Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on Thursday, at 3 o'clock, the Education Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will be holding a hearing on helping all of Katrina's displaced schoolchildren, with the hopes that we can come up with a temporary exceptional way to do this, not as a way of establishing a long-term change in Federal policy, but as a way of helping all schoolchildren today who were displaced by Katrina who need help--whether they are going to public schools or private schools. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Please indicate when 2 minutes are remaining.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would also like to follow my remarks with this information from the American Council on Education that sheds additional light on the comparison of State and Federal spending. In 1995, the State spent $2.16 on higher education for every Federal dollar spent on higher education. In 2000, States contributed $1.55 for every Federal dollar spent on higher education. In 2005, States spent 94 cents on higher education for every Federal dollar spent. So very quietly, we are seeing a major shift in how we finance higher education. States are doing less, the Federal Government is continuing to be generous, and students are asked to do more. The insidious part of this is that traditionally, States have been the largest part of funding for higher education. So very quietly we see States go from spending $2.16 for every dollar spent, which was the case in 1995, to less than $1 spent for every Federal dollar spent, which is the case 10 years later in 2005. That is a major shift in funding, and we in the Congress and Secretary Spellings' new commission and the work Senator Bingaman and I are doing with the National Academy of Sciences need to take note of this and ask what will happen if we have 10 more years of these financing trends. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today in North Carolina, the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, delivered remarks that announced her intention to create a commission to take a comprehensive look at postsecondary education in the United States. I am here to say that Secretary Spellings is on exactly the right track with her new commission. The idea is an excellent one and long overdue. While the United States has been conducting a lot of debates--many in this Chamber--about outsourcing jobs, we have been very successfully insourcing brain power. Insourcing brain power has been our secret weapon for job growth. It is the main reason we have 5 percent of the world's population and about one-third of the world's money. Our unrivaled system of colleges and universities, together with our national research laboratories, have been our magnet for attracting and keeping home the best minds in the world who have, in turn, helped provide the new jobs produced by science, who have, in turn, helped provide half the new jobs since World War II. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that one-half of our new jobs since World War II have come from advances in science and technology. This secret weapon for jobs' growth is at risk if we do not take several urgently needed steps. Taking a comprehensive look at the Federal role in higher education is a good first step. This should have happened years ago. In fact, my greatest regret, as Secretary of Education under the first President Bush, is that I did not volunteer to be the point person in higher education in the Federal Government. Almost every Federal agency regulates some aspect of higher education. Last year, the Federal Government, all across the board, spent about $63 billion on all forms of postsecondary education. That includes grants, as well as what call the Pell grants, student loans, money for research, the cost to the Federal taxpayers of the student loans I mentioned. But despite that great interest and despite the fact that nearly every Federal agency is involved, not just the Department of Education, there is no one Federal official charged with giving the President an overview of higher education. There was a time 12 years ago--and the Presiding Officer, because of his interest in higher education, may remember this--that the Department of Defense was concerned about being overcharged by many of the universities in the amount of overhead the universities were spending in order to do Department of Defense-sponsored research. That was a legitimate concern, but someone other than the Secretary of Defense should have been in the room advising the President about that because these universities, which were having to cough up money to pay back the Federal Government, which perhaps they should have, we needed to make sure, in our national interest, that we did not damage these great research universities that we have because those great research universities have been a major part of giving us the science and technology edge that gives us our standard of living. That is what I mean by saying there has been no one person in the Federal Government appointed by the President to look at the whole range of activities in postsecondary higher education, and there should be. I am chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, a committee upon which the Presiding Officer serves. With the consent of our committee chairman, Senator Domenici, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I--Senator Bingaman is the ranking Democrat on the Energy Committee--have asked the National Academy of Sciences to recommend steps that the Nation should take over the next 10 years so that we can keep our edge in science and technology while we are grappling with tough budget issues. Those hearings will begin in October. The hearings that Senator Bingaman and I intend to conduct on keeping our edge in science and technology should complement the work of the commission that Secretary Spellings has established to take a comprehensive overview of higher education. Our colleges and universities are at risk for several reasons. I am not suggesting that we suddenly have an emergency crisis. I am suggesting that we would be wise to look down the road to make sure we don't have a crisis. I believe we not only have the best colleges and universities in the world. I believe we have almost all of the best colleges and universities in the world. When you add to that the unique national research laboratories which we have, such as the Oak Ridge laboratory or Sandia or a couple of dozen of those that we have, we have an unparalleled research capacity. Here are the reasons our colleges and universities may be at risk if we don't pay close attention: No. 1, State funding, the principal basis of support for higher education traditionally grew only 6.8 percent during the last 5 years. State Medicaid costs are squeezing State budgets. If this trend continues, the result will be lower quality higher education and much higher student tuition. I brought with me two charts to illustrate what I am talking about. Here is a chart on trends in higher education nationally over the last 5 years since 2000. State spending on Medicaid is up 35.6 percent over those 5 years. State spending on higher education is up 6.8 percent over the 5 years. And tuition at a 4-year public university is up 38 percent over the 5 years. That is the State picture. At the same time, the Federal Government has been doing pretty well. Federal spending on all forms of postsecondary education over those last 5 years has risen 71.8 percent. So the picture has been that in the States, State spending on Medicaid is up. State spending on higher education is flat, pretty flat. And tuition at 4-year public universities is up, way up. In my own State of Tennessee, the situation is even more pronounced. Tennessee's spending on Medicaid in the last 5 years is up 71 percent. State spending on higher education during that time is only up 10 percent. Tuition at a 4-year public university in Tennessee over those 5 years is up 43 percent. Medicaid spending is way up, and State spending on higher education is fairly flat. Tuition at 4-year public universities is way up. That is a bad trend, if it continues over the next 10 years. A second reason that our university system may be at risk is that even though Federal funding for all forms of postsecondary education has been generous over the last 5 years, up 71.8 percent, that kind of increase is not likely to continue as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security costs put new pressures on the Federal budget. That is one reason Senator Bingaman and I have asked the National Academy of Sciences to suggest to us the 8 or 10 things we must be sure to do to keep our edge in science and technology over the next 10 years. Because while we are grappling with the budget to try to restrain the growth in spending, we want to make sure we don't squeeze out investments in science and technology that give us the standard of living we enjoy today. The next reason that higher education may be at some risk is national security. Tight visa rules and other national security restrictions are making it harder for the more than one-half million foreign students and