than 400,000 jobs are in the manufacturing sector. Without this bill, tens of thousands of those jobs may be shipped overseas as companies struggle to afford the enormous payouts that result under the current system. The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered this issue for more than 20 years. Senator Specter and Senator Hatch before him held numerous meetings with stakeholders and members of the Judiciary Committee. The bill has gone through numerous revisions to accommodate issues raised by parties on all sides. Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have been cooperative, accommodating, flexible, and generous with their time. And they have produced a bill that has garnered support from a broad spectrum of manufacturers, insurers, and claimants. The FAIR Act may not be perfect, but it will start us on the road toward achieving two critical goals: it allow people injured by asbestos to receive compensation quickly and efficiently, without spending years tied up in the courts and losing a large chunk of their award to attorneys' fees; and it will save jobs by giving American companies certainty with regard to the costs of compensating claimants. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senator Bingaman and myself, encouraged by Senator Domenici, to the National Academy of Sciences on May 27, 2005, and a two-page summary of the Domenici-Bingaman-Alexander-Mikulski legislation, which has 54 cosponsors, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. First, there is nothing more important, along with the war on terror, than finding a way to keep our jobs from going to China, India, and other countries around the world. They have figured out how to increase their standard of living, and it has to do with brainpower. What I want to say today is, first, I congratulate Senator Domenici, without whose leadership this would not have gotten to first base. He encouraged Senator Bingaman and I to go to work. He got our meeting with the President. It was he who presided over our homework sessions with the administration. It is he who has taken the leadership with Senator Bingaman on this bill to have 55 cosponsors prior to the President's speech tomorrow night. So I thank him first. Second, I reiterate where this idea came from. It came not from Senators, not from lobbyists, nor from this or that clique. Senator Bingaman and I asked the people who should know--the experts at the National Academies--sthe answer to this question: exactly what do we need to do to keep our advantage in science and technology over the next 10 years so we can keep our jobs? They answered that question with 20 specific recommendations involving kindergarten through the 12th grade education, higher education, basic research, maintaining an entrepreneurial environment. These are ideas that many Senators on both sides of the aisle have advocated for several years, but the fact that the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Academy of Engineering joined together to say ``here is the blueprint'' is the reason this idea has gone so far. What it does is help keep our edge in science and technology. I am looking forward to the President's remarks tomorrow night. It is my hope that he makes the Augustine report and the whole idea of keeping America on top and keeping our edge in science and technology a focus of his speech and of his next 3 years. So it is my privilege today to ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and myself to add as cosponsors Senators Lautenberg, Johnson, McConnell, Snowe, and now Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who have asked to be added to S. 2197, S. 2198, and S. 2199 as cosponsors, as well as Senator Reed of Rhode Island who has asked to be added as a cosponsor of S. 2197, so that we now have 54 cosponsors of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Mikulski, and more than 25 other senators, in introducing the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act--a package of three bills to enhance American brainpower. America is now playing in a tougher league. China and India are competing for our jobs. The best way to keep those jobs in America is to maintain our brainpower edge in science and technology. The story of this bill really began last May, when Senator Jeff Bingaman and I, with the encouragement of Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, asked the National Academies this question: ``What are the ten top actions, in priority order, that Federal policy makers could take over the next decade to help the United States keep our advantage in science and technology?'' To answer the question, the Academies assembled a distinguished panel of business, government, and university leaders headed by Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, that included three Nobel Prize winners. They took our question seriously. We asked them for 10 recommendations; they gave us 20 when they released their report in October. In October, the Energy Committee held a hearing to learn more about those recommendations from Mr. Augustine and the Academies. It was the first opportunity Congress had to hear the Academies' answer to our question. Following those hearings, Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and I convened a series of ``homework sessions'' with members of the Academies, outside experts, and some officials in the Administration. These off-the-record sessions allowed Senators and Administration officials to grapple with the Academies' recommendations and consider how best to implement them. Last November, Norm Augustine led a dinner discussion hosted by Senator Frist with about 30 Senators on the report's recommendations right here in the Capitol. And then, in December, Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and