Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005 and the ``Tax Provisions for Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005.'' I send to the desk two pieces of legislation. One is the substantive provisions of the bill and one is the tax provisions of the bill. Mr. President, I offer the legislation on behalf of myself and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, who is the lead Democratic sponsor on the legislation. I do so with appreciation to the chairman of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Pete Domenici, and the staff of that committee who have worked very closely with us on the development of this comprehensive piece of legislation, and with thanks to my own staff, Sharon Segner, who has worked on it for several months. This is a piece of legislation to address aggressively and comprehensively the rising cost of natural gas in the United States. This is legislation for the blue-collar worker, for the American farmer, and for the American homeowner. Natural gas prices in the United States are at record levels. We have gone from having the lowest natural gas prices in the industrial world to the highest. These high prices are threatening millions of our jobs. Our farmers are getting a 10-percent pay cut. Homeowners are having a hard time paying their heating and cooling bills because of our contradictory policies. Our policies boil down to this: We are restricting the supply of natural gas, and we are encouraging the use of natural gas. You do not have to go very far in an economics class at the University of Oklahoma or the University of Tennessee to know that if you restrict supply and encourage demand, the inevitable result is higher prices. And higher prices is a very serious problem for U.S. workers, U.S. homeowners, and U.S. farmers. Only an ambitious and comprehensive approach that both increases supply and controls demand can lower the price of natural gas and keep our economy growing. This is not a question of tweaking our natural gas policy. It is time, aggressively, to revamp it. We need aggressive conservation. We need aggressive use of alternative fuels. We need aggressive research and development. We need aggressive production. And, for the time being, we need aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. Here on this chart is an idea of where we are today. This is the United States of America: $7 per unit for natural gas--the highest in the industrialized world. Until recently, we had the lowest natural gas prices in the world. What that means is large parts of our industries--the chemical industry, for example--were built on the idea of $1.50 or $2 for natural gas, but today it is $7. A million Americans work in those blue-collar manufacturing jobs in every State in our country. Now, if they are paying $7 here, and it is $5.55 in Canada and $5.15 in the United Kingdom and $2.65 in Turkey and $1.70 in the Ukraine, where do you suppose, though, a million blue-collar jobs are going to be 5 years from now, if we do not do something about the $7 price? They are not going to be in the United States. They are going to be moving out of the United States, to the United Kingdom, to Germany, to the Ukraine, to other parts of the world. And people are going to be writing their Congressmen and saying: Why didn't you do something? So here is what we can do. By aggressive conservation, I mean setting stronger appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency so that a commercial air conditioner will cool the same while using less natural gas doing it. Those standards have been generally agreed upon by environmental groups with the industry. If they were put in place, by a rough estimate, they might save the equivalent energy that could be produced by 30 or 35 powerplants. By aggressive use of alternative fuels, I mean, for example, fully commercializing coal gasification. Coal gasification is taking this abundant supply of coal we have in the United States--we are the ``OPEC,'' the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal; we have a 400- or 500-year supply--and finding a clean way to use it instead of importing oil from a part of the world where people are blowing each other up. That means starting with support so we can have six coal gasification plants in this country by the year 2013. Coal gasification means, you burn the coal to create gas, and then you burn the gas to create power. If we can do that commercially, we will not only be passing a clean energy bill, we will be passing a clean air bill, because if you do that, you remove most of the mercury, most of the nitrogen, most of the sulfur. And by additional research, we may be able to find a way to recapture the carbon that is produced and put that in the ground and solve the carbon problems that a lot of people are talking about around the world. In addition to helping ourselves, we would help ourselves by helping others. China and India and other parts of the world are building hundreds of coal plants. We would much rather them build a coal gasification plant, one that is clean and does not contribute to air pollution. Because if China and India and Brazil build dirty coal plants, that air blows around the world, and it blows into Tennessee and it blows into South Carolina. It blows into Oklahoma. So aggressive alternative fuels is a part of a natural gas supply. Aggressive research and development includes investment and research in gas hydrates. Gas hydrates is gas that is in the ground. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are like ice solid structures, consisting of water and gases, mainly methane, compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal U.S. areas are rich in this resource. The United States is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. We need to find a way to use that gas so we do not have $7 per unit natural gas prices. That sends millions of jobs overseas. That cuts the income of farmers. And that raises home heating prices and cooling prices for residential Americans. Aggressive production means, among other things, allowing States to selectively waive the Federal moratoria on offshore production of gas and collect significant revenues from such production. Let me give you an example. Within the last few weeks, the legislature of Virginia decided it might like to explore the idea of drilling for gas offshore. Now, why would Virginia want to do that? Because there is probably a lot of gas offshore. What would that mean for Virginia? Well, they could put a gas rig out in the ocean, beyond 20 miles, so nobody in Virginia or North Carolina could see it, run a pipeline underground to Virginia, and take their share of the revenues. And they can lower taxes in Virginia and put the rest of the money in a trust fund to build the best colleges and universities in America. That is what they could do in Virginia. If Tennessee had a coastline, and I were Governor of Tennessee, that is what I would be asking the Congress to let me do. I think as other Governors and other legislatures and other people look at Texas and Louisiana and Alabama and see what they are doing and decide that they can in an environmentally sensitive way exercise a State option to drill for gas in Federal waters so far out you can't see it, that they will find that a good option because it will help lower the price of gas. It can build up the schools and keep taxes down, and it can avoid other worse forms of energy. For example, you would have to have 46 square miles of windmills, these things that are 100 yards tall, in order to equal one gas rig that you couldn't see out in the ocean. This is a State option. Aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas starts with giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority for siting and regulating what we call LNG terminals. This means importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. There is a lot of it around the world. They freeze it and put it in tankers, and they bring it here and put it in our pipelines, and then we have it. That seems like a pretty big waste of effort when we have plenty of natural gas here in the United States that we don't have access to. But if we want an adequate supply of natural gas, we are going to have to import some from around the world, and that means we are going to need terminals to which to bring it. Some of them may be offshore. They might be 10, 12, 14 miles offshore. Some of them, like the four we have today, may need to be onshore. There is no silver bullet. There is no single answer. That is why we need aggressive conservation. If, for example, the United States adopted the conservation attitudes towards natural gas that California did a few years ago, it might equal what 50 powerplants could produce in the United States. If that is so, we ought to do it today. That would begin to bring this $7 figure down. Aggressive use of alternative fuels such as coal gasification. I also would say nuclear power is the most obvious alternative fuel to natural gas. If we had more nuclear power, we would use less natural gas. In our country today, what do you suppose we are using to create electricity when we need more electricity even though the cost of it is $7 a unit, the highest in the world? Natural gas, because natural gas plants can be built for a few hundred million dollars, and we have created an environment where we can't use nuclear. We haven't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970s, even though we invented the technology, even though France has 80 percent of its power now produced by nuclear power, even though Japan builds a new nuclear plant every year or so. We invented it. Our Navy has operated nuclear reactors since the 1950s without ever having a single accident. It is a clean, obvious alternative to $7 natural gas, and we haven't built a plant since the 1970s. So we need to think seriously about aggressive conservation, aggressive use of alternative fuels, aggressive research and development for solar, for methane hydrates, aggressive production, and that includes giving States the option of deciding whether they would like to drill offshore and take some of the revenues and put some of the revenues into a conservation fund, and aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas from overseas at least for the time being. In March of 2002, the Secretary of Energy requested that the National Petroleum Council undertake an extensive study on the natural gas crisis. That advisory council produced a study. It talked about the results I have described. Our Senate Energy Committee, under the chairman, Senator Domenici, has paid a lot of attention to that report. Senator Domenici hosted what we called a natural gas roundtable that was well attended by Senators and went on for 3 or 4 hours. There were more than 100 proposals presented. I am chairman of the subcommittee of that full committee, and so my purpose today is to take many of the ideas that we heard that made the most sense, some of which people haven't been willing to advocate, and put them into the discussion. Again, because I do not want to be a Senator who 10 years from now somebody comes up to and says: How did you let farmers get a 20-percent pay cut because of $7, $8, $9 natural gas; how did you let millions of jobs in the chemical industry, the auto industry go overseas because of $7, $8, and $9 natural gas; how did you let prices of natural gas for home heating or cooling get so high that middle-income Americans can't even afford to heat their homes? I don't want to be that kind of Senator. So I am here today with a comprehensive proposal across the board even though some of the ideas will create that kind of controversy. I have summarized in a few words the provisions of a 250-page piece of legislation. We were ambushed in the United States on September 11, 2001. Even though you could argue that we might have known it was coming, terrorism wasn't new on September 11, 2001. I remember being in a meeting with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel in 1994. At the end of a long day, I asked him: What is the greatest challenge threatening the world? And he said terrorism. That was many years before we were attacked. He was right. He was dead within a few months at the hands of terrorists within his own country. We didn't see the terrorism coming. We were ambushed, and we have paid a terrible price--in lives, in dollars. We have had to create whole new departments. We have had to interrupt the lives of thousand of national guardsmen and Army reservists and send them overseas, some to die and some to be wounded, because of terrorism. Maybe we couldn't have seen exactly that act coming, but we knew it was out there. We are about to have another big surprise. That is to our standard of living. We are 5 to 6 percent of all the people in the world. Yet we produce a third of all the money in the world. We could wake up 10 years from now and that picture could be very changed. One way is if we lose our brainpower advantage. And we could lose it. Half of our new jobs have been created by science and technology since the end of World War II. And if we go through our budget balancing, deficit controlling exercise for the next 10 years and we don't double investments for the physical sciences and retake the lead in advanced computing, and if we don't see that we have plenty of graduate students in science and engineering, we are going to find most of the R&D will be done in other parts of the world. We are going to find most of the engineers who produce this brainpower that creates jobs in other parts of the world. They are thinking in China, and they are thinking in India. There is no real good reason why the United States should make a third of all the money in the world every year with just 5 or 6 percent of the people, and we have so little. So they are keeping their bright people home. They are building up their universities. They are doing what we need to keep doing. That is one place we could get a big surprise. But the other is in energy. We have taken energy for granted for a long time. I know I come from Tennessee. We have had the Tennessee Valley Authority. It has sat there since the 1930s, and it has produced reliable, low-cost electricity. Homes that have never been lit, barns that have never been lit, rural areas that have never been lit have enjoyed that. That is within my lifetime. And then while I was Governor in the 1990s, I remember that one of the big attractions for Saturn and Nissan and the automobile industry coming into Tennessee was low-cost reliable power. But when I had a natural gas roundtable last fall in Tennessee, there was the president of Saturn, the president of Nissan, the head of the Tennessee Farm Bureau. There was the head of the University of Tennessee. They were all saying: We can't live in Tennessee on $7 natural gas. What do they do if they can't? It is very easy what they do. They don't have to have those jobs in Tennessee or South Carolina. They can move them to Germany, they can move them to Mexico, they can move them to Canada, and they are doing it every day. And Tennessee Eastman in the upper part of east Tennessee, which we think is just like the great Smokey Mountains, has been there so long. There are 12,000 people there, real good incomes. What do they use to make chemicals there? They use natural gas. How long are they going to be there? If we have $7 gas and they have $3 and $4 gas in other parts of the world, I am afraid they are not going to be there too long. And somebody is going to say to me: What did you do about it? At least my answer is I stood up on the floor of the Senate and said this is not the time to tweak our natural gas policy. We do not need to sit around and wait for a big surprise on energy like we had a big surprise on September 11 on terrorism. We need an aggressive policy. We need a comprehensive policy. We need aggressive conservation. That is where we should start. We need aggressive alternative fuels. That means nuclear and that means coal gasification. We need aggressive research and development, whether it is hydrogen or whether it is solar, or whether it is methane gas hydrates. We need aggressive production. We have lots of gas in the United States. We should be using it if we have $7 gas. For the time being, we need to create the terminals that will permit us to import enough liquefied natural gas to get that $7 price down to $6 or $5 or $4. Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson from South Dakota for joining me in this comprehensive aggressive approach. I thank Senator Domenici for taking the lead on an energy bill. I thank Senator Bingaman, who is the ranking Democrat on our committee, because I notice on our committee a greater sense of urgency, a greater sense of bipartisan cooperation on coming up with an energy bill this year. Our blue-collar workers, our farmers, our homeowners in Tennessee and across this country expect it from us. Senator Johnson's and my contribution today is to introduce this comprehensive 250-page bill and to get on the table all the aggressive ideas we can think of that make sense about how to reduce the price of natural gas for workers, for farmers, and for homeowners. We hope it contributes to the discussion. We hope we find lots of these provisions in an ambitious energy bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues, as I know Senator Johnson does, on a bipartisan basis to help lower the price of natural gas, keep our jobs, keep our homes cool and warm, and make it possible for farmers to make a living. Natural gas prices are at record levels and the highest of any industrialized country. High natural gas prices are threatening our jobs, our farms, and hurting Americans who are trying to heat and cool their homes. Only an ambitious, comprehensive approach that both increases supply and controls demand can lower the price of natural gas and keep our growing economic recovery from becoming recent history. This is not a question of tweaking our natural gas policy. It is time to aggressively revamp it. We need aggressive conservation, aggressive use of alternative fuels, aggressive research and development, aggressive production and for the time being, aggressive imports of liquefied natural gas. Aggressive conservation, for example, means setting stronger appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency so that a commercial air conditioner will cool the same while using less natural gas to do it. Aggressive use of alternative fuels, for example, means fully commercializing coal gasification, starting with support for the deployment of six coal gasification plants by 2013. Coal gasification means that you burn coal to produce power but get the much lower pollution output of using natural gas. Aggressive research and development includes investment in research of gas hydrates. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are ice-like solid structures consisting of water and gases, mainly methane, compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal U.S. areas are rich in this resource. The U.S. is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. Aggressive production means, among other changes, allowing states to selectively waive the federal moratoria on off-shore production and collect significant revenues from such production. And aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas starts with giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority for siting and regulating LNG terminals, while still preserving states' authorities under the Coastal Zone Management Act and other acts. In March 2002, Secretary of Energy Abraham requested that the National Petroleum Council undertake an extensive study on the natural gas crisis. That council, a Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, produced in late 2003 one of the most extensive policy studies and recommendations on the natural gas crisis to date. Since that time, other prominent groups, such as the National Commission on Energy Policy, have also produced extensive studies on the natural gas crisis. In October 2004, I held a roundtable on the impact of soaring natural gas prices on Tennessee farmers and jobs. The Senate Energy Committee has held numerous hearings over the last 2 years and recently held an extensive natural gas roundtable on the subject on January 24, 2005. Over 100 proposals were submitted to the Senate Energy Committee on natural gas issues. The conclusion of all of these forums has been clear. High natural gas prices are threatening our country's economic competitiveness and costing us jobs. For example, high natural gas prices have been the equivalent of a 10 percent pay cut to American farmers. The situation is urgent. There are no silver bullets. We cannot conserve our way out of this problem, nor can we drill our way out of this problem. We will need to be aggressive on all fronts, in order to keep our industries competitive. High natural gas costs are also tied to high oil prices. We need to address both natural gas and oil prices in order to lower natural gas costs. Our country has contradictory policies on natural gas--on one hand, we encourage its use. On the other hand, we limit access to its supply. We need to amend our contradictory natural gas and environmental policies. That's why I am introducing the ``Natural Gas Price Reduction Act.'' It is an aggressive, bold approach to tackle this issue. This 250-page legislation is an attempt to start a very difficult, but balanced, legislative discussion in the United States Senate on natural gas prices. I have taken the best ideas that I have heard in these roundtable discussions and from the various policy studies. I have met with hundreds of people in the past year discussing natural gas prices. This legislation is an attempt to be more aggressive on all areas impacting natural gas prices--energy efficiency and fuel diversity, natural gas supply, and improved infrastructure for importation of liquefied natural gas. Half our Nation's increase in natural gas demand in the last decade has come from the power sector. So to conserve natural gas, one must not only reduce consumption of gas itself, but also of electricity. And, as I noted, since oil prices affect natural gas prices, conserving oil is also important. My bill addresses conservation in five ways. The bill creates a 4-year national consumer education program on the urgent need for energy conservation. A statewide California effort to educate energy consumers resulted in savings of 10 percent at peak usage--the equivalent of five-and-a-half 1,000 Megawatt coal-powered power plants. My bill aims to take that effort to the entire nation. The legislation sets higher appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency. These standards have been negotiated between consumer and industry representatives and are codified in the bill. For example, the standards would require a new kitchen oven to produce the same heat while using less natural gas to do it. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that these standards will reduce natural gas use by about 125 BCF in 2010 and 525 BCF in 2020. In addition these standards will reduce peak electric demand by about 33,500 MW in 2020, equivalent to 34 coal power plants of 1000 MW each, and will save consumers and businesses more than $60 billion. The bill creates tax incentives and provides regulatory relief to enable manufacturing facilities to more easily produce their own power and steam from a single source--a process called cogeneration or CHP which saves money and energy while also reducing pollutants. A CHP system can produce the same electrical and thermal output at 75 percent fuel conversion efficiency as compared to 49 percent separate steam and power. This is a 50 percent gain in overall efficiency, resulting in a 35 percent fuel savings. Large industrial plants, such as International Paper, Alcoa and Eastman in my home State of Tennessee all use cogeneration in their manufacturing processes. More companies could do the same, and the bill particularly focuses on providing incentive for smaller cogeneration projects. The Alexander bill provides incentive for public utilities to utilize their natural gas plants based on efficiency. The process of activating different power plants to meet demand during a given day is called ``dispatching.'' For example, on a hot summer day in Tennessee, the demand for electricity, for air conditioning, might be highest in the early afternoon, so then a power company would have to dispatch the most power plants to provide the energy. But during the cooler night, they might dispatch less plants since less power is needed. If power companies dispatched their most efficient plants first, this would save us a significant amount of natural gas. As you can see, the highest saving will be in the medium-term--2010-2015--but real savings continue for many years. Our reliance on foreign oil is the silent elephant in the room when it comes to high natural gas prices. My legislation includes a provision that requires the President report to Congress annually on efforts to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum 1.75 million barrels a day from projected 2013 levels, almost 10 percent. As I noted earlier, oil and gas are usually produced together; and, typically, there is a 6:1 ratio between natural gas and oil prices. Reducing dependence on foreign oil will help bring natural gas prices down. Conservation of natural gas and related energy sources is critical to lowering prices and keeping our manufacturing and farming jobs here in the United States. But conservation alone is not enough. The second focus must be to develop alternative sources of energy. The ``Keep Manufacturing and Farming Jobs in the United States Act'' encourages the use of three alternative fuels: The bill initiates a national coal gasification strategy. Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, TN, has been using coal gasification with a 95% availability factor for the past 20 years. Tampa Electric has successfully demonstrated large-scale coal gasification. It is time for this process to be more widely used. Coal gasification is a process whereby gas derived from burning coal is used as a source of energy or a raw material. When used in a power plant, coal gasification means that you burn coal but get the much lower pollution output of using natural gas. My legislation provides up to $2 billion in tax or other incentives to support the construction of six new coal gasification power plants. Similarly, the legislation provides up to $2 billion in assistance for industrial gasification projects. The bill also provides streamlined permitting for coal gasification facilities. Coal is an abundant resource in the United States; we should use it to produce clean energy and raw material for industrial applications. Solar energy is another clean, alternative fuel source that could be developed further. Solar energy can be used directly for heating as well as to create electricity. To push an aggressive solar energy strategy, the Alexander legislation provides tax incentives for investment in solar power generation. Specifically, it provides businesses a tax credit for investing in geothermal or solar heating and/or power generation--10 percent heating, 25 percent for generating or displacing electricity. My bill also contains language to invest in new technologies to use hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles. The language in this bill mirrors language I offered in the last session of Congress on the Energy Bill that would have enacted President Bush's Hydrogenl/Fuel Cell Initiative. When I visited Japan last year, I visited a hydrogen fuel station--that looked much like a gas station--and saw fuel cell vehicles that range from small cars to SUVs. These cars not only allow us to use an alternative fuel source but are also great for the environment--their only byproduct is water vapor. The bill invests in research and development of technologies and infrastructure for 2 hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are ice-like solid structures consisting of water and gases--mainly methane--compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal US areas are rich in this resource--the U.S. is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. My bill invests $200 million over the next 4 years in research for this promising new resource, a number consistent with recommendations from the National Commission on Energy Policy. Conserving natural gas and using alternative fuels will take us a long way to reducing gas prices and keeping jobs here in the U.S., but we must also address the other side of the equation: supply. As Energy Committee members learned at our Natural Gas Roundtable, our current policy encourages consumption of natural gas while restricting the supply. We need to stop putting unnecessary restrictions on production and supply of natural gas, and my legislation does so by addressing production off-shore and in the Rocky Mountains as well as the importation of liquid natural gas from abroad. We have plenty of natural gas here in the U.S., we just cannot get to it. There are large fields off the coasts, especially the Atlantic, and in the Rocky Mountains. There is no reason for natural gas prices here in the U.S. to be so high when we have so much available here--if only we would use it. Today, there are two moratoria on our outer continental shelf, OCS--a congressional moratorium and a Presidential moratorium. The Atlantic Coast--40 miles off the coast is believed to be largely natural gas- prone. The Pacific Coast is believed--to be mainly oil-prone. The Gulf of Mexico is both. Today, when production is greater than 9 miles offshore, a State that has oil and gas production gets zero percent of the production revenues. This is radically different than onshore production; on Federal lands, States get 50 percent of the production revenues. Alaska gets 90 percent of the production revenues. In order to have a constructive dialogue on OCS production, the right framework needs to be established. My legislation provides the Department of the Interior with the legal authority to issue natural gas only leases. Currently, Interior can only issue combination gas and oil leases. Since there is greater hesitation about the environmental impact of producing oil off-shore, issuing natural gas-only leases may alleviate some concerns. It also instructs the Secretary of the Interior to draw the state boundary between Alabama and Florida regarding Lease 181--a disputed area off the coast of both states in the Gulf of Mexico in which Alabama may wish to permit production while Florida may not. The boundaries shall be drawn using established international law. Under my bill, portions of Lease 181, which are not in the state of Florida and greater than 30 miles off of the coast of Alabama, shall be leased by December 31, 2007. However, of those portions of Lease 181 that are in the State of Florida, the State of Florida may keep the moratoria. Leasing would not be allowed to interfere with U.S. military operations in the Gulf Coast. Finally, under the bill, States will have the authority to request studies of natural gas resources off their coasts and be permitted to waive Federal moratoria on offshore production. The states shall not have the authority to lift the moratoria at