additional researchers who now come to our universities and laboratories. More importantly, scientific conferences are being held overseas. We have taken for granted that we have been insourcing brains. The brightest students and researchers from China, the brightest from India, from France, from Germany, where do they want to go? They want to come to the United States. When we were Governors of Tennessee and Virginia, we would sometimes hear complaints from students who were being taught by graduate students who did not speak English very well. But the fact is, these brilliant people from around the world, more than a half million of them, have come here to do the kind of work that helps us create our high standard of living. Sixty percent of our postdoctoral students are foreign students. One-half of our graduate students in computers, engineering, and in sciences are foreign students. In a way, it is a little like our natural gas problem. We are going to be importing liquefied natural gas from overseas to try to keep our prices down. We are already importing brainpower from overseas to keep our standard of living up. And while we need to put a focus on homegrown brainpower over the next 10 years, we also need to make sure that our universities and colleges continue to be a magnet for the brightest people from around the world. At the same time, we have something else happening. Many countries, including India, China, Germany, and Great Britain, are reorganizing and improving funding for their universities and creating incentives to keep their most talented students and researchers home. They are asking themselves: Why should we send our brightest minds overseas to help the Americans create a higher standard of living for themselves when they can do it right here at home? So we are going to be facing more competition from the Indian Government. Chancellor Schroeder, who was visiting with us a few weeks ago, was talking about the amount of new dollars Germany is putting into its universities. They believe they have become overregulated, that they have become bureaucratized, and that they have become, in some cases, mediocre. He knows that if Germany wants to compete and wants to have a higher standard of living, they are going to have to have better universities that are magnets for keeping home their brightest students and researchers and attracting the best from around the world. There is one red flag I would like to wave, in conclusion, about the early reports on Secretary Spellings' decision to create a higher education commission to take a comprehensive look at the Federal role in postsecondary education. Some have pointed out that our system of higher education in the United States is very decentralized, and it may be for that reason that we are not taking a comprehensive look at higher education. I, for one, believe that our decentralized system of higher education in the United States is one of its greatest possible strengths. The model we use for higher education is a very simple one. It is a marketplace model. We have more than 6,000 institutions--public, private, for- profit, nonprofit. They are autonomous, and we respect their autonomy. We have generous Federal funds that follow 60 percent of our students to the institutions they choose with Federal grants or Federal loans. We have peer-reviewed research that goes to the very best institutions. So I do not want to see any Federal commission that sends a signal that we may need some Federal centralization of our control over higher education. In fact, we need to be doing just the reverse. I introduced earlier this year legislation that would help to deregulate higher education, and a number of those provisions have been incorporated into the Higher Education Act that was reported by our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I believe our higher education system is the best in the world because it is decentralized, because institutions are autonomous, the Federal Government has been generous, and the money follows the students to the institutions of the students' choice. I commend the Secretary of Education today for her attracting such outstanding persons--for example, the former Governor of North Carolina, Jim Hunt, to be a member of this commission; Charles Miller, former chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Texas, to be chairman of the commission. I cannot think of more important work to do. We not only need to insource brainpower, we need to home grow a lot more of our brainpower, and if we do not, we will not enjoy this standard of living that we have had. I can recall last year a meeting in the majority leader's office that Senator Frist and the Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, hosted. It was an opportunity for several of the Senators to meet the former President of Brazil, Mr. Cardoso. He had spent a semester here in residence at the Library of Congress. I remember Senator Hutchison's last question to President Cardoso. She said: Mr. President, when you go back to Brazil, what will you take back home with you about the United States of America? President Cardoso didn't hesitate a minute. He said: The excellence of the American university. There is nothing in the world like it. That is a great compliment to our country and to our system of higher education from one of the most erudite men in the world, the former President of Brazil. But the yellow flags and red flags are waving because as we look ahead over the next 10 years, our system of higher education and, therefore, our standard of living is at risk because of a flat State funding, because of upcoming pressures on the Federal budget, because of tight visa rules and other national security concerns, which are understandable but will have this effect, and because other countries in the world are recognizing there is no reason in the world why the Americans should have 5 percent of the people and a third of the money. They have the same brains we have in India, in China, in Germany, so we will just keep our smarter people at home, they are saying, and we will create that standard of living for ourselves. I look forward to working with Secretary Spellings. I would like, 10 years from now when the majority leader invites the former President of Brazil or any other President of a country to the office and we turn around and say to that person, Mr. President, what will you take home about the United States? I would like for that President of another country to be able to say to us: The American university. There is nothing like it in the world. I believe that is true, but I believe we have some work to do over the next 10 years to keep that truth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Congressional Record two charts that I referred to in my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to salute the Senator from Missouri for his tireless work on this piece of legislation and to applaud also the Senator from Connecticut who has been a leader for civil rights legislation in this country for a long time. I thank them both not only for their initiative, for thinking of this, but also for pushing it and being persistent about it. I can remember when the Senator from Missouri came to me on the floor months ago talking about it. I thank them both for giving me a chance to be an original cosponsor and for their hard work on shepherding it through the Senate in this way. The Senator from Connecticut pointed out that it has not been that long since these crimes have happened. In my lifetime, it has not been that long. I was a student in the South in the 1950s. I was a college student at Vanderbilt University in Nashville when it was still segregated. I helped to try to desegregate it--successfully. In that same year, in the early 1960s, Congressman John Lewis was trying to sit in. He could not get a seat for lunch. In that same year, the judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans for whom I worked a few years later, Judge John Minor Wisdom, had ordered Ole Miss to admit James Meredith. In those years, when African-American families drove through Nashville, if they were sick, they could not be admitted to many of the hospitals; if they needed a place to sleep, they could not be admitted to many of the motels; if they needed a place to eat, they could not go to many of the restaurants. That was the life then. That was not that long ago. Many families throughout the South, as well as other parts of the country, but throughout the South, lived in fear because of that climate. The Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act will help heal some of the scars that have been left on our society in the wake of the civil rights struggle. This past June, shortly after Edgar Ray Killen was convicted for the 41-year-old murder of three civil rights workers, the Nashville City Paper ran an editorial that summed up why resolution of these cases is so important, and why this legislation by Senator Talent and Senator Dodd is so important. The editorial concluded: As long as Civil Rights era killers are still alive and free, justice has not yet been fully served. Hunting them down and bringing them to account for their actions is far and away the best apology any of us can make for their crimes. This is not leadership by lament. This is leadership by action. I commend the Senate for taking such positive steps toward recognizing and rectifying these injustices. This action is a reflection of one of those aspects of our Nation's character that distinguishes us in the world. We dedicate ourselves to high ideals. We have since our very beginning. Sometimes we have failed to live up to those ideals. But when we do, we have most often recommitted ourselves and taken action to correct our shortcomings. Therefore, we abolished slavery. Therefore, we granted women the right to vote, even though it was after many years. Therefore, we desegregated our schools. Today we shall add to that litany that we have taken steps to bring to justice criminals of the civil rights era. Justice delayed is justice denied. Today we see to it that justice will be delayed no longer. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to the day when this new office opens its doors in the Department of Justice.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for a provision in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations act that will make significant headway in the fight against methamphetamine or meth manufacture and use. The Talent-Feinstein amendment incorporating the provisions of the Combat Meth Act into this bill is the culmination of several months of bipartisan collaboration. The provision takes aim at the biggest problem faced by law enforcement in dealing with meth choking off the supply of essential materials needed to manufacture the drug. Meth is of particular concern to me and to the entire Tennessee delegation because Tennessee has been plagued by a growing number of meth labs--ad hoc laboratories in backwoods shacks, out-of-the-way hotel rooms, and just about anywhere else you can cram in a supply of hot plates, glassware, and noxious chemicals necessary to make meth. In 2004, Tennessee ranked second in the Nation in the number of meth lab seizures, according to data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Drug Enforcement Agency calculates that Tennessee accounts for 75 percent of the meth lab seizures in the Southeast. My colleagues in Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and many other States can cite related alarming statistics. What is of particular concern about these meth labs is that they are appearing in places where drug production and abuse has not been a significant problem. In Tennessee, the largest numbers of seizures of meth labs have occurred in rural counties such as Monroe, Marion, Warren, and Coffee. These areas are often not fully prepared to cope with the demands of seizing such labs and cleaning up the aftermath. The Talent-Feinstein amendment is a critical step in dealing with the meth problem. Others will have already praised various aspects of this bill, but I would like to particularly congratulate the Judiciary Committee for producing a bill that does not undermine State and local efforts to combat this problem. Law enforcement begins at home, and by crafting legislation that directs a Federal response that supports State and local law enforcement rather than preempt it, the Senate has upheld the principles of federalism that are at the core of our system of government. This legislative step is only one part of a comprehensive strategy to combat this addictive drug. The problems presented by meth are myriad and many are unique. Meth production and use targets a different demographic of users than other drugs. Production of meth creates a toxic stew of chemical byproducts that can contaminate a lab site for years to come. Precursor chemicals used in meth production can come from a wide variety of sources. Hospitals and child welfare agencies are overwhelmed by burn victims and abuse cases from homes where meth is made. The court system is inundated with cases involving drug crime, and the inability to provide more individual attention prevents people from getting treatment that might discourage recidivism. We also need to remember that while combating meth has risen to the top of the agenda thanks to media and government attention, this country is still threatened by the illegal use of a variety of drugs. According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans ages 12 and older reported using an illicit drug the month before the survey was conducted. Of those, 12.1 million reported using marijuana in the past month; 1.7 million reported using cocaine; and 1.3 million reported using hallucinogens such as LSD, PCP, and Ecstasy. Meth use has not yet risen to these levels, but if left unchecked the meth problem could soon rise to similar levels. So as we focus on meth, we must also recognize that even if we are successful in our efforts to curb meth use and production, millions of Americans are threatened by addiction to other, just as dangerous drugs, and the next big drug is probably simmering in a beaker or growing in a field right now. The Bush administration is confronting the drug problem head on in this country. In 2005, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reported that there has been a 17-percent reduction in youth drug use in the last 3 years thanks in part to Federal and State efforts to bolster enforcement and increase awareness of the dangers of drugs. Attorney General Gonzales recently visited Nashville with HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters to announce new measures to support State and local governments in combating the meth problem. I commend my colleagues for their work on the Combat Meth Act, and I look forward to more such efforts in our mission to eliminate the scourge of illegal drugs from our communities.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad I had an opportunity to hear the Senator from New Mexico, who has a lot of wisdom on a lot of subjects. One of the most important things he reminded us of was to try to get in concrete terms the immensity of this disaster. We see it on television. We know there is more to be done than has been done. We know it is going to last a long time. I heard the same facts he did today, that the most displaced families that FEMA has ever had in one of its disasters was 22,000. This is 400,000 or 450,000 or 500,000. In other words, this is 20 times the scale of the worst disaster we have ever had in terms of displaced Americans. And so we are all scrambling. I think it is important for the Senator from New Mexico to have brought that up. He also heard, as I heard, that one of the last great hurricanes we had was Harvey, I believe. FEMA is just finishing the work on Harvey now 10 years later because it takes a long time to help communities and people get back on their feet. So this is a massive challenge. All of us want to help. There is one other thing I am prompted to say before I say a word or two about higher education and the bill that was reported today by the HELP Committee. I have talked a lot in the past about the idea of a citizen legislature. The Senator from New Mexico has as well. Senator Howard Baker, who used to be the majority leader, used to talk about the citizen legislature and how valuable it was for our country if those of us who serve here spend a lot of time in our home states, that we spend time at the diner instead of dinner with a lobbyist, that we spend time at the church instead of up here at a ball game, that we keep our feet on the ground, and that is very important. I believe that is probably more important today than it has ever been before. I will give an example. I was about to come back up here after our 5-week break. The morning paper reported that an airplane had arrived from Louisiana with 80 people on it who were in dire straits. Al Gore, the former Vice President of the United States from Tennessee, gave no interview to anybody, and had nothing to say. It has come out since then that he apparently arranged for the plane and may have paid for it. In other words, he brought them up from New Orleans. I did what other people, I guess, did in our country. Before I came back to Washington, I sent a contribution over to the American Red Cross in Blount County, my home county. These 80 people were brought to the Christian church on Highway 321, where the Red Cross began to try to help them in various ways. It never once occurred to me that I might be giving some advantage to a prominent Democrat by supporting something he was doing to help people. It never occurred to me. I doubt it ever occurred to Vice President Gore that he was bringing those 80 displaced persons to one of the most Republican counties in the United States. We have not had an elected Democrat in Congress from our area since the Civil War. So in Maryville, TN, and I am sure in the Commonwealth of Virginia and everywhere in this country, the people who sent us here know what to do. They are opening their hearts, they are opening their doors, they are opening their churches, and they are opening their pocketbooks. The furthest thing from their minds is political advantage. I suspect that is exactly how they would like for us to conduct ourselves here. It seems to me impossible in this body to avoid partisanship. Sometimes I think we have a playpen over here and a playpen over here, and a few Senators and House Members are always angling for partisan advantage. But this is no time for it. So when those impulses or outbursts occur, my suggestion would be that we go home. In my case, it will be Maryville, TN. Most of us go home on the weekend or we go home for periods of time. We go down to a shelter, we go down to a church, and we see how the people who sent us here are conducting themselves in dealing with this tragedy. And we remind ourselves of that, and we take a lesson from them. When we come back up here Monday through Friday, then hopefully we would conduct ourselves as well as they are conducting themselves. They would expect that from us, and we will do a lot better job of helping deal with this immense tragedy, 20 times as large as anything we have seen before.