I met with President Bush where he graciously listened to our ideas. The President was very engaged and knew these issues well. Now, as the Senate begins its session for the year, we are introducing this legislation to implement the recommendations of the Augustine Report. Next week, when the President addresses the nation in his State of the Union address, it is my hope that he will make this a focus of the address and his remaining three years in office. This bill is all about brainpower and the relationship of brainpower to good American jobs. The United States produces more than 25 percent of all the wealth in the world (in terms of GDP)--but has only 5 percent of the world's population. We are a fortunate country indeed. The Academies explain this phenomenon in this way: ``. . . as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income per capita is due to technological change.'' This technological change is the result, in the report's words, of an outpouring ``of well trained people and the steady stream of scientific and technological innovations they produce.'' Most of this good fortune comes from the American advantage in brainpower: an educated workforce, and our technological innovation. The United States has the finest system of colleges and universities on earth, attracting more than 500,000 of the brightest foreign students. No country has national research laboratories to match ours. Americans have won the most Nobel prizes in science and registered the most patents. We have invented electricity, the computer chip, and the internet. As one scientist noted, we don't have science and technology because we're rich. We're rich because we have science and technology. Yet we worry that America may be losing its brainpower advantage. American experts who travel to China, India, Finland, Singapore, Ireland, and elsewhere come home saying, ``Watch out.'' The Augustine Report found that we are right to be worried: Only 6 percent of American college-age students earn degrees in the natural sciences or engineering, trailing students in China and India and a dozen other countries, many of which have doubled or tripled their degree output over the last decade. For the cost of one chemist or engineer in the United States, a company can hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India. China is spending billions to recruit the best Chinese scientists from American universities to return home to build up Chinese universities. The report also found signs that we are not keeping up: U.S. 12th graders performed below the average of 21 countries on tests of general knowledge in math. In 2003 only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of new U.S. patents. Of 120 new chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China. To maintain America's global leadership in research and development, the Augustine Report made twenty wide-ranging and urgent recommendations for U.S. schools, universities, research, and economic policy that include: Recruit 10,000 new science and math teachers with 4-year scholarships and train 250,000 current teachers in summer institutes. Create a new coordinating office to manage a centralized research infrastructure fund of at least $500 million per year. Provide 30,000 scholarships and graduate fellowships for scientists. Increase federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences by 10 percent a year for 7 years. Give American companies a bigger research and development tax credit so they will keep their good jobs here instead of move them offshore. Create a new agency in the Department of Energy modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to conduct breakthrough R&D, that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Some may wince at the price tag--$9 billion in the first year, and then it edges upward over the full seven year period. I believe the cost is low, relative to the benefits. Maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap. This year, one third of State and local budgets go to fund education. More than 50 percent of American students have a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college. The Federal Government spends nearly $30 billion per year on research at universities and another $34 billion to fund 36 national research laboratories. Just last year, Congress spent $85 billion to fight the war in Iraq, $71 billion for hurricane recovery, and $352 billion to finance the national debt. If we fail to invest the funds necessary to keep our brainpower advantage, we'll not have an economy capable of producing enough money to pay the bills for war, social security, hurricanes, Medicaid, and debt. The legislation we are introducing today has strong bipartisan support. It is our hope President Bush will make it a focus of his State of the Union Address and of his remaining 3 years in office--and that future candidates for president will make it the center of their campaigns. Aside from our national security, there is no greater challenge than maintaining our brainpower advantage so we can keep our good paying jobs and strengthen our economy. That is the surest way to keep America on top. I hope my colleagues will join us in this critical effort to protect America's competitive edge.