National Marine Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Refuge Area. The State of Virginia recently engaged on this issue, and the state ought to have the ability to license off-shore production--especially if it is far enough off-shore that you cannot even see it from land. My bill also allows States to collect significant revenue from such production, and designates that a portion of revenues also go to a conservation royalty. The conservation royalty would be shared equally by the Federal land and water conservation fund, state land and water conservation fund and wildlife grants. Importing liquefied natural gas--LNG--requires the infrastructure to receive it. LNG comes to the U.S. by ship, and terminals to receive these ships and unload LNG must be built and appropriate infrastructure developed to transport gas from those terminals to users across the country. My bill streamlines the development of offshore liquefied natural gas terminals. The siting of LNG terminals has become a difficult issue since we all want cheaper natural gas, but no one seems to want an LNG terminal in ``their backyard.'' The Alexander legislation gives FERC clear authority for regulating liquid natural gas terminals, but, unlike a related House bill, still preserves States' authorities under the Coastal Zone Management Act and other acts. I hope this will provide some balance so that LNG terminals can be sited, but environmental concerns will play a significant role in choosing their sites. In an effort to speed the siting of pipelines that allow natural gas to reach all parts of the country, the bill also requires that FERC grant or deny a terminal or pipeline application within one year. Our country is facing an energy crisis. We are consuming more and more electricity. Gasoline prices are poised to reach all time highs. The price of oil is up. And so, too, is the price of natural gas. The bill I introduce today, the ``Natural Gas Price Reduction Act,'' addresses high natural gas prices. Natural gas is not just used for heating homes, a source of electricity, it is a raw material for industries, and it is an important component in fertilizers used by farmers. High natural gas prices have cost farmers a 10-percent pay cut and are shipping manufacturing and chemical jobs overseas. We can not afford to let this problem fester any longer. Bold action is required, and that is what my legislation provides. This bill takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem by encouraging conservation, developing alternative fuel sources, and reducing roadblocks to the production and importation of natural gas. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005 and the ``Tax Provisions for Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005.'' I send to the desk two pieces of legislation. One is the substantive provisions of the bill and one is the tax provisions of the bill. Mr. President, I offer the legislation on behalf of myself and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, who is the lead Democratic sponsor on the legislation. I do so with appreciation to the chairman of our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Pete Domenici, and the staff of that committee who have worked very closely with us on the development of this comprehensive piece of legislation, and with thanks to my own staff, Sharon Segner, who has worked on it for several months. This is a piece of legislation to address aggressively and comprehensively the rising cost of natural gas in the United States. This is legislation for the blue-collar worker, for the American farmer, and for the American homeowner. Natural gas prices in the United States are at record levels. We have gone from having the lowest natural gas prices in the industrial world to the highest. These high prices are threatening millions of our jobs. Our farmers are getting a 10-percent pay cut. Homeowners are having a hard time paying their heating and cooling bills because of our contradictory policies. Our policies boil down to this: We are restricting the supply of natural gas, and we are encouraging the use of natural gas. You do not have to go very far in an economics class at the University of Oklahoma or the University of Tennessee to know that if you restrict supply and encourage demand, the inevitable result is higher prices. And higher prices is a very serious problem for U.S. workers, U.S. homeowners, and U.S. farmers. Only an ambitious and comprehensive approach that both increases supply and controls demand can lower the price of natural gas and keep our economy growing. This is not a question of tweaking our natural gas policy. It is time, aggressively, to revamp it. We need aggressive conservation. We need aggressive use of alternative fuels. We need aggressive research and development. We need aggressive production. And, for the time being, we need aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. Here on this chart is an idea of where we are today. This is the United States of America: $7 per unit for natural gas--the highest in the industrialized world. Until recently, we had the lowest natural gas prices in the world. What that means is large parts of our industries--the chemical industry, for example--were built on the idea of $1.50 or $2 for natural gas, but today it is $7. A million Americans work in those blue-collar manufacturing jobs in every State in our country. Now, if they are paying $7 here, and it is $5.55 in Canada and $5.15 in the United Kingdom and $2.65 in Turkey and $1.70 in the Ukraine, where do you suppose, though, a million blue-collar jobs are going to be 5 years from now, if we do not do something about the $7 price? They are not going to be in the United States. They are going to be moving out of the United States, to the United Kingdom, to Germany, to the Ukraine, to other parts of the world. And people are going to be writing their Congressmen and saying: Why didn't you do something? So here is what we can do. By aggressive conservation, I mean setting stronger appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency so that a commercial air conditioner will cool the same while using less natural gas doing it. Those standards have been generally agreed upon by environmental groups with the industry. If they were put in place, by a rough estimate, they might save the equivalent energy that could be produced by 30 or 35 powerplants. By aggressive use of alternative fuels, I mean, for example, fully commercializing coal gasification. Coal gasification is taking this abundant supply of coal we have in the United States--we are the ``OPEC,'' the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal; we have a 400- or 500-year supply--and finding a clean way to use it instead of importing oil from a part of the world where people are blowing each other up. That means starting with support so we can have six coal gasification plants in this country by the year 2013. Coal gasification means, you burn the coal to create gas, and then you burn the gas to create power. If we can do that commercially, we will not only be passing a clean energy bill, we will be passing a clean air bill, because if you do that, you remove most of the mercury, most of the nitrogen, most of the sulfur. And by additional research, we may be able to find a way to recapture the carbon that is produced and put that in the ground and solve the carbon problems that a lot of people are talking about around the world. In addition to helping ourselves, we would help ourselves by helping others. China and India and other parts of the world are building hundreds of coal plants. We would much rather them build a coal gasification plant, one that is clean and does not contribute to air pollution. Because if China and India and Brazil build dirty coal plants, that air blows around the world, and it blows into Tennessee and it blows into South Carolina. It blows into Oklahoma. So aggressive alternative fuels is a part of a natural gas supply. Aggressive research and development includes investment and research in gas hydrates. Gas hydrates is gas that is in the ground. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are like ice solid structures, consisting of water and gases, mainly methane, compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal U.S. areas are rich in this resource. The United States is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. We need to find a way to use that gas so we do not have $7 per unit natural gas prices. That sends millions of jobs overseas. That cuts the income of farmers. And that raises home heating prices and cooling prices for residential Americans. Aggressive production means, among other things, allowing States to selectively waive the Federal moratoria on offshore production of gas and collect significant revenues from such production. Let me give you an example. Within the last few weeks, the legislature of Virginia decided it might like to explore the idea of drilling for gas offshore. Now, why would Virginia want to do that? Because there is probably a lot of gas offshore. What would that mean for Virginia? Well, they could put a gas rig out in the ocean, beyond 20 miles, so nobody in Virginia or North Carolina could see it, run a pipeline underground to Virginia, and take their share of the revenues. And they can lower taxes in Virginia and put the rest of the money in a trust fund to build the best colleges and universities in America. That is what they could do in Virginia. If Tennessee had a coastline, and I were Governor of Tennessee, that is what I would be asking the Congress to let me do. I think as other Governors and other legislatures and other people look at Texas and Louisiana and Alabama and see what they are doing and decide that they can in an environmentally sensitive way exercise a State option to drill for gas in Federal waters so far out you can't see it, that they will find that a good option because it will help lower the price of gas. It can build up the schools and keep taxes down, and it can avoid other worse forms of energy. For example, you would have to have 46 square miles of windmills, these things that are 100 yards tall, in order to equal one gas rig that you couldn't see out in the ocean. This is a State option. Aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas starts with giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority for siting and regulating what we call LNG terminals. This means importing liquefied natural gas from other parts of the world. There is a lot of it around the world. They freeze it and put it in tankers, and they bring it here and put it in our pipelines, and then we have it. That seems like a pretty big waste of effort when we have plenty of natural gas here in the United States that we don't have access to. But if we want an adequate supply of natural gas, we are going to have to import some from around the world, and that means we are going to need terminals to which to bring it. Some of them may be offshore. They might be 10, 12, 14 miles offshore. Some of them, like the four we have today, may need to be onshore. There is no silver bullet. There is no single answer. That is why we need aggressive conservation. If, for example, the United States adopted the conservation attitudes towards natural gas that California did a few years ago, it might equal what 50 powerplants could produce in the United States. If that is so, we ought to do it today. That would begin to bring this $7 figure down. Aggressive use of alternative fuels such as coal gasification. I also would say nuclear power is the most obvious alternative fuel to natural gas. If we had more nuclear power, we would use less natural gas. In our country today, what do you suppose we are using to create electricity when we need more electricity even though the cost of it is $7 a unit, the highest in the world? Natural gas, because natural gas plants can be built for a few hundred million dollars, and we have created an environment where we can't use nuclear. We haven't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970s, even though we invented the technology, even though France has 80 percent of its power now produced by nuclear power, even though Japan builds a new nuclear plant every year or so. We invented it. Our Navy has operated nuclear reactors since the 1950s without ever having a single accident. It is a clean, obvious alternative to $7 natural gas, and we haven't built a plant since the 1970s. So we need to think seriously about aggressive conservation, aggressive use of alternative fuels, aggressive research and development for solar, for methane hydrates, aggressive production, and that includes giving States the option of deciding whether they would like to drill offshore and take some of the revenues and put some of the revenues into a conservation fund, and aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas from overseas at least for the time being. In March of 2002, the Secretary of Energy requested that the National Petroleum Council undertake an extensive study on the natural gas crisis. That advisory council produced a study. It talked about the results I have described. Our Senate Energy Committee, under the chairman, Senator Domenici, has paid a lot of attention to that report. Senator Domenici hosted what we called a natural gas roundtable that was well attended by Senators and went on for 3 or 4 hours. There were more than 100 proposals presented. I am chairman of the subcommittee of that full committee, and so my purpose today is to take many of the ideas that we heard that made the most sense, some of which people haven't been willing to advocate, and put them into the discussion. Again, because I do not want to be a Senator who 10 years from now somebody comes up to and says: How did you let farmers get a 20-percent pay cut because of $7, $8, $9 natural gas; how did you let millions of jobs in the chemical industry, the auto industry go overseas because of $7, $8, and $9 natural gas; how did you let prices of natural gas for home heating or cooling get so high that middle-income Americans can't even afford to heat their homes? I don't want to be that kind of Senator. So I am here today with a comprehensive proposal across the board even though some of the ideas will create that kind of controversy. I have summarized in a few words the provisions of a 250-page piece of legislation. We were ambushed in the United States on September 11, 2001. Even though you could argue that we might have known it was coming, terrorism wasn't new on September 11, 2001. I remember being in a meeting with Prime Minister Rabin of Israel in 1994. At the end of a long day, I asked him: What is the greatest challenge threatening the world? And he said terrorism. That was many years before we were attacked. He was right. He was dead within a few months at the hands of terrorists within his own country. We didn't see the terrorism coming. We were ambushed, and we have paid a terrible price--in lives, in dollars. We have had to create whole new departments. We have had to interrupt the lives of thousand of national guardsmen and Army reservists and send them overseas, some to die and some to be wounded, because of terrorism. Maybe we couldn't have seen exactly that act coming, but we knew it was out there. We are about to have another big surprise. That is to our standard of living. We are 5 to 6 percent of all the people in the world. Yet we produce a third of all the money in the world. We could wake up 10 years from now and that picture could be very changed. One way is if we lose our brainpower advantage. And we could lose it. Half of our new jobs have been created by science and technology