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to say a word about something important that happened this afternoon that is good news for the men and women in this country who go to college. We have the best system of colleges and universities in the world. I can remember Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas and Senator Frist arranged for a group of us to meet with the former President of Brazil, Mr. Cardoso, who had been at the Library of Congress for a while and was going back to Brazil. Senator Hutchison said: Mr. Cardoso, what will you take back to your country about your stay in the United States? He did not hesitate for a moment. He said: Senator Hutchison, the excellence of the American University. He said: There is nothing in the world like it. It is one of the greatest strengths of your country. There are many reasons for this. I believe it is because we have created an environment in which we can bring out the best. We have 6,000 autonomous for-profit, nonprofit, State-supported, not-State- supported institutions, and we have generous Federal funding that follows students to the college or university of their choice. That market environment has permitted us to surpass the world. We do not just have some of the best colleges and universities in the world, we have most of them, and several of those are in the home State of the Presiding Officer, in Virginia, and some of those are in my State as well. Today the committee upon which the Presiding Officer and I serve, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reported out legislation that has to do with Federal support for colleges and universities for the next 4 or 5 years. The importance of that is this: 60 percent of the students in our country attending universities, community colleges, technical institutes, or for-profit institutions do so with the support of Federal grants or Federal loans. Sixty percent of the college students are affected by this legislation. While the details of this legislation will come out over the next few weeks, it is important to say two things about it. One is the remarkably effective job by the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy. This is a complex bill. There are lots of opinions on it. There are more than 20 of us on the committee. At a time of great difficulty around here, they produced legislation that we unanimously supported and agreed upon and will bring to the Senate floor. It is almost certain it will go to conference with the House of Representatives and result in a final bill that we will then send to the President. It was a first-class job of leadership by Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, and I salute them for it, and I am glad to have been part of their committee. The second thing to say is the bill is good for students. For students, it increases the amount of Pell Grants from $4,050 to $4,500 over 5 years. The bill gives students who want to use their Pell Grant during the summer the opportunity to do so for the first time, making Pell Grants available year round. We have a lot of working people who go to colleges and universities today. They may want to go four straight semesters. Right now they cannot do that if they are eligible for Federal support. Now they can under this bill when it passes. In addition, Pell Grants will be larger for students who are majoring in math, sciences, or critical foreign languages, thereby encouraging students to pursue these fields. Someone told me in Tennessee last week that we only had one new physics teacher who graduated and came into our classes. They are going somewhere else. We need more homegrown scientists in the United States, and this is one step to help with that. The bill is also good for universities as well as students because it begins to relieve the oppressive paperwork burden the Federal Government places on colleges and universities, freeing up scarce dollars to spend on improving quality teaching, research, and public service rather than paperwork. For example, this legislation creates an expert panel to review, evaluate, and streamline the 7,000 Federal regulations that govern grants and loans to college students. I made a speech on the floor of the Senate a few months ago, and I stacked up in several boxes the 7,000 regulations that every single one of the 6,000 colleges and universities has to go through before they can admit students with a Federal grant or a Federal loan. That is ridiculous. The President of Stanford said they were spending 7 percent of their tuition on complying with Federal grants and Federal loans. Universities should be able to focus more on teaching and research, and less on complying with reporting requirements. In addition, for the first time, the Federal Government will be required to develop a compliance calendar, making it easier for our 6,000 colleges and universities to comply with Federal rules and helping them with institutional planning and avoiding inadvertent errors in meeting these requirements. In other words, we are saying to the U.S. Department of Education, if you are going to have 7,000 regulations--and we in Congress are guilty of causing that to happen, let me admit that--at least somebody in the Department of Education is going to have to put on a single calendar all of the deadlines when someone at George Mason University or Vanderbilt University or some small college in Iowa has to comply with each particular regulation. That will make it easier for the colleges, and it might discourage the number of new regulations. Finally, universities doing a good job of keeping down the rate of loan defaults will be given more flexibility in how they use Federal dollars in grants and loans to students. I am especially delighted the bill includes Teach for America legislation that I introduced with the Democratic leader, Harry Reid. Expanding Teach for America will not only build a corps of young college graduates who spend 2 years teaching in schools in lower income areas, but a corps of expanding influential alumni who support quality public education. I actually believe that corps of expanding influential alumni of these tremendously talented young people who graduate from the finest colleges and universities and go into the inner city and teach for 2 years will produce for us a corps of thousands of Americans who know what they are talking about when the issue of quality public education comes up. We have the best colleges and universities in the world, but they need to continue to be the best in order to maintain our standard of living. The Federal Government is doing its part. Over the last 5 years, Federal spending on higher education has increased 71.8 percent. At the same time, State funding for higher education has increased on average by only 6.8 percent, partly because of the big increase in Medicaid costs to States, which have increased over the same time by 35.6 percent. This lower amount of State funding has meant that college tuition at public 4-year institutions has increased 38.2 nationally. In Tennessee, the situation is equally pronounced. As I stated, Federal spending on higher education has increased 71.8 percent over the past 5 years. In Tennessee, spending on higher education has increased about 10 percent while Medicaid spending has increased by 71 percent. That is why during the same period the tuition at the University of Tennessee has increased by 33.4 percent. I raise this because I hope in our discussion of the higher education bill that we will come to an understanding that one of the principal reasons for the big increases in tuition is the out-of-control State spending for Medicaid. Governors--and the Presiding Officer and I were both Governors--constantly have to fight to keep Medicaid spending under control so we will have enough money left for quality education. And if we do not have quality colleges and universities over the next 10 years, we will not be able to keep our standard of living as we compete with Japan, China, Germany, India, and Great Britain--all who recognize the superiority of American higher education, and are taking significant steps to keep their brightest students home and to improve their institutions. I am delighted to be able to salute Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy. I