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I rise to make a few remarks on Judge Alito. The Presiding Officer is from the next State over. North Carolina and Tennessee have the same mountains, and he may be familiar with a story we tell at home about the old Tennessee judge. It is told in one of our mountain counties that the lawyers showed up one morning in the courthouse, all prepared for a 3-day or 4-day trial. They had their litigants and their witnesses and their books. They had done the research. The judge came in, sat down behind the bench, and said: Fellows, we can save a lot of time. I had a phone call last night, and I pretty well know the facts. Just give me a little bit on the law. The lawyers were pretty disappointed because it was obvious to them that the judge already had pretty well made up his mind about what to do about that case. That is not what they expected. They thought they were coming before a judge--at least one side did--who was impartial and they wouldn't know whose side the judge was on. When Judge Alito is sworn in, he will take two oaths. The first is the constitutional oath that we Senators took. The second is the judicial oath, which makes a pretty good job description of a Justice on the Supreme Court: I--and he will say his name--do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God. Judge Alito's statements before the Judiciary Committee suggest to me that he understands very well his duty of impartiality under these oaths. He said he will uphold the Constitution. These are his words: The court should make its decision based on the Constitution and the law. It should not sway in the wind of public opinion at any time. Judge Alito has said that the Constitution applies to everyone: No person in this country is above the law. That includes the President and it includes the Supreme Court. He said he won't allow his personal views to compromise his impartiality. He also said: I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made. The other side has taken an unusual position. They keep asking, Whose side is he on? Is he on the side of the rich or of the poor, the big or the little, the Black or the White, business or labor? Is he on the side of the easterner or the westerner? For us to know whose side he is on would violate his oath. He can't tell us that. The American people know that. I had the privilege of being Governor of my home State. In that process, I appointed 50 judges. I never asked a single one of them whose side they were on. I appointed Democrats and Republicans. I appointed the first African American judges, and the first women to be circuit court judges. I didn't ask them where they stood on abortion or the death penalty. I tried to find out about their character, about their intelligence, about how they would treat people before them, about their respect for law and their understanding of our country. I have been proud of those 50 appointees. I am disappointed that some in this Chamber would keep asking of Judge Alito and other nominees of the President, Whose side is he on? Is he on the side of the rich or the poor, of the big, of the little? He must take an oath of office that says he will not be on anybody's side and that when the lawyers come before him to argue a case, they don't know where he is going to come down except that he is going to come down according to his oath, according to the law. Americans have shown that they know better. I had the privilege of being elected to the Senate in 2002. That was an issue in my election: Did the people of Tennessee want to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, people who would interpret the law, not make it up as they go along? The people of Tennessee don't want a judge who takes sides before the case is argued. I said a few months after I arrived here that I would not participate in a filibuster of any President's nominee. I might vote against them for one reason or another, but I wouldn't participate in a filibuster. Each one of them deserves an up-or-down vote. I am looking forward to casting this vote. I would like to express my great respect for the woman Judge Alito will succeed. Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. She was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court. She has distinguished herself there by her intelligence, her independence, and scholarship. She has been a wonderful representative for our country. She is a great symbol for other men and women, reminding us that American history is a work in progress and that we had a long way to go when she was appointed, as we still do. She tells a wonderful story of how, when she graduated from Stanford Law School, she applied for a job with a Los Angeles firm. Even though she graduated near the top of her class, she was told they only had places for women as secretaries. A few years later, a partner in the same firm was the Attorney General of the United States, and he called her and asked her to fly to Washington from Arizona so that he could talk with her about being President Reagan's appointee to the Supreme Court. She has come a long way, and she has helped our country come a long way. As we consider Judge Alito, we certainly salute Justice O'Connor. I look forward to casting my vote for the confirmation of Judge Alito. His resume reads like a resume any of us who were once in law school dreamed we could have: his degree from Yale, his work as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, as Assistant to the Solicitor General, as U.S. Attorney, nearly 16 years of service on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and receiving a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, which is the highest possible rating. He has based his opinions and dissents on sound legal arguments. He appears to be unswayed by the particular details of the case that are irrelevant to the legal issues at stake. He seems to understand that he is not to be on anybody's side, that he is supposed to enforce the law impartially and respect the Constitution. In short, Samuel Alito has demonstrated judicial temperament suitable for a nominee. I believe he will serve with distinction. I am pleased to support his confirmation as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand the leader may be coming. If he does, I will suspend my remarks to allow him to speak, then I will resume. Are we in morning business?