since the end of World War II. And if we go through our budget balancing, deficit controlling exercise for the next 10 years and we don't double investments for the physical sciences and retake the lead in advanced computing, and if we don't see that we have plenty of graduate students in science and engineering, we are going to find most of the R&D will be done in other parts of the world. We are going to find most of the engineers who produce this brainpower that creates jobs in other parts of the world. They are thinking in China, and they are thinking in India. There is no real good reason why the United States should make a third of all the money in the world every year with just 5 or 6 percent of the people, and we have so little. So they are keeping their bright people home. They are building up their universities. They are doing what we need to keep doing. That is one place we could get a big surprise. But the other is in energy. We have taken energy for granted for a long time. I know I come from Tennessee. We have had the Tennessee Valley Authority. It has sat there since the 1930s, and it has produced reliable, low-cost electricity. Homes that have never been lit, barns that have never been lit, rural areas that have never been lit have enjoyed that. That is within my lifetime. And then while I was Governor in the 1990s, I remember that one of the big attractions for Saturn and Nissan and the automobile industry coming into Tennessee was low-cost reliable power. But when I had a natural gas roundtable last fall in Tennessee, there was the president of Saturn, the president of Nissan, the head of the Tennessee Farm Bureau. There was the head of the University of Tennessee. They were all saying: We can't live in Tennessee on $7 natural gas. What do they do if they can't? It is very easy what they do. They don't have to have those jobs in Tennessee or South Carolina. They can move them to Germany, they can move them to Mexico, they can move them to Canada, and they are doing it every day. And Tennessee Eastman in the upper part of east Tennessee, which we think is just like the great Smokey Mountains, has been there so long. There are 12,000 people there, real good incomes. What do they use to make chemicals there? They use natural gas. How long are they going to be there? If we have $7 gas and they have $3 and $4 gas in other parts of the world, I am afraid they are not going to be there too long. And somebody is going to say to me: What did you do about it? At least my answer is I stood up on the floor of the Senate and said this is not the time to tweak our natural gas policy. We do not need to sit around and wait for a big surprise on energy like we had a big surprise on September 11 on terrorism. We need an aggressive policy. We need a comprehensive policy. We need aggressive conservation. That is where we should start. We need aggressive alternative fuels. That means nuclear and that means coal gasification. We need aggressive research and development, whether it is hydrogen or whether it is solar, or whether it is methane gas hydrates. We need aggressive production. We have lots of gas in the United States. We should be using it if we have $7 gas. For the time being, we need to create the terminals that will permit us to import enough liquefied natural gas to get that $7 price down to $6 or $5 or $4. Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson from South Dakota for joining me in this comprehensive aggressive approach. I thank Senator Domenici for taking the lead on an energy bill. I thank Senator Bingaman, who is the ranking Democrat on our committee, because I notice on our committee a greater sense of urgency, a greater sense of bipartisan cooperation on coming up with an energy bill this year. Our blue-collar workers, our farmers, our homeowners in Tennessee and across this country expect it from us. Senator Johnson's and my contribution today is to introduce this comprehensive 250-page bill and to get on the table all the aggressive ideas we can think of that make sense about how to reduce the price of natural gas for workers, for farmers, and for homeowners. We hope it contributes to the discussion. We hope we find lots of these provisions in an ambitious energy bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues, as I know Senator Johnson does, on a bipartisan basis to help lower the price of natural gas, keep our jobs, keep our homes cool and warm, and make it possible for farmers to make a living. Natural gas prices are at record levels and the highest of any industrialized country. High natural gas prices are threatening our jobs, our farms, and hurting Americans who are trying to heat and cool their homes. Only an ambitious, comprehensive approach that both increases supply and controls demand can lower the price of natural gas and keep our growing economic recovery from becoming recent history. This is not a question of tweaking our natural gas policy. It is time to aggressively revamp it. We need aggressive conservation, aggressive use of alternative fuels, aggressive research and development, aggressive production and for the time being, aggressive imports of liquefied natural gas. Aggressive conservation, for example, means setting stronger appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency so that a commercial air conditioner will cool the same while using less natural gas to do it. Aggressive use of alternative fuels, for example, means fully commercializing coal gasification, starting with support for the deployment of six coal gasification plants by 2013. Coal gasification means that you burn coal to produce power but get the much lower pollution output of using natural gas. Aggressive research and development includes investment in research of gas hydrates. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are ice-like solid structures consisting of water and gases, mainly methane, compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal U.S. areas are rich in this resource. The U.S. is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. Aggressive production means, among other changes, allowing states to selectively waive the federal moratoria on off-shore production and collect significant revenues from such production. And aggressive importation of liquefied natural gas starts with giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority for siting and regulating LNG terminals, while still preserving states' authorities under the Coastal Zone Management Act and other acts. In March 2002, Secretary of Energy Abraham requested that the National Petroleum Council undertake an extensive study on the natural gas crisis. That council, a Federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, produced in late 2003 one of the most extensive policy studies and recommendations on the natural gas crisis to date. Since that time, other prominent groups, such as the National Commission on Energy Policy, have also produced extensive studies on the natural gas crisis. In October 2004, I held a roundtable on the impact of soaring natural gas prices on Tennessee farmers and jobs. The Senate Energy Committee has held numerous hearings over the last 2 years and recently held an extensive natural gas roundtable on the subject on January 24, 2005. Over 100 proposals were submitted to the Senate Energy Committee on natural gas issues. The conclusion of all of these forums has been clear. High natural gas prices are threatening our country's economic competitiveness and costing us jobs. For example, high natural gas prices have been the equivalent of a 10 percent pay cut to American farmers. The situation is urgent. There are no silver bullets. We cannot conserve our way out of this problem, nor can we drill our way out of this problem. We will need to be aggressive on all fronts, in order to keep our industries competitive. High natural gas costs are also tied to high oil prices. We need to address both natural gas and oil prices in order to lower natural gas costs. Our country has contradictory policies on natural gas--on one hand, we encourage its use. On the other hand, we limit access to its supply. We need to amend our contradictory natural gas and environmental policies. That's why I am introducing the ``Natural Gas Price Reduction Act.'' It is an aggressive, bold approach to tackle this issue. This 250-page legislation is an attempt to start a very difficult, but balanced, legislative discussion in the United States Senate on natural gas prices. I have taken the best ideas that I have heard in these roundtable discussions and from the various policy studies. I have met with hundreds of people in the past year discussing natural gas prices. This legislation is an attempt to be more aggressive on all areas impacting natural gas prices--energy efficiency and fuel diversity, natural gas supply, and improved infrastructure for importation of liquefied natural gas. Half our Nation's increase in natural gas demand in the last decade has come from the power sector. So to conserve natural gas, one must not only reduce consumption of gas itself, but also of electricity. And, as I noted, since oil prices affect natural gas prices, conserving oil is also important. My bill addresses conservation in five ways. The bill creates a 4-year national consumer education program on the urgent need for energy conservation. A statewide California effort to educate energy consumers resulted in savings of 10 percent at peak usage--the equivalent of five-and-a-half 1,000 Megawatt coal-powered power plants. My bill aims to take that effort to the entire nation. The legislation sets higher appliance and equipment standards for natural gas efficiency. These standards have been negotiated between consumer and industry representatives and are codified in the bill. For example, the standards would require a new kitchen oven to produce the same heat while using less natural gas to do it. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy estimates that these standards will reduce natural gas use by about 125 BCF in 2010 and 525 BCF in 2020. In addition these standards will reduce peak electric demand by about 33,500 MW in 2020, equivalent to 34 coal power plants of 1000 MW each, and will save consumers and businesses more than $60 billion. The bill creates tax incentives and provides regulatory relief to enable manufacturing facilities to more easily produce their own power and steam from a single source--a process called cogeneration or CHP which saves money and energy while also reducing pollutants. A CHP system can produce the same electrical and thermal output at 75 percent fuel conversion efficiency as compared to 49 percent separate steam and power. This is a 50 percent gain in overall efficiency, resulting in a 35 percent fuel savings. Large industrial plants, such as International Paper, Alcoa and Eastman in my home State of Tennessee all use cogeneration in their manufacturing processes. More companies could do the same, and the bill particularly focuses on providing incentive for smaller cogeneration projects. The Alexander bill provides incentive for public utilities to utilize their natural gas plants based on efficiency. The process of activating different power plants to meet demand during a given day is called ``dispatching.'' For example, on a hot summer day in Tennessee, the demand for electricity, for air conditioning, might be highest in the early afternoon, so then a power company would have to dispatch the most power plants to provide the energy. But during the cooler night, they might dispatch less plants since less power is needed. If power companies dispatched their most efficient plants first, this would save us a significant amount of natural gas. As you can see, the highest saving will be in the medium-term--2010-2015--but real savings continue for many years. Our reliance on foreign oil is the silent elephant in the room when it comes to high natural gas prices. My legislation includes a provision that requires the President report to Congress annually on efforts to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum 1.75 million barrels a day from projected 2013 levels, almost 10 percent. As I noted earlier, oil and gas are usually produced together; and, typically, there is a 6:1 ratio between natural gas and oil prices. Reducing dependence on foreign oil will help bring natural gas prices down. Conservation of natural gas and related energy sources is critical to lowering prices and keeping our manufacturing and farming jobs here in the United States. But conservation alone is not enough. The second focus must be to develop alternative sources of energy. The ``Keep Manufacturing and Farming Jobs in the United States Act'' encourages the use of three alternative fuels: The bill initiates a national coal gasification strategy. Eastman Chemical in Kingsport, TN, has been using coal gasification with a 95% availability factor for the past 20 years. Tampa Electric has successfully demonstrated large-scale coal gasification. It is time for this process to be more widely used. Coal gasification is a process whereby gas derived from burning coal is used as a source of energy or a raw material. When used in a power plant, coal gasification means that you burn coal but get the much lower pollution output of using natural gas. My legislation provides up to $2 billion in tax or other incentives to support the construction of six new coal gasification power plants. Similarly, the legislation provides up to $2 billion in assistance for industrial gasification projects. The bill also provides streamlined permitting for coal gasification facilities. Coal is an abundant resource in the United States; we should use it to produce clean energy and raw material for industrial applications. Solar energy is another clean, alternative fuel source that could be developed further. Solar energy can be used directly for heating as well as to create electricity. To push an aggressive solar energy strategy, the Alexander legislation provides tax incentives for investment in solar power generation. Specifically, it provides businesses a tax credit for investing in geothermal or solar heating and/or power generation--10 percent heating, 25 percent for generating or displacing electricity. My bill also contains language to invest in new technologies to use hydrogen to power fuel cell vehicles. The language in this bill mirrors language I offered in the last session of Congress on the Energy Bill that would have enacted President Bush's Hydrogenl/Fuel Cell Initiative. When I visited Japan last year, I visited a hydrogen fuel station--that looked much like a gas station--and saw fuel cell vehicles that range from small cars to SUVs. These cars not only allow us to use an alternative fuel source but are also great for the environment--their only byproduct is water vapor. The bill invests in research and development of technologies and infrastructure for 2 hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. Methane hydrates hold tremendous potential to provide abundant supplies of natural gas. Hydrates are ice-like solid structures consisting of water and gases--mainly methane--compressed to greater than normal densities. Coastal US areas are rich in this resource--the U.S. is estimated to contain one-fourth of the world's supply. My bill invests $200 million over the next 4 years in research for this promising new resource, a number consistent with recommendations from the National Commission on Energy Policy. Conserving natural gas and using alternative fuels will take us a long way to reducing gas prices and keeping jobs here in the U.S., but we must also address the other side of the equation: supply. As Energy Committee