know they each will have longer statements to make about the bill and all of its parts. But it is a good piece of legislation for students, it is a good piece of legislation for colleges and universities, and it is an excellent piece of legislation for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from New Mexico. I am especially proud of the majority leader whose patience and intelligence and perseverance has helped us through these several months. I am thankful to the Democratic leader for his help in making those things happen. When the Senate reconvenes in September, one of the first orders of business will be the Defense authorization bill. During August, I respectfully suggest that the President reconsider his opposition to legislation that would set the rules for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. I have decided to cosponsor three amendments to the Defense authorization bill that clarify our policies relative to detainees from the war on terror. There has been some debate about whether it is appropriate for Congress to set rules on the treatment of detainees. Mr. President, for me, this question isn't even close. The people, through their elected representatives, should set the rules for how detainees and prisoners under U.S. control are treated and interrogated. In the short term, the President can set the rules. But the war on terror is now nearly 4 years old. We don't want judges making up the rules. So for the long term, the people should set the rules. That is why we have an independent Congress. In fact, the Constitution says, quite clearly, that is what Congress should do. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress, and Congress alone, shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.'' So Congress has the responsibility to set clear rules here. But the spirit of these amendments is really one I hope the White House will decide to embrace. In essence, these amendments codify military procedures and policies; procedures in the Army Field Manual; policies regarding compliance with the Convention Against Torture, signed by President Reagan; and policies the Defense Department has set regarding the classification of detainees. If the President thinks these are wrong rules, I hope he will submit new ones to Congress so we can debate and pass them. I am one Senator who gives great weight to his views on any matter, especially this matter. This has been a gray area for the law. In this gray area, the question is, Who should set the rules? In the short term, surely, the President can, and in the longer term, the people should through their elected representatives. We don't want the courts to write those rules. In summary, it is time for Congress to represent the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies during the next few weeks. I hope the White House will tell us what rules and procedures the President needs to succeed in the war on terror. That way, we can move forward together. Mr. President, to reiterate, when the Senate reconvenes in September, one of the first orders of business will be the Defense authorization bill. During August, I respectfully suggest the President reconsider his opposition to legislation that would set the rules for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. I have decided to cosponsor three amendments to the Defense authorization bill that clarify our policies relative to detainees from the War on Terror. There has been some debate about whether it is appropriate for Congress to set rules on the treatment of detainees, but for me this question isn't even close. The people through their elected representatives should set the rules for how detainees and prisoners under U.S. control are treated and interrogated. In the short term, the President can set the rules, but the war on terror is now nearly 4 years old. We do not want judges making up the rules. So, for the long term, the people should set the rules. That is why we have an independent Congress. In fact, the Constitution says, quite clearly, that is what Congress should do: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress, and Congress alone, shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.'' So Congress has a responsibility to set clear rules here. But the spirit of these amendments is really one that I hope the White House will decide to embrace. In essence, these amendments codify military procedures and policies, procedures in the Army Field Manual, policies regarding compliance with the Convention Against Torture signed by President Reagan, and policies the Defense Department has set regarding the classification of detainees. That is right. All three of these amendments uphold or codify policies and procedures the administration says we are following today and intend to follow moving forward. Senator Graham's amendment, No. 1505, authorizes the system the Defense Department has created--Combat Status Review Tribunals--which are there for determining whether a detainee is a lawful or unlawful combatant and then ensures that information from interrogating those detainees was derived from following the rules regarding their treatment. Senator Graham's amendment also allows the President to make adjustments when necessary as long as he notifies Congress. The first McCain Amendment, No. 1556, prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees. The amendment is in specific compliance with the Convention Against Torture that was signed by President Reagan. The administration says that we are already upholding those standards when it comes to treatment of detainees, so this should be no problem. The second McCain Amendment, No. 1557, states simply that the interrogation techniques used by the military on detainees shall be those specified by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. The military, not Congress, writes that manual, and we are told that the techniques specified in that manual will do the job. Further, the manual is under revision now to include techniques related to unlawful combatants, including classified portions, that will continue to give the President and the military a great deal of flexibility. If the President thinks these are the wrong rules, I hope he will submit new ones to Congress so that we can debate and pass them. I am one Senator who would give great weight to the President's views on this matter. It's quite possible the Graham and McCain amendments need to be altered to set the right rules, but it is time for Congress to act. This has been a gray area in the law. In this gray area, the question is who should set the rules. In the short term, surely the President can. In the longer term, the people should, through their elected representatives. We don't want the courts to write the rules. So, in summary, it is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies. During the next few weeks, I hope the White House will tell us what rules and procedures the President needs to succeed in this effort. That way we can move forward together.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I ask the distinguished Senator if I could have 3 minutes in morning business to make a brief comment on another matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, when the Senate reconvenes in September, one of the first orders of business will be the Defense authorization bill. During August, I respectfully suggest the President reconsider his opposition to legislation that would set the rules for the treatment and interrogation of detainees. I have decided to cosponsor three amendments to the Defense authorization bill that clarify our policies relative to detainees from the war on terror. There has been some debate about whether it is appropriate for Congress to set rules on the treatment of detainees, but for me this question isn't even close. The people through their elected representatives should set the rules for how detainees and prisoners under U.S. control are treated and interrogated. In the short term, the President can set the rules, but the war on terror is now nearly 4 years old. We don't want judges making up the rules. So, for the long term, the people should set the rules. That is why we have a independent Congress. In fact, the Constitution says, quite clearly, that is what Congress should do: article I, section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress, and Congress alone, shall have the power to ``make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.'' So Congress has a responsibility to set clear rules here. But the spirit of these amendments is really one that I hope the White House will decide to embrace. In essence, these amendments codify military procedures and policies, procedures in the Army Field Manual, policies regarding compliance with the Convention Against Torture signed by President Reagan, and policies the Defense Department has set regarding the classification of detainees. That is right. All three of these amendments uphold or codify policies and procedures the administration says we are following today and intend to follow moving forward. Senator Graham's amendment No. 1505 authorizes the system the Defense Department has