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I join with Senators Domenici, Bingaman, Mikulski, and more than 25 other senators, in introducing the Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) Act--a package of three bills to enhance American brainpower. America is now playing in a tougher league. China and India are competing for our jobs. The best way to keep those jobs in America is to maintain our brainpower edge in science and technology. The story of this bill really began last May, when Senator Jeff Bingaman and I, with the encouragement of Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, asked the National Academies this question: ``What are the ten top actions, in priority order, that Federal policy makers could take over the next decade to help the United States keep our advantage in science and technology?'' To answer the question, the Academies assembled a distinguished panel of business, government, and university leaders headed by Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, that included three Nobel Prize winners. They took our question seriously. We asked them for 10 recommendations; they gave us 20 when they released their report in October. In October, the Energy Committee held a hearing to learn more about those recommendations from Mr. Augustine and the Academies. It was the first opportunity Congress had to hear the Academies' answer to our question. Following those hearings, Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and I convened a series of ``homework sessions'' with members of the Academies, outside experts, and some officials in the Administration. These off-the-record sessions allowed Senators and Administration officials to grapple with the Academies' recommendations and consider how best to implement them. Last November, Norm Augustine led a dinner discussion hosted by Senator Frist with about 30 Senators on the report's recommendations right here in the Capitol. And then, in December, Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and I met with President Bush where he graciously listened to our ideas. The President was very engaged and knew these issues well. Now, as the Senate begins its session for the year, we are introducing this legislation to implement the recommendations of the Augustine Report. Next week, when the President addresses the nation in his State of the Union address, it is my hope that he will make this a focus of the address and his remaining three years in office. This bill is all about brainpower and the relationship of brainpower to good American jobs. The United States produces more than 25 percent of all the wealth in the world (in terms of GDP)--but has only 5 percent of the world's population. We are a fortunate country indeed. The Academies explain this phenomenon in this way: ``. . . as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income per capita is due to technological change.'' This technological change is the result, in the report's words, of an outpouring ``of well trained people and the steady stream of scientific and technological innovations they produce.'' Most of this good fortune comes from the American advantage in brainpower: an educated workforce, and our technological innovation. The United States has the finest system of colleges and universities on earth, attracting more than 500,000 of the brightest foreign students. No country has national research laboratories to match ours. Americans have won the most Nobel prizes in science and registered the most patents. We have invented electricity, the computer chip, and the internet. As one scientist noted, we don't have science and technology because we're rich. We're rich because we have science and technology. Yet we worry that America may be losing its brainpower advantage. American experts who travel to China, India, Finland, Singapore, Ireland, and elsewhere come home saying, ``Watch out.'' The Augustine Report found that we are right to be worried: Only 6 percent of American college-age students earn degrees in the natural sciences or engineering, trailing students in China and India and a dozen other countries, many of which have doubled or tripled their degree output over the last decade. For the cost of one chemist or engineer in the United States, a company can hire five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India. China is spending billions to recruit the best Chinese scientists from American universities to return home to build up Chinese universities. The report also found signs that we are not keeping up: U.S. 12th graders performed below the average of 21 countries on tests of general knowledge in math. In 2003 only three American companies ranked among the top 10 recipients of new U.S. patents. Of 120 new chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the United States and 50 are in China. To maintain America's global leadership in research and development, the Augustine Report made twenty wide-ranging and urgent recommendations for U.S. schools, universities, research, and economic policy that include: Recruit 10,000 new science and math teachers with 4-year scholarships and train 250,000 current teachers in summer institutes. Create a new coordinating office to manage a centralized research infrastructure fund of at least $500 million per year. Provide 30,000 scholarships and graduate fellowships for scientists. Increase federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences by 10 percent a year for 7 years. Give American companies a bigger research and development tax credit so they will keep their good jobs here instead of move them offshore. Create a new agency in the Department of Energy modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to conduct breakthrough R&D, that will lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Some may wince at the price tag--$9 billion in the first year, and then it edges upward over the full seven year period. I believe the cost is low, relative to the benefits. Maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap. This year, one third of State and local budgets go to fund education. More than 50 percent of American students have a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college. The Federal Government spends nearly $30 billion per year on research at universities and another $34 billion to fund 36 national research laboratories. Just last year, Congress spent $85 billion to fight the war in Iraq, $71 billion for hurricane recovery, and $352 billion to finance the national debt. If we fail to invest the funds necessary to keep our brainpower advantage, we'll not have an economy capable of producing enough money to pay the bills for war, social security, hurricanes, Medicaid, and debt. The legislation we are introducing today has strong bipartisan support. It is our hope President Bush will make it a focus of his State of the Union Address and of his remaining 3 years in office--and that future candidates for president will make it the center of their campaigns. Aside from our national security, there is no greater challenge than maintaining our brainpower advantage so we can keep our good paying jobs and strengthen our economy. That is the surest way to keep America on top. I hope my colleagues will join us in this critical effort to protect America's competitive edge.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today the Senate approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. I voted in favor of this bill because it is the first comprehensive deficit reduction legislation approved by the Senate since 1997, and it will save $39.7 billion over the next 5 years. This is an important first step toward containing the unsustainable growth of entitlement programs and putting us on the road to a balanced budget. None of us is happy about everything that is included in a big bill like this. One area in which I am disappointed is language reauthorizing the welfare reform program, also known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF. This is a program that needs to be reauthorized on a more permanent basis, instead of the temporary extensions that have been approved year after year. In thinking about reauthorization of welfare reform, I believe three things need to happen. First, States need more authority to decide what will work best in their State. Second, States need more flexibility to allow educational activities to count toward work hours. I have been told by TANF offices in Tennessee that if they can get TANF recipients into school, they do not see them on the welfare rolls again. Third, we need more money for child care. If the TANF program is going to require poor parents--including single mothers--to work, these parents must have safe child care for their children. Last year, I supported--and the Senate passed by a vote of 78 to 20--an amendment to increase child care funding by $6 billion. This bill only includes a $1 billion increase for child care. Unfortunately, the welfare reform language included in the deficit reduction bill falls short in all three of these areas. I would have preferred that the Senate hold a full debate on TANF reauthorization, with Senators able to offer amendments. However, I understand that the Senate conferees felt that the deficit reduction bill represented the best chance of reauthorization after years of delay and temporary extensions. In the coming year, I look forward to working with Chairman Grassley and other colleagues to craft legislation that addresses some of these shortcomings and continues the successful transformation of the TANF program that began with enactment of the landmark welfare reform law in 1996.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Secretary Spellings has appointed this commission to look at the future of higher education. Other than the war against terror, keeping our brain power advantage so we can create new jobs here in the United States and keep our jobs from going to China, India, Finland, and Ireland, is the biggest challenge we face as a nation. I made a statement before the Commission on the Future of Higher Education that it adopt the recommendations of the National Academies' ``Augustine Report'' and urge the President to make it a focus of his State of the Union Address. The report recommends 20 steps to keep that brain power advantage, and was written by a distinguished panel of business, government, and university leaders headed by Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin. I also urged the commission to make certain that we deregulate higher education; to make certain that the President appoints an adviser to coordinate all of the Federal Government's responsibilities for higher education; to urge Congress to overhaul Medicaid so States may properly fund higher education; to put a spotlight on the greatest disappointment in higher education today, our colleges of education; and, finally, to put a spotlight on the greatest threat to broader public support for funding of higher education, the growing political one-sidedness which has infected most campuses in an absence of true diversity of opinion. I salute Secretary Spellings and her distinguished commission. I look forward to their recommendations. There could not be a more important subject to our country's future for them to consider than how do we take this remarkable system of higher education that we built in this country--the best in the world--and strengthen it so it can play a pivotal role in helping Americans keep good-paying jobs in the United States. Thank you, Mr. President.