members learned at our Natural Gas Roundtable, our current policy encourages consumption of natural gas while restricting the supply. We need to stop putting unnecessary restrictions on production and supply of natural gas, and my legislation does so by addressing production off-shore and in the Rocky Mountains as well as the importation of liquid natural gas from abroad. We have plenty of natural gas here in the U.S., we just cannot get to it. There are large fields off the coasts, especially the Atlantic, and in the Rocky Mountains. There is no reason for natural gas prices here in the U.S. to be so high when we have so much available here--if only we would use it. Today, there are two moratoria on our outer continental shelf, OCS--a congressional moratorium and a Presidential moratorium. The Atlantic Coast--40 miles off the coast is believed to be largely natural gas- prone. The Pacific Coast is believed--to be mainly oil-prone. The Gulf of Mexico is both. Today, when production is greater than 9 miles offshore, a State that has oil and gas production gets zero percent of the production revenues. This is radically different than onshore production; on Federal lands, States get 50 percent of the production revenues. Alaska gets 90 percent of the production revenues. In order to have a constructive dialogue on OCS production, the right framework needs to be established. My legislation provides the Department of the Interior with the legal authority to issue natural gas only leases. Currently, Interior can only issue combination gas and oil leases. Since there is greater hesitation about the environmental impact of producing oil off-shore, issuing natural gas-only leases may alleviate some concerns. It also instructs the Secretary of the Interior to draw the state boundary between Alabama and Florida regarding Lease 181--a disputed area off the coast of both states in the Gulf of Mexico in which Alabama may wish to permit production while Florida may not. The boundaries shall be drawn using established international law. Under my bill, portions of Lease 181, which are not in the state of Florida and greater than 30 miles off of the coast of Alabama, shall be leased by December 31, 2007. However, of those portions of Lease 181 that are in the State of Florida, the State of Florida may keep the moratoria. Leasing would not be allowed to interfere with U.S. military operations in the Gulf Coast. Finally, under the bill, States will have the authority to request studies of natural gas resources off their coasts and be permitted to waive Federal moratoria on offshore production. The states shall not have the authority to lift the moratoria at National Marine Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Refuge Area. The State of Virginia recently engaged on this issue, and the state ought to have the ability to license off-shore production--especially if it is far enough off-shore that you cannot even see it from land. My bill also allows States to collect significant revenue from such production, and designates that a portion of revenues also go to a conservation royalty. The conservation royalty would be shared equally by the Federal land and water conservation fund, state land and water conservation fund and wildlife grants. Importing liquefied natural gas--LNG--requires the infrastructure to receive it. LNG comes to the U.S. by ship, and terminals to receive these ships and unload LNG must be built and appropriate infrastructure developed to transport gas from those terminals to users across the country. My bill streamlines the development of offshore liquefied natural gas terminals. The siting of LNG terminals has become a difficult issue since we all want cheaper natural gas, but no one seems to want an LNG terminal in ``their backyard.'' The Alexander legislation gives FERC clear authority for regulating liquid natural gas terminals, but, unlike a related House bill, still preserves States' authorities under the Coastal Zone Management Act and other acts. I hope this will provide some balance so that LNG terminals can be sited, but environmental concerns will play a significant role in choosing their sites. In an effort to speed the siting of pipelines that allow natural gas to reach all parts of the country, the bill also requires that FERC grant or deny a terminal or pipeline application within one year. Our country is facing an energy crisis. We are consuming more and more electricity. Gasoline prices are poised to reach all time highs. The price of oil is up. And so, too, is the price of natural gas. The bill I introduce today, the ``Natural Gas Price Reduction Act,'' addresses high natural gas prices. Natural gas is not just used for heating homes, a source of electricity, it is a raw material for industries, and it is an important component in fertilizers used by farmers. High natural gas prices have cost farmers a 10-percent pay cut and are shipping manufacturing and chemical jobs overseas. We can not afford to let this problem fester any longer. Bold action is required, and that is what my legislation provides. This bill takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem by encouraging conservation, developing alternative fuel sources, and reducing roadblocks to the production and importation of natural gas. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the majority leader's remarks about Viktor Yushchenko, who will be addressing a joint meeting at 11 o'clock. Two weeks ago, I had the privilege, with the Democratic leader, of visiting with Mr. Yushchenko for an hour. We also were in Georgia, Iraq, Palestine, and Israel. We saw emerging democracies across the country. One of the most vivid impressions I had was after meeting with Mr. Yushchenko, we met with students in Ukraine. Senator Reid asked them how long before they expected results. These were the ones who Senator Frist described as being among the hundreds of thousands in November and December waiting outside in the bitter cold causing this change. Some of the students said a year. Others disagreed and said 9 months. It seems to me one of the greatest dangers we have with these emerging democracies is reminding them that there is no such thing as an instant democracy in Ukraine or anywhere else. So I said to the students with respect: In the United States, it took us 12 years to write a constitution after the Declaration of Independence, and we had to lock the press out to do it. It took us 130 years to give women the right to vote. It took us 200 years before African Americans could vote in every part of our country. So in Iraq, in Georgia, in Ukraine, in emerging democracies, patience is important, and that is one of the examples we have.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act, or PREEMIE Act. This bipartisan bill expands research into the causes and prevention of prematurity, babies born 3 weeks or more early, and increases education and support services related to prematurity. I am pleased that Senator Dodd is once again my partner on this legislation and we hope the Senate will pass the PREEMIE Act in this Congress. In June 2004, the Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I chaired, held a hearing to learn about the problem of premature birth. Unfortunately, Tennessee has the fourth highest rate of premature birth in the country. Fourteen percent of Tennessee babies are born prematurely. In an average week in Tennessee, 210 babies are born prematurely. Premature infants are 14 times more likely to die in the first year of life. It is the No. 1 cause of infant death in the first month of life. Premature babies who survive may suffer lifelong consequences including: cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. In February 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics, NCHS, reported the first increase in the U.S. infant mortality rate since 1958, from 6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to 7.0 in 2000. This increase is extremely disturbing because the infant mortality rate is a measure of the health of society. NCHS subsequently reported that 61 percent of this increase in infant mortality was due to an increase in the birth of premature and low birthweight babies. Almost half the cases of premature birth have no known cause--any pregnant woman is at risk. We must address this issue. Finally, this is a costly problem. In 2002, the estimated charges for hospital stays for infants with a diagnosis of preterm birth or low birthweight, LBW, were $15.5 billion. The average hospital charge per infant stay with a principal diagnosis of prematurity/LBW was $79,000, with an average hospital stay of 24.2 days. Hospital charges for newborn stays without complications averaged $1,500 in 2002, with an average hospital stay of 2.0 days. Employers carry much of the burden. Almost half of that $15.5 billion was billed to employers or other private insurers, according to the March of Dimes. The other half is billed to Medicaid. As a nation, we must address this problem. The PREEMIE Act calls for expanding Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increasing public and provider education and support services. It is supported by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, and many others. I hope my colleagues will join me in the fight to ensure a healthy start for all of American's children by cosponsoring and working with me for passage of the PREEMIE Act during this Congress.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act, or PREEMIE Act. This bipartisan bill expands research into the causes and prevention of prematurity, babies born 3 weeks or more early, and increases education and support services related to prematurity. I am pleased that Senator Dodd is once again my partner on this legislation and we hope the Senate will pass the PREEMIE Act in this Congress. In June 2004, the Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I chaired, held a hearing to learn about the problem of premature birth. Unfortunately, Tennessee has the fourth highest rate of premature birth in the country. Fourteen percent of Tennessee babies are born prematurely. In an average week in Tennessee, 210 babies are born prematurely. Premature infants are 14 times more likely to die in the first year of life. It is the No. 1 cause of infant death in the first month of life. Premature babies who survive may suffer lifelong consequences including: cerebral palsy, mental retardation, chronic lung disease, and vision and hearing loss. In February 2004, the National Center for Health Statistics, NCHS, reported the first increase in the U.S. infant mortality rate since 1958, from 6.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2001 to 7.0 in 2000. This increase is extremely disturbing because the infant mortality rate is a measure of the health of society. NCHS subsequently reported that 61 percent of this increase in infant mortality was due to an increase in the birth of premature and low birthweight babies. Almost half the cases of premature birth have no known cause--any pregnant woman is at risk. We must address this issue. Finally, this is a costly problem. In 2002, the estimated charges for hospital stays for infants with a diagnosis of preterm birth or low birthweight, LBW, were $15.5 billion. The average hospital charge per infant stay with a principal diagnosis of prematurity/LBW was $79,000, with an average hospital stay of 24.2 days. Hospital charges for newborn stays without complications averaged $1,500 in 2002, with an average hospital stay of 2.0 days. Employers carry much of the burden. Almost half of that $15.5 billion was billed to employers or other private insurers, according to the March of Dimes. The other half is billed to Medicaid. As a nation, we must address this problem. The PREEMIE Act calls for expanding Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increasing public and provider education and support services. It is supported by the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, and many others. I hope my colleagues will join me in the fight to ensure a healthy start for all of American's children by cosponsoring and working with me for passage of the PREEMIE Act during this Congress.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I join with him in his thoughts about Pope John Paul II and the thoughts of our other colleagues that have been expressed. He was a man of sincerity and great character. He traveled more than any other Pope. He traveled the United States more than any other Pope. He carried a message of peace. He carried a message of charity. He had a profound impact on the world and his native country of Poland. It can fairly be said that Poland would not have overthrown communism, at least not when it did, had it not been for Pope John Paul. I remember in 1987, our family had lived in Australia for 6 months, three teenagers and a 7-year-old, and we came home from around the world in a little different way. We took a train from Moscow to Paris. This was before the Berlin Wall came down. All of us, our different ages in our family, remember how in Poland the churches were open and vibrant, they were active, and people were there. In Russia, they were museums. We thought about that. We think about that today as we reflect back on the role of this man who was an example for each of us and who deserves the world's attention, the world's prayers, and the world's acclaim.