created--Combat Status Review Tribunals--which are there for determining whether a detainee is a lawful or unlawful combatant and then ensures that information from interrogating those detainees was derived from following the rules regarding their treatment. Senator Graham's amendment also allows the President to make adjustments when necessary as long as he notifies Congress. The first McCain Amendment No. 1556, prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees. The amendment is in specific compliance with the Convention Against Torture that was signed by President Reagan. The administration says that we are already upholding those standards when it comes to treatment of detainees, so this should be no problem. The second McCain amendment No. 1557 states simply that the interrogation techniques used by the military on detainees shall be those specified by the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. The military, not Congress, writes that manual, and we are told that the techniques specified in that manual will do the job. Further, the manual is under revision now to include techniques related to unlawful combatants, including classified portions, that will continue to give the President and the military a great deal of flexibility. If the President thinks these are the wrong rules, I hope he will submit new ones to Congress so that we can debate and pass them. I am one Senator who would give great weight to the President's views on this matter. It is quite possible the Graham and McCain amendments need to be altered to set the right rules, but it is time for Congress to act. This has been a gray area in our law. In this gray area, the question is who should set the rules. In the short term, surely the President can. In the longer term, the people should, through their elected representatives. We don't want the courts to write the rules. In summary, it is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies. During the next few weeks, I hope the White House will tell us what rules and procedures the President needs to succeed in this effort. That way we can move forward together.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Would it be possible to get 3 or 4 minutes following the Senator's remarks before the discussion begins?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for 4 minutes. Mr. President, this morning, the majority leader made some comments regarding stem cell research. I appreciate his comments. It was a statement of conscience. I think for each of us in the Senate this issue comes down to a statement of conscience. I believe we need to take additional steps in support of stem cell research and control it in an ethical way because it has the promise of saving lives. I therefore support the House-passed legislation that Senator Specter and Senator Hatch have introduced. I support the legislation that our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has reported to the Senate for Federal support for cord blood research. I am looking forward to seeing more from Senator Coleman regarding his work to develop an alternative way of supporting Federal research for stem cells which already exist, but not in the future. In other words, I am looking for ways to support this important research because it has the promise of saving lives. I am pro-life, Mr. President. I am opposed to human cloning. I will vote to criminalize human cloning. But I support this legislation that is offered by Senator Hatch and Senator Specter. President Bush has already said that Federal funds may be used in some cases for research on some stem cell lines derived from fertilized eggs. With the help of fertility clinics, some prospective parents use fertilized eggs to help them have children. Those excess eggs that these parents do not use are often thrown away. I support using some of those fertilized eggs that would otherwise be thrown away under carefully controlled conditions with the consent of the donors for potentially lifesaving research that may help cure juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease, spinal injuries, and other debilitating diseases. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the legislation that the Senator from Massachusetts described bears very little resemblance to the legislation I have been working on for the last couple of years with Senators Domenici and Bingaman and that 13 out of the 14 Senate conferees of both parties just approved. Let me say what I believe we did and then spend a minute, at the end of my 5 minutes, correcting a couple of things the Senator from Massachusetts said. Energy is not usually what we talk about at the dinner table, but it is today. For example, in Tennessee, if you are working at International Paper in Memphis or at Eastman Chemical in east Tennessee, you know that if the price of natural gas stays as high as it is today, the highest in the world, those jobs are going to move overseas. And those are thousands of jobs in Tennessee and millions of blue-collar jobs in America. If you are a farmer and you know that the natural gas price stays as high as it is today, you know you are going to have a big pay cut because of the cost of fertilizer. And if you are a homeowner, you know the bills are up. The first thing this legislation does is to take significant steps to stabilize the price of natural gas and hopefully bring it down. That is worth talking about at the dinner table. The second thing it does is to change the way we produce electricity so that it is by low-carbon and no-carbon means. That is worth talking about at the dinner table because it helps deal with global warming, and it helps deal with clean air. The third thing it does is begin a long-term switch from a dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. That is worth talking about because of our national security. Does it really do that? I would submit that it does. To begin with, the conservation and efficiency provisions in this bill will save the building of 50 major powerplants over the next 20 years. That is the first and most important thing we should do. The second thing it does is to focus on accelerated investment and research for the next generation of nuclear power. If you really care about global warming, you want to support nuclear power because 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity in America today comes from electricity generated by nuclear powerplants. The third thing it does is to adopt a strategy that the Natural Resources Defense Council and many others have urged on us, which is to explore seriously making gas from coal and turning that into electricity and taking the carbon out and putting it into the ground. The fourth thing it does is to create new supplies of natural gas to begin to lower the price of gas and further produce clean air. Mr. President, that is really the way to address global warming. That is really the way to reduce the price of natural gas. That is a serious policy to change the way we produce electricity so it is low carbon/no carbon--conservation and efficiency, nuclear power, coal gasification, carbon sequestration, and new supplies of natural gas. And then, for the long term, a focus on hydrogen fuel cell economy, but that is several years away. The Senator from Massachusetts talked passionately about renewable energy. We all hope we can expand renewable energy. I fought very hard and I am glad to see in this legislation, for the first time, a carve- out for solar power, which was getting nothing from our renewable tax credit. But how much are we going to spend on energy that produces 2 percent of the electricity we use? If you look at the figures in terms of the tax incentives in the bill, the Senator from Massachusetts didn't multiply very well because we spend 20 percent of the money on renewable. That is for 2 percent of the electricity. We spend 18.6 percent on energy efficiency and conservation. Most of us wish that were more. We spend 18 percent of the money on oil and gas production. That is 40 percent of our energy. Of the amount we spend on electric reliability, we spend $400 million of that for clean energy renewable bonds. That is renewable. We spend 20 percent on clean coal. Mr. President, if anything, I think we are overspending on renewable. We have committed of taxpayers' money $3 billion over the next 5 years building giant windmills with flashing red lights. The Senator from Massachusetts may want a national windmill policy. That is for a desert island. For the United States, we need a serious clean energy policy, and that is this bill. So I congratulate Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I am proud of this bill and I hope we adopt it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am glad I had an opportunity to be presiding this afternoon and to hear Senator Cornyn speak. I appreciate his assuming the Chair for a moment so I could step down here and compliment him and Senator Kyl for their work on this legislation. They have introduced a comprehensive bill to improve our immigration system, focusing, as the Presiding Officer said in his remarks, on border security, on interior security, on employment accountability, and on a