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have remarks that I would like to make on two different subjects. One has to do with a visit by a delegation of Senators led by the Democratic leader, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and then a brief remark about the proposal that we use the supplemental appropriations bill to turn State driver's licenses into national identification cards. First I will comment on the 8-day congressional delegation that I was a part of over the last recess. It was led, as I said, by the Democratic leader. Let me say first how much I appreciate the style of his leadership. He is the Democratic leader, and occasionally there is a partisan word in this place, but this was a bipartisan delegation. We visited eight countries in 8 days, including Jerusalem, Israel, the Palestinian territories--visited leaders of the Palestinian Authority-- we visited Kuwait, Iraq, Georgia, and the Ukraine. In France, we received a NATO briefing from our ranking general. I think it is important for this body to know that in all of his public and private comments, the Democratic leader spoke for the administration of the U.S. Government. In other words, whatever his private views of policy difference might have been, he did not express those outside of this country. I was not surprised by that--I think that is the way it ought to be--but I was impressed by that. I was impressed by that part of his attitude, by the bipartisan quality of the delegation, and by the hard work he expected of those on the delegation. I appreciated the chance to be included, and I appreciated his leadership. As I am sure the Senator from North Carolina, who occupies the chair, knows, and the Senator from Texas feels the same way, there are so many thousands of people--in my case, Tennesseans--serving in Iraq and Kuwait that I almost felt at home visiting there last week. My wife Honey and I were greeted at the Kuwait Airport by an Army reservist who is publisher of the Dyersburg News and copublisher of the State Gazette. We had dinner with the 844th Engineer Combat Battalion, which is based in Knoxville, which includes more than 500 Tennesseans. One of those reservists is SGT Amanda Bunch, a nursing assistant at Asbury Acres in Maryville, my hometown where my mother and grandfather lived for a few years. The school superintendent from Athens, just down the road from my hometown; the president of the Lexington Rotary Club in west Tennessee, a physician; three Blount County deputies, from my home county--all among those serving in the Tennessee National Guard. I may have felt at home, but as LTC Don Dinello, who commands the 844th, reminded me, no place there is entirely safe. A few days earlier, a patrol had discovered explosives on a bridge over which the colonel's soldiers might have traveled. Thankfully, the explosive device was disarmed before anyone was hurt. In Baghdad, I ate lunch with three marines who were recent high school graduates from Savannah, Manchester, and Tullahoma, TN. Their mission is to guard the U.S. Embassy. I asked one of these young men what a U.S. Senator should know about their work. Andrew Pottier of Savannah told me: Not much to know, sir. They shoot at us and we just shoot them back. Not even in the Green Zone, where several thousand Americans work every day, was it entirely safe. The protocol officer greeted us wearing a nice green dress covered by a flack jacket. When one of the members of our delegation, a female Senator, went to the ladies restroom, a female soldier with an AK-47 went first, inspecting every stall. I was reminded just a couple of days ago how dangerous it can be when I went to the funeral in Sevier County of SGT Paul W. Thomason, III, the first member of our National Guard unit, the 278th, to be killed. It is very difficult to grasp the reality of the security situation in Iraq. It is hard to grasp it from television. On the one hand, there is the danger I just described. On the other hand, our casualties are significantly down. Twelve of the 17 Iraqi provinces, we were told by our commanders there, are relatively without incident. An average of 800 supply trucks convoy each day from Kuwait to the edge of Baghdad. Since August, there have been 166 attacks on these trucks, killing 2 soldiers. Forty percent of those serving in Iraq and Kuwait are reservists or guardsmen. Several thousand of them are from Tennessee. Most left behind families, jobs, and mortgages for up to 18 months. Far from home, they are dealing with child custody, insurance, births, and deaths. Thirty percent of the members of the 844th unit, with whom I visited, are continuing their education online. I brought home information so I could help seven reservists who are having trouble with their citizenship applications. Here are three other thoughts from that visit: One, armored vehicles. Commanders in Kuwait assured me that no humvee or truck is now going into a combat zone without Level I or Level II armor. Second, in the training of Iraq forces, we met with GEN David Patraeus, the former commander of Fort Campbell's 101st Airborne Division and one of our most accomplished military leaders. He persuaded me and I think most other members of our delegation that training is proceeding in an impressive way. It is not complete, but we are making progress. Finally, infant democracies. We have sacrificed many lives and paid a heavy price in dollars to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, but without that decision there would be no infant democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Georgia, Ukraine, and Kuwait would be less democratic, and Syria would not be pulling troops out of Lebanon. We in the world are safer without Saddam Hussein, who the new Prime Minister designate of Iraq, if he is elected, told us, in his words, that Saddam had buried alive 300,000 people. When will our troops come home? I do not know. I believe we must have a success strategy, not just an exit strategy. This strategy should be based on whether Iraqis can reasonably defend themselves and whether they have some sort of constitutional government. Having liberated Iraq, it is now not our job to stay there until there is a perfect democracy. We Americans are very impatient. We also sometimes have short memories. We are expecting the Iraqis to come up with a constitution by August. It took America 12 years to write a constitution after declaring our independence, another 130 years to give women the right to vote in this country, and nearly 200 years before African Americans were allowed to vote in every part of America. I hope after the two Iraqi elections scheduled for the end of 2005 that we will begin to see large numbers of Tennesseans coming home; for our average stay in other instances where the United States has helped build nations, as in Germany and Japan, has been about 5 years. The Presbyterian Chaplain of the 844th--which I visited--Rev. Tim Fary from Rhea County, I discovered I had met before. He was then 8 years old and I was Governor of Tennessee. I was playing a piano concert with the Chattanooga Symphony at a July concert at Chickamauga near Chattanooga. Tim Fary, 8 years old, was lost. He told me: When I found my parents 2 hours later, I had a handwritten note that read, ``Dear Tim: Thank you for your advice. Governor Lamar Alexander.'' That note kept me out of trouble. I still have it. We hope Tim's prayers, as well as our own, will keep our brave Tennesseans safe so they can accomplish their mission and come home soon.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would now like to speak for 4 or 5 minutes on another subject. I again thank the Senator from Texas. This is a subject that I recently wrote an op-ed about, which was published last week in the Washington Post. Fearing that many of my colleagues might have been in places such as Texas or Tennessee or Iraq and might have missed it, I will make virtually the same remarks here. Specifically, I am concerned about the so-called ``Real ID Act,'' a bill recently passed by the House of Representatives that would require States to turn 190 million driver's licenses into national identification cards, with State taxpayers, I am afraid, paying most of the costs. The first thing wrong here is that some House Members want to stick that identification card proposal on the appropriations bill that supports troops in Iraq. We should not slow down money for our troops while we debate identification cards. The second problem is that States not only get to create these identification cards, States will likely end up paying the bill. This is one more of the unfunded Federal mandates that we Republicans especially promised to stop. Supporters argue this is no mandate because States have a choice. Well, true. States may refuse to conform to the proposed Federal standards and issue licenses to whomever they choose, including illegal immigrants. But, if they do, States' licenses will not be accepted for ``Federal purposes,'' such as boarding an airplane. That is some choice. What Governor will deny his or her citizens the identification they need to travel by air or to cash Social Security checks or for ``other Federal purposes?'' Of course, this identification card idea might backfire on us, the Members of Congress. Some feisty Governor might ask: Who are these people in Washington telling us what to do with our driver's licenses and making us pay for them, too? A Governor, let us say from California, might say: California will use its licenses for certifying drivers, and Congress can create its own identification cards for people who want to fly and do other federally regulated things. And, if they do not, I will put on the Internet the home telephone numbers of all the Congressmen. That is what some feisty Governor might say. If just one State refuses to do the Federal Government identification work, Congress would be forced to create what it claims to oppose, a Federal identification card for citizens of that State. Finally, if we must have a better identification card for some Federal purposes, there may be better ideas than turning State driver's license examiners into CIA agents. For example, Congress might create an airline traveler's card, or there could be an expanded-use U.S. passport. Since a motive here is to discourage illegal immigration, probably the most logical idea is to upgrade the Social Security card, which directly relates to the reason most immigrants come to the United States, to work. I have fought government identification cards as long and as hard as anyone in this Chamber. In 1983, when I was Governor of Tennessee, our Tennessee Legislature voted to put photographs on driver's licenses. Merchants and policemen wanted a State identification card to discourage check fraud and teenage drinking. I vetoed this photo driver's license bill twice because I believed driver's licenses should be about driving and that State identification cards infringed on civil liberties. That same year, 1983, I visited the White House on the annual visit that Governors have with the President of the United States. As I got to the gate, a White House guard asked for my photo identification. I said to the guard: We don't have photo driver's licenses in Tennessee. I vetoed them. The guard said: Well, you can't get in without one. Fortunately, the Governor of Georgia, the late George Busbee, was standing there next to me. He had his Georgia photo driver's license. He vouched for me. I was admitted to the White House. The legislature at home overrode my veto, and I gave up my fight against the State identification card. For years, the State driver's licenses have served as a de facto national identification card. But they have been unreliable. All but one of the 9/11 terrorists had valid driver's licenses. Even today, when I board an airplane, as I did this morning, security officials look at the front of my driver's license, which expired in 2000, and rarely turn it over to verify that it has been extended until 2005. My point is, we already have a national identification card. They are called driver's licenses. They are just ineffective. I still detest the idea of a government identification card. South Africa's experience is a grim reminder of how such documents can be abused. But I am afraid this is one of the ways 9/11 has changed our lives. Instead of pretending that we are not creating national identification cards, when we obviously are, I believe Congress should carefully create an effective Federal document that helps prevent terrorism with as much respect for privacy as possible. I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will discuss for a few minutes this amendment and the Medicaid Program in our country. I am glad I had a chance to hear the Senator from Oregon and the Senators from Minnesota, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Their amendment would direct the Finance Committee to reduce the growth of Medicaid spending by $14 billion over the next 5 years. Before I say anything else, let me point out there is no cut--no cut, no cut--of any kind. Medicaid spending over the next 5 years will go up 41 percent if left alone. The Budget Committee recommends it go up 39 percent instead of 41 percent. Where I come from, that is no cut; that is a 39-percent increase in the amount of money. The amendment also has a very good idea, which is to enact a commission to take a broad look at the Medicaid Program and report back to Congress in 1 year with its recommendations, which means in another year we might get around to doing something about it. The Senator from Oregon talked about the tsunami coming. He is exactly right. He is talking about the tsunami in mandatory spending we have all been talking about and how important it is to get spending under control. If I may respectfully say, I believe his position could be fairly characterized as saying we heard the tsunami is coming; let's wait around a year or two before we get off the beach and appoint a commission to study. My position is appoint the commission, but the prudent thing is to move to higher ground while we study all of this. And we can move to higher ground. What I want to say in the next few minutes is that in order to restrain the growth of Medicaid spending from 41 percent over the next 5 years to 39 percent over the next 5 years, which is $14 billion out of $1.12 trillion, we know exactly what to do to do it and we should move to higher ground and get going with this before we are drowned by this tsunami of mandatory spending Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare that will make it impossible to fund preschool education, to fund kindergarten through 12th grade, to fund our research laboratories, our research and health, and maintain the greatest research universities in the world. That is the choice we will have to make. We heard chilling evidence--there is no other way to talk about it-- chilling evidence in the Budget Committee this year from the most nonpartisan observers, the Comptroller of the Currency, for example, about the tsunami, as the Senator from Oregon discussed, and what it is going to do. This chart shows all this red in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending as a percentage of gross domestic product today in the neighborhood of 7 or 8 percent. This is the amount of our gross product, everything we produce in the United States, that we spend on the total Federal Government--a little less than 20 percent. Here is where Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are headed. In other words, we will go down the road, 2030, and it is not so long away, and we will be spending 20 percent of everything we produce in the United States just on health care. We are not spending that much today on the whole Federal Government. What the proposers of this amendment are saying is, we see this, we see it is coming, let's stay on the beach another year or two and not do one single, solitary thing about it except appoint a commission to talk about something every Governor in States worries about. We have committees in this Congress that have studied this for years. We know some things to do. We know how to take a few steps to higher ground. Let me put a little perspective on this, if I may, for a moment. I ask to be told when I have 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Let me make another point with another chart. This has to do with State government. I have a State perspective. Someone said, Alexander is still acting as though he were a Governor, and I hope he can get over that. I hope I never get over it because I think it is a contribution I can make from the point of view of a Governor. What I struggled with as Governor was how to keep Medicaid growth under control, to create centers of excellence, and pay good teachers more for teaching well, and have low taxes. It was a fight every year. The red is the State spending in Medicaid. People here get Medicare and Medicaid confused, but Medicaid is a program, as earlier said, that helps many of our low-income Americans. It is administered by the State government, but it is funded, about 60 percent or so, by the Federal Government and run by the State government. The eligibility requirements are basically set up in Washington, and then you go down if you are the Governor and you have to run it according to what some Congressman decides you need to do. And then as you are running it and you make some decisions, the Federal courts come in and limit what you do. So you have eligibility requirements saying the caseload is going up 40 percent over 5 years. That is what the Governors are dealing with. And the CPI, the Consumer Price Index, for health care is three times that of the normal CPI and Governors are left sitting there with Federal eligibility requirements, rising health care costs, and courts not allowing them to make decisions, so they are stuck. I know that because I was a stuck Governor all during that time. Let me point out what we are trying to say to do today. This is the amount of money we are going to spend on Medicaid from the Federal Government in the next 5 years, $1.11 trillion. This is the reduction in the growth of spending we are suggesting, $13.9 billion. We are suggesting instead of going up 41 percent, go up 39 percent. That can be done. There are a few steps we know to do today to move to higher ground so we can do that while we are doing a full-fledged study of Medicare. But we cannot do it by repeating a litany of waste, fraud, and abuse, and better efficiency and flexibility. That will not cut it. We are going to have to change some laws here so Governors have more flexibility and so Federal courts do not interfere as much with the decisions that elected officials are supposed to make. Let me make a few suggestions. I can suggest four or five steps we can take now and we can move to higher ground now that would help save this $14 billion so that States could serve people well while we are continuing to constrain the growth of Medicaid spending. These reforms would save money for both States and the Federal Government. They would be voluntary, giving the States flexibility, and they would not cut one person off Medicaid insurance options. Here are the things we can do. These are a few of the most obvious things to do. We ought to be able to do them in 60 days. One, let Medicaid buy prescription drugs the same way Medicare does. That would save money, several billion a year in the first year, but it would require a change in our Federal law. Allow States to crack down on Medicaid spend-out abuses when wealthier individuals give away their money with the expectation that Medicaid will cover their health care costs if they become ill. We will have to change the law to permit that to be done. Allow Governors to require copayments of benefits for optional Medicaid population. We require some people to be covered from here. States may add to that. When they do, they should have some flexibility. No. 4, allow States to have flexibility to allow mothers and children in optional programs to enroll in what we call the SCHIP Program, a health insurance program. Finally, make it easier for States to provide home and community- based care for beneficiaries who prefer it to more costly nursing home care. We have a 2-year Congress here. We are here every week, about. We are here most weeks. We have lots of committees that have been studying this issue for a long time. We can adopt a budget in March and we can have a Finance Committee hearing and pass a law some time this year and we can restrain the growth of Medicaid spending by $14 billion and give Governors and States a chance to restrain the growth of spending and get budgets under control. That would save money here and it would save money in the States for preschool education and universities and other programs that Governors prefer. There is another thing we need to do. We need to pass the legislation Senator Pryor and I and Senator Cornyn and Senator Nelson and others have introduced and Representative Cooper in the House has introduced that would make it easier for Governors to run Medicaid and harder for courts and plaintiffs' lawyers to do it. We should put term limits on the outdated consent decrees that keep Governors like the Democratic Governor of Tennessee from doing what he was elected to do. He was elected to restrain the growth of Medicaid spending. When I left the Governor's office, health care spending was 16 cents out of every State tax dollar, and education spending was 51 cents out of every tax dollar. Today, because of the growth of Medicaid spending in Tennessee, education is 40 cents out of every tax dollar, and health care is 26 cents out of every tax dollar, and going up. We will not have great colleges and universities if we do not start today to restrain the growth of Medicaid spending. So I would respectfully suggest that a commission could be of some help. A commission could be of some help if we were serious about it, which I know its proposers are, but we are not going to be able to just move around the fringes. We are going to have to have a completely different view of health care in America. Then we are going to have to transform Medicare. Then we are going to have to transform Medicaid. And along the way, we are going to have to do what is a relatively easy thing to do compared to the other two, fix Social Security. Together, those unfunded liabilities, that mandatory spending is going to grow. This red on the chart is going to grow to make this a noncompetitive United States of America and drown our States in debt. I suggest that it is correct that the tsunami is coming. I suggest that this budget that Chairman Gregg has worked on makes only modest steps in fiscal discipline. Yes, it reduces our deficit if we stay on this path. By the time President Bush goes out of office, our annual deficit will only be half as much as it is this year. But our debt still goes up every year. Senator Conrad has made that point time after time after time. This is the only proposal in this budget to restrain the most difficult part of spending growth, which is mandatory spending. This budget overall spends $2.6 trillion for next year, $100 billion more than last year. That whole $100 billion is mandatory spending. So we are suggesting: Let Medicaid grow at 39 percent instead of 41 percent. See the tsunami coming. Appoint a commission to study it. But do the prudent thing. Take a few steps to higher ground that are perfectly obvious while we are studying it. We can easily do that this year. I urge that we reject the amendment and that we support the budget which takes a modest but important step toward controlling the biggest challenge we have budgetarily in Washington, DC, and that is controlling mandatory spending. I see the chairman of the Finance Committee in the Chamber. I wonder if he would like to speak.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator for his commitment to work in a bipartisan way to create legislation that would give the States the flexibility they need to help people on the Medicaid Program and to restrain its growth and do it in a way that saves money for States and the Federal Government, that gives more flexibility, and then avoids cutting people off Medicaid. I will sum up in this way. There is talk about fiscal discipline, about reducing the deficit. This is the only significant opportunity we have in this whole budget debate to reduce the growth of mandatory spending. What we are suggesting is, instead of letting it go up 41 percent, we let it go up 39 percent over 5 years. I suggest if we cannot do that, we cannot do anything this year, and we should not go home and say we are interested in fiscal discipline. I don't believe there is anybody in this Chamber who is more of a defender of States than I am, but I believe that between March and October, we can take a few relatively minor steps, make a minor adjustment in the growth of spending, and give States important new flexibility. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Why doesn't the chairman take the time?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from New Mexico and I have a number of common interests in energy and science technology, and one of our common interests is making certain as we move into a more competitive world marketplace that we maintain our brain power in the United States of America because over the last period of time since World War II, about half of our good new jobs have come from there. I look forward to continuing the work within this budget, to set priorities that do that. In this first year of a little bit of fiscal discipline, which is about all we are exercising this year, we may not do as much of that as we may be able to in the future, but I for one want to make sure that over the next 5 to 10 years while we are dealing with unsustainable growth in what we call mandatory spending--Medicaid and Medicare, spending that is on automatic pilot--as we try to deal with that growth, we do not squeeze out the investments in science and technology and higher education and advanced computing that we need to maintain our standard of living. This budget is, in my view, a good budget. It does begin to exercise some fiscal discipline, but it is a modest exercise of fiscal discipline. The bottom line is if we were to adopt the budget as presented, we spend $2.6 trillion--a number none of us can imagine. One way to get it into reality is to say it is $100 billion more than we spent this year. So, $100 billion, how much is that? It is enough to run the State of Tennessee for 8 years, and the State of Tennessee is not the biggest State; it is the sixteenth largest State. It collects about $12.5 billion a year of State taxes. We are spending a lot more money next year. We are not cutting the amount of money the Federal Government is spending of taxpayers' money; we are increasing it by $100 billion next year within this budget. The Senator from North Dakota, who is as compelling and persuasive a speaker as we have on the Senate floor and has a wonderful way of presenting his charts, was making the point repeatedly. I heard him today saying that the debt is going up. He is right. The debt is going up. We are arguing about proposing to reduce the size of the annual deficit and to cut that amount in half, which means that every year we do not take down to zero the annual deficit, the debt goes up. I suppose his chart includes Social Security funding, too, so the debt goes up. But this is a modest effort at fiscal discipline that means if this budget were adopted, we believe the deficits each year would be cut in half. Now, these spending constraints are never easy, and they involve setting priorities. The President is right. I believe the budget we have proposed is right, to start, by trying to be as committed to the military men and women of this country as they are to this country. So it raises overall defense spending by 4.8 percent so we can provide our military with the equipment they need to safely and successfully finish their jobs of spreading democracy in the world. The President's tax initiatives are continued. But within this budget there are significant investments other than for military and homeland security, which are our first priority. Let me see if I can talk a moment about education since that was the subject of the statement by the Senator from New Mexico. Some of the figures that were used I did not quite understand because I have done my own calculating. For example, there is this constant reference to shortfalls in funding of No Child Left Behind. Now, I was not here when that happened. I do not know what the deals were that were made, what arrangements were made, and with whom. But the Senator from New Mexico said there was a $39 billion shortfall. I cannot imagine where that figure comes from because this year we only spent $37.8 billion on all of K-12 education. The U.S. Government only contributes about 7 percent of the funding for our local schools in 15,000 school districts across the country. That is all it has ever contributed. It is not likely to contribute a much larger percentage. So there cannot be a $39 billion shortfall in No Child Left Behind since we only spent less than that total amount of money from the Federal Government. In addition to that, let's look at what happened over the last five Bush budgets. There has been a 46-percent actual increase in Federal spending on No Child Left Behind. By comparison--I don't know what period of time that is for the Clinton years, so I won't say. But let's talk about President Bush. There has been a 46-percent increase over 5 years. I checked in the State of Tennessee, where I am from, and the amount of increase in State spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade, through this period of time, would be more like 15 or 16 or 17 percent. Federal spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade during the Bush years, the last 5 years, has increased at the rate of about three times of what State spending has been. So if there is a tin cup, it is not in Washington, it is at the State capital. I think it is very important that even in this time of fiscal restraint, when we cannot increase spending this year as much as some of us might like, that over the 5 years it has increased 46 percent. This budget does include enough money for another $1 billion for No Child Left Behind, another $500 million for special education. This is not an isolated commitment. Let's take another example of what has happened over the last 5 years. There has been a 34-percent increase in total U.S. Department of Education discretionary funding. Title I was mentioned. Title I is the Federal education program that is directed, with a lot of flexibility, toward poor children. Now, it may not be reaching the poorest children. It goes directly to schools. And my guess is that the reason why the Senator from New Mexico was able to point out that some States were getting less and some States were getting more is that maybe No Child Left Behind is directing more of the Federal dollars where they are supposed to go; which is, to help our poorest children who are not learning reading and math. In any event, there has been a 52-percent increase in title I spending over the last 5 years, at a time when State spending has been increasing at less than 20 percent, which is 35 or 40 percent of the Federal spending increase. It is the same story with special education. There has been a 75- percent increase in Federal spending on special education over the last 5 years. Improving teacher quality: a 38-percent increase over the last 5 years under President Bush and this Congress. Let's remember, the President does not appropriate a penny. We are shortchanging ourselves when we stand here and say No Child Left Behind was not properly funded. We do all the appropriating. They do not do any of it down at the White House. They send a budget up here, and we don't have to pay any attention it to at all. We do what we want to do. What we have done over the last 5 years--I was only here for 2--is increase Federal spending for education at a Federal rate of two or three times as fast as it has increased in the States. Let me give an example of improving teacher quality. There is an account in Washington in No Child Left Behind that gives about $50 million a year to the State of Tennessee for improving teacher quality. If all that money were spent on teachers, it would give each teacher in Tennessee about a $900 pay increase. It is a lot of money. Now, half that money came from closing another account. So let's say there is only $25 million new No Child Left Behind dollars for the teachers of Tennessee. That would be $400 or $500 per teacher. That is a substantial investment by the Federal Government, on an annual basis, to help those teachers improve their quality and become highly qualified teachers. Now, if the State of Tennessee chooses to spend that on some other purpose, whether it is education or something else, that is the business of the State of Tennessee. But the money was appropriated here in Washington for that purpose. And finally, all of us are interested in continuing higher education for the largest number of Americans. Sixty percent of our college students have a Federal grant or loan that follows them to the college or university of their choice. It is perhaps the most successful set of grant and loan programs anywhere in the world. It has created an opportunity for more Americans, a higher percentage of them, to go to college than anywhere in the world. We have the best system of colleges and universities anywhere in the world, primarily because we