legal status for temporary workers. I am glad they have taken the time to work on this program. We have talked about it many times over the last several months, and I know the hours they spent on this. I have not had an opportunity yet to see all the specifics of the bill, but I know the principles they are working on and I heard the speech. I believe in what they are trying to do, and I think it is terribly important that we as an entire Senate take this issue up and begin to deal with it. We need to stop thumbing our nose at the rule of law and decide which persons from other countries should be allowed to work and study and live in our country and create a legal status for them, and then enforce the law. We must do that. It is hypocritical for us to go around the world preaching about the rule of law to other countries when 10 million people or so are living illegally in this country. Our failure to solve the problem also unloads huge health and education costs on State and local governments and puts the immigrant population at risk. So the Cornyn-Kyl bill stands for the rule of law by enforcing our borders and creating a solid temporary worker program so that we know who is here, and that they are here within a clear legal framework. The people of this country expect us to deal with this issue. This is a difficult issue, but it is what we are sent here for: We are sent here to deal with the major issues facing our country, and I can think of no more important issue for us to deal with than upholding the rule of law by securing our borders, protecting our interior, and making sure that people we welcome to live here and work here are here legally, and that we then enforce the law. But, as important as the Cornyn-Kyl bill is, we can do more. This bill enforces the borders and welcomes temporary workers. But we also need to do a couple of other things. One of the other things we need to do is to welcome foreign students, not just foreign workers. A second thing we need to do, with a half million to a million prospective citizens who come to our country legally every year, is to help them become Americans. We need to help them to become a part of this country whose most important accomplishment is admitting and welcoming people from all over the word, of every background, and helping those new citizens become something new--Americans who are proud of where they came from but prouder to say they are all Americans. Foreign students who come to the United States to study at our colleges and universities are a boon not only to our educational system, but also to our economy and to our foreign policy. But after September 11, in an effort to increase our security--which is appropriate--we have been making it harder for international students to come to the United States. Earlier this year, the administration removed one important hurdle by extending the Visa Mantis process, which clears foreign students and researchers who are studying advanced sciences. The Presiding Officer, Senator Lugar, Senator Coleman, and I, and others have spent some time over the last year working with the administration on the question of foreign students coming to the United States. There were 570,000 foreign students who attended classes in the United States last year. Sixty percent of the postdoctoral students in the United States last year were foreign students. One-half of the students in our graduate programs in computer sciences and in engineering are foreign students. Many of these students are here working to help increase our standard of living. Many will return to their home countries after 4 years with a fresh perspective on our country and on what their own country could become. When I visited the country of Georgia last March, which recently became a pro-Western democracy, I was reminded that most of the top officials there had been students in the United States of America. They were doing things there we could have never encouraged them to do. They were doing them because they came here and learned what it meant to be an American and were using those principles in their own country of Georgia. Many other foreign students will stay here and, thanks to their studies, they will invent new products or start new businesses, and that creates jobs here at home. So we need to welcome these students when they are legally here in the United States. Finally, we also need to do more to welcome and support legal residents who are working to become American citizens. Each year we welcome about 1 million new permanent legal residents, many of whom go on to become citizens of the United States. To become an American is a significant accomplishment. First, you must live in the United States for 5 years. Next, you must speak some English. Next, you must learn about our history and government. Next, you must be of good character. Next, you must swear an oath to renounce the old government from where you came and swear allegiance to the United States of America and its Constitution. That is no small thing. Between 500,000 and 1 million new citizens each year come in and complete that process and take that oath. Earlier this year, Senator Schumer and I introduced a bill to codify that oath of allegiance that new citizens swear to when they become citizens. It is hard to believe that while the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and the American Flag are all prescribed by law, we have been allowing the oath of allegiance, a binding pledge for new citizens, to be determined merely by Federal regulators. We can do more to welcome these new citizens. In the near future, in September, I hope to introduce legislation that perhaps could become part of a comprehensive immigration bill. This legislation would provide new incentives and support for legal immigrants to learn English, our common language, and to learn about our Nation's history and government and values. I hope that effort to welcome new legal immigrants and to help them become a part of our American community will become a part of the Senate's overall approach to immigration reform. Our country is unique in the world. We are not defined by common ethnic background or origin. We and our ancestors came from every corner of the world to be a part of this country because it was founded on something much bigger, much grander than ethnic heritage or a tie to the land. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is what binds us together as Americans: a belief in our common values, values such as equal opportunity, the rule of law, and liberty. That is why we welcome immigrants who swear allegiance to our country and to those values as new citizens. That is why our Nation of immigrants has always succeeded and can succeed in the future. If we are to continue to succeed, we must pass along these values that comprise our American identity--pass them on to posterity--both to our children and to those new citizens who come to our shores from distant lands. In the coming months, this Senate will have a chance to reform our Nation's immigration policy. The Cornyn-Kyl legislation is a tremendously important first step toward a comprehensive immigration bill. It is one whose principles I support. I look forward to working with its authors as it moves through the Senate. I hope as we write this comprehensive immigration legislation, though, we also remember to welcome foreign students who add so much to our economy and spread our values to the world, and that we remember to welcome legal immigrants who wish to join the American family and help them learn our common language, learn our values, and become American citizens. I hope the legislation that I will offer in September can help us along that track. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of Senator Frist's legislation, which we call the Save Our Scouts Act of 2005. I will take a minute to say to my colleagues why I think the bill is important and why I am glad to be an original cosponsor. I grew up in Maryville, TN, at the edge of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park-- then a town of about 15,000. Every Monday night, all year long, as soon as I was 11 years old, we went down to the new Providence Presbyterian Church at 7 p.m. for a meeting of Troop 88 of the Boy Scouts of America. There wasn't a lot of nonsense. It started at 7 and was over at 8. Our primary goal was to get organized for outdoor activities. At least once a month--sometimes twice a month--we were away from the church and were very active. Most often, we went into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Sometimes we went down the road to the Cherokee National Forest. I can remember on several occasions when we went to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which was a source of great wonderment to us that close to the end of World War II. Sometimes we went to Knoxville to the Tennessee Valley Authority, another government agency known worldwide. We learned from that. I can remember several times we went to the Air Force base, another Federal installation. There are a lot of State and local government places we would go in Troop 88. Sometimes we met at West Side Elementary School or Maryville High School. Sometimes we went to the courthouse. I remember seeing a great attorney, Ray Jenkins, waving a bloody wrench in his hand trying to convict a murderer as a special prosecutor in a family dispute. I was cowering behind the jury box watching this great lawyer carry on. We were there in a public building. Sometimes we camped in the city parks. Sometimes we went to the State parks. My point is that all of these places we went in Troop 88, whether it was the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, or any of the others I mentioned, those are public places. Ever since the Supreme Court made its decision in the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case, the relationship of the Boy Scouts of America with government at all levels has been the target of multiple lawsuits. That is not just the case for boys growing up in Maryville, TN. For the last 25 years, our family has gone up to Ely, MN, on the Canadian border. It is a million acres of territory that you have to take a canoe into. It is very restricted wilderness area. It is the center of one of the Boy Scouts' most important adventure outdoor programs. Whether they are there in the winter, when it is 20 below, or in July, when there are a lot of mosquitos, these young men learn to take care of themselves outdoors. Every year for as long as I can remember, the Boy Scouts have looked forward to going to the jamborees, which are often held on Federal property. It is often a highlight in the lives of these young men. They look forward to it for several years. The adult scoutmasters go with them. Mr. President, it makes no sense whatsoever to restrict, in any way, the Boy Scouts from using national parks, national forests, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Air Force bases, State parks, and city parks. What do the Boy Scouts do? I tell you what it did for me. It tried to build some character. I can still say the words: Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind. There are 12 of them. I did not always live up to them, but they were taught to me. The Boy Scouts taught me about my country. I earned my God and Country award before I got my Eagle Scout. It taught me about this country and what it means to be an American. It taught me to love the great American outdoors, which I have always kept and imparted to my children because we spent almost every weekend in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park or Cherokee National Forest. I don't want the young men of the day and their volunteer leaders to be kept out of the Great Smokies and the TVA and the schools and the city parks. I don't want those volunteer leaders, who are small business people in Maryville, TN, who work at the Alcoa plant--they don't have the money or time to go to court to argue with people about whether those young boys have a right to go there. This is a very important piece of legislation. In this country today, most people would say, when looking at our children, there is nothing they need more than mentors, and the Boy Scouts, just like the Girl Scouts, provide that. Look at our schools today. Our worst score of high school seniors is in U.S. history. At least in the Boy Scouts you learn something about the principles that unite us as Americans. Our outdoors are under constant threat. In the Boy Scouts of America, we are constantly building tens of thousands of young men who love the outdoors, know how to take care of it, have an environmental ethic and use that for the rest of their lives. I am glad we have a majority leader who is a Boy Scout. I am glad we have more than half the Senate who are cosponsors of this legislation. I hope the result of this legislation will remove any doubt that Federal agencies may welcome Boy Scouts to hold meetings and go camping on Federal property, just as we did. And it says to State and local governments that in denying equal access to the public venues to scouts, they will risk some of their Federal funds if they continue to do that. The Boy Scouts of America is one of the preeminent valuable organizations in this country, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be in the queue before 12:30.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I inform the chairman I would like to speak for 4 minutes on the Boy Scout amendment discussed, if time is available after other Senators speak on the underlying bill.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 27 at 3 p.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on recent progress in hydrogen and fuel cell research sponsored by the Department of Energy and by private industry. Testimony will also address the remaining challenges to the development of these technologies. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Kathryn Clay at (202) 224- 6224 or David Marks at (202) 228-6195. Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I join the Senators from Missouri and Connecticut in introducing the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I do so because I believe that this legislation takes the right approach when dealing with the wrongs of our past. It takes action. It takes positive steps forward to correct injustices. It recommits us to one of our highest ideals as Americans--that justice will not be denied. Specifically, the bill creates a new office within the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division specifically tasked to investigate ``cold case'' murders from the civil rights era. It will commit the resources of the Department of Justice to work in conjunction with State and local law enforcement to aggressively prosecute criminals in those cases. The Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act might well be named in honor of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman--the three civil rights workers who were shot to death by former Ku Klux Klansman Edgar Ray Killen. Forty-one years later, thanks to the efforts of the victims' families, Mississippi State officials, and many others who would not let this crime go unpunished, Killen sits in solitary confinement in a State prison outside Jackson, Mississippi, right where he belongs. Justice will not be denied. And the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act will see to it that others like Edgar Ray Killen are punished for their crimes. It will pour new resources into the investigations of other unsolved cases--like that of 14-year old Emmett Till, who was kidnapped and murdered in 1955. Recently, the Senate apologized for the failure of earlier Senators to enact federal antilynching legislation in the 1930s and 1940s. In discussing that resolution, I reminded my colleagues of how often we as a Nation have failed to live up to our great ideals. But usually when we have failed, we have recognized that failure and recommitted ourselves to those ideals and reached for them again. We did not simply acknowledge our failure and give up--we took action to correct our shortcomings. We abolished slavery. We granted women the right to vote. We desegregated our schools. Here, with this bill, we take action once more. Actions speak louder than words. If the Edgar Ray Killen conviction is any indication, then the action we would take by passing this bill would speak very loudly indeed. When Killen was convicted, the Nashville City Paper ran an editorial, which I will include in full following my remarks, that summed up just why taking action is so important. The editorial concluded, ``As long as Civil Rights era killers are still alive and free, justice has not yet been fully served. Hunting them down and bringing them to account for their actions is far and away the best apology any of us can make for their crimes.'' Today, we do not merely rest on words of apology--we take action. When it comes to questions of civil rights that has always been what I have tried to do. In 1962 when I was the student newspaper editor, Vanderbilt University's undergraduate school was segregated. I could have apologized for the actions of the board of trust; instead, I helped integrate the school. As Governor and President of the University of Tennessee, instead of apologizing for my predecessors, I appointed the first African American Supreme Court Justice and university vice-presidents. Instead of apologizing for Tennessee legislatures that had refused to enact the Martin Luther King Holiday, I helped make it law. I did not think it was effective merely to apologize for what others had failed to do. America is a work in progress. If we were to apologize for every failure to reach our lofty goals, there would be no end to it. I believe it is better to look forward and take action rather than look backward and apologize for others. I believe this bill does just that. Passing this bill today hopefully means that tomorrow one more unsolved case is opened; one more criminal is brought to justice; one more family can find peace. Justice delayed is justice denied. This bill will help make sure that justice will be delayed no longer. And it is for that reason that I am proud to join my colleagues in cosponsoring the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act. I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.