respect the autonomy of those colleges, and we appropriate a lot of Federal money, and we let students choose the college or institution of their choice to attend. What has this Congress done over the last 5 years, including this budget that is proposed? There has been a 56-percent increase in actual Federal dollars for Pell grants. So when we talk about education, let's not sell ourselves short. We have been putting a very high priority, urged on by President Bush, on education over the last 4 years, and in this budget as well. Let me mention three other areas about this budget. One has to do with opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Over the next few weeks, gasoline prices across this country are going to go up by about a quarter. Gas prices are already pretty high. We are bringing in oil from other places in the world, 70 percent of our nation's need. That does not make a lot of sense when we have a lot here on our own. We could bring in a million barrels of oil a day from Alaska if we would only vote to do it. That is about as much oil as Texas produces. We could begin to reduce our dependence on the rest of the world and lower our gasoline prices. We ought to do that. In 1985 and 1986 I was chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. We recommended that we begin taking some of the money we use for drilling oil and gas on Federal lands and putting it into conservation purposes. Specifically, we said, let's create a billion-dollar fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am pleased to say that under Chairman Gregg's leadership, this budget includes a provision that begins to follow that recommendation of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. It says if this Congress decides to allow exploration of oil in Alaska in the ANWR area that for 4 years $350 million will come from those revenues into a conservation reserve fund, and that then will be used for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for wildlife preservation, for coastal protection, and for other purposes. Our Commission thought, in 1985 and 1986, it made sense when we place any environmental burden that we balance it with an environmental benefit. We believe this is a sensible way to do it, and I hope other Members of the Senate will notice this important provision. There is also in this budget something I want to talk about in a moment that has to do with unfunded mandates. But the last part of the budget I want to mention has to do with Medicaid. There is a serious attempt in the budget proposed by our Budget Committee to begin to deal with what we call mandatory spending, the spending that is on automatic pilot. It is basically Social Security, which the President is urging us to deal with, Medicaid, and Medicare. The health care programs are about to consume all the money we have. If they are left on automatic pilot, as they are, we won't have any money for first-class universities, for preschool education, for implementing No Child Left Behind, for national parks, for local policemen, for local firemen. The testimony we heard in the Budget Committee showed that unfunded Federal liabilities over the next 75 years will begin to take 25 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. The whole Federal budget today takes less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product. We can't sustain that. So this budget suggests that we restrain the growth of Medicaid spending by $14 billion over the next 5 years. We will be spending $1.12 trillion on Medicaid from the Federal Government over the next 5 years, and we are suggesting a $14 billion restraint in growth. No one should get a very big merit badge for that much fiscal discipline, but at least a little merit badge for trying. That won't work unless we are willing to change some Federal laws because Medicaid is administered partly by the Federal Government and partly by the State government. But the trouble is, from a Governor's perspective, that the Federal Government sets the entitlement criteria. There are a dozen or so programs that States must offer in their Medicaid programs. The Federal Government decides--the bureaucracy-- whether Governors get a lot of flexibility or none, and then the Federal courts increasingly have been saying that Governors can't take steps even to change or amend or reduce optional services as a way of restraining the growth of Medicaid so there will be money, for example, for pre-kindergarten. Let me suggest the principles on which I believe this body could help the Federal Government and the State governments at the same time slow the growth of Medicaid a little bit. We are only suggesting that we slow the growth from a projected 41-percent growth in funding over the next 5 years to 39 percent. It is not much, but it is enough to cause some discomfort unless we make some changes. The principles we should follow then are: One, any reforms that we require ought to save money for both the States and the Federal Government. Two, the reforms must be voluntary. The Governors who manage these programs have to have flexibility. Three, we should not be cutting people off Medicaid who won't have any other health options. There are some ways to do that which I will talk more about at another time. But, for example, we could change the law to make it easier for Medicaid to avoid overpaying for prescription drugs. We could change the law to permit States to crack down on Medicaid spend down abuses when wealthier individuals give away their money with the expectation that Medicaid will cover their health care costs. We could change the law to allow Governors to require copayments for benefits from those optional Medicaid programs which Governors choose to offer that the Federal Government doesn't require. We could change the law to give States more flexibility to allow mothers and children to enroll in what we call the SCHIP Program. And finally, we could make it easier for States to provide home- and community-based care for beneficiaries who prefer it to more costly nursing home care. It is never pleasant to restrain spending, but it is absolutely necessary. Fifteen years ago, I spent my time as Governor trying to restrain health care spending so I could create centers of excellence at the universities, so I could maintain low tuitions, so we could pay teachers more. We were successful. But when I left the Governor's office in 1987, we were spending 51 cents out of every State dollar on education. Today it is 40 cents. Why? Because then we were spending 15 cents on health care. Today it is 31 cents on health care and headed up. If we don't begin to try to control mandatory spending in Medicaid and then Medicare, we will not allow the States or ourselves to invest in those programs that have to do with job creation that help us maintain our standard of living. There is one other area I would like to mention. It has to do with a provision in this budget which increases to 60 votes the number of votes it would take to impose on State and local government what is called a Federal unfunded mandate. Tomorrow, March 15, is the 10th birthday of the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, affectionately known around Washington as UMRA. Now, the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was supposed to stop the one thing that made me mad as Governor, and that was some Congressman coming up with some big idea, passing a law, holding a press conference, bragging about it, and then sending the bill back to Tennessee for me and the legislature to pay. And then the next weekend that same Congressman would usually be back in Knoxville or Memphis making a big speech about local control. The Unfunded Mandates Act was supposed to discourage the Federal Government from imposing new laws and new rules on State and local governments without paying for them. I am sorry to say that it was a noble idea that was hard to pass 10 years ago. It got a big vote in the end. But it hasn't worked very well. It is raising property taxes to pay for new EPA storm water runoff rules. School boards are taking money out of one classroom and putting it in another to meet Federal requirements for children with disabilities. The National Council of State Legislatures has identified $29 billion in Federal cost shifts to States in transportation, health care, education, environment, homeland security, election laws, and in other areas. And last year, in the name of lowering Internet access taxes, some in this Congress tried to take away from State and local officials local control over how to pay for governmental services. Not long ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that will soon be before us that would turn 190 million State driver's licenses into national ID cards with States paying most of the bill. And last week, Governors asked the President, when they met with him at the White House: Mr. President, how can we reduce the growth of Medicaid spending in the States when Federal laws dictate eligibility standards, Federal bureaucrats limit State flexibility, and Federal courts just say no? These are just the unfunded Federal mandates I was describing. Just as ominous a threat to a balanced partnership among Federal, State, and local governments is Congress's failure to act on important areas of policy which also are running up the cost to State and local governments. For example, Congress's failure to deal with 10 million illegal immigrants fills up hospital emergency rooms, schools, and jails. Our failure to reform Medicaid has allowed a 40-percent increase in caseloads over the last 5 years to soak up State and local revenues that might have been spent for schools, colleges, police, parks, and roads. And then the Federal courts have piled on, using outdated consent decrees to run Medicaid in Tennessee, foster care in Utah, transportation in Los Angeles, and the teaching of English to children in New York City. During the last 10 years about the only part of the Federal Government that has recognized the importance of strong State and local governments in our Federal system is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has rediscovered the 10th amendment to the Constitution that reserves to States powers that are not expressly granted to the central government. So here is the picture of Federalism today. In Washington, DC, Democrats still stuck in the New Deal are reflexively searching for national solutions to local problems. We Republicans, having found ourselves in charge, have decided it is more blessed to impose our views rather than to liberate America from Washington's views. And across America, Federal judges have discovered the joys of acting like Governors and mayors without having to run for office. Meanwhile, in the States and cities, Federal funds make up as much as half of State and local budgets, bringing with them more and more rules that direct and limit what mayors and Governors are able to do with revenues raised from State and local taxes. As a result, the job of mayor and Governor is becoming more and more like the job of university president, which I used to be; it looks like you are in charge, but you are not. That is why to celebrate the 10th birthday of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I propose 3 steps to give mayors and Governors, legislators and local councils, more authority to do what they were elected to do. The first of those steps is in this budget resolution. It would amend the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to increase to 60 the number of Senate votes it takes to enact legislation that imposes unfunded Federal mandates. This proposal was approved last Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee. For the last 10 years, the number has been 50, and it hasn't been used once as a budget point of order. It was said that this point of order with 50 votes would become like a penalty flag. Well, it has become a penalty flag that hasn't been thrown for 10 years. Make it 60 votes and it may do some good. Second, I would propose making it easier for Governors and mayors to change or vacate outdated Federal court consent decrees. This legislation introduced last week by Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Nelson, Senator Kyl, Senator Cornyn, and myself would do that. It would put term limits on consent decrees and shift to plaintiffs the burden of proving that decrees need to be continued, and require courts to draw decrees narrowly, with the objective of putting responsibility back in the hands of the elected officials as soon as possible. Finally, the third proposal is do not allow any new Federal statute to preempt a local law, unless the new Federal law specifically states there is a direct conflict with State and local law. I am still optimistic about our Federal system. I am optimistic because I believe excessive centralization of Government runs against the grain of what it means to be an American. Americans do expect Washington to take care of war, welfare, Social Security, health care, and debt. Americans do not want Washington running schools, colleges, law enforcement, fire departments, cities, parks, and most roads. Lest anyone think I am wrong, I invite them to step out with me on the campaign trail. I remember our last referendum on federalism in the mid-1990s. Newt Gingrich and 300 Republicans stood on the Capitol steps and said: no more unfunded Federal mandates. Bob Dole, the new Republican leader in the Senate in 1995, made the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act S. 1, and then Senator Dole campaigned across the country reading the 10th amendment to his audiences. I was doing my part. I was running for President, too--not so successfully. I was walking across Iowa and New Hampshire wearing a red-and-black shirt, proposing to abolish the U.S. Department of Education as we knew it, move the Agriculture Department from Washington, DC, to Des Moines, and to cut the pay of Congress in half and send them home for 6 months each year to spend more time with their neighbors instead of Washington lobbyists. You can imagine how popular I was in these chambers while proposing to cut their pay and send them home. I can clearly remember in a Washington Post editorial meeting, when the late publisher Kay Graham asked me: Governor Alexander, if you so dislike Washington, DC, why would you come here? That was a good question, and there is a good answer. One of the most important reasons to come to Washington to serve is to remind those already here that a plane ticket to Washington doesn't make you any smarter. The parents and teachers of 50 million students in 15,000 districts usually can do more to improve a child's education than some national school board. If Washington says you must spend more for Medicaid, that usually means less for preschool education, and someone who is elected and is closer to the problem ought to make that decision. In some countries, that arrangement might work. In those countries that are smaller and ethnically more the same, it may be possible to have a national school board, state church, and a central government calling most of the shots. We know that doesn't stand a prayer of working in the United States. De Tocqueville, in his early writings about America, pointed out that our country works community by community. We are so big, we have so many different views, we come from so many backgrounds, we need a lot of places to work things out in different ways. Put too many one-size-fits-all jackets on Americans and the place explodes. In our country, such explosions, thankfully, still occur at election time. That is why most candidates for President run against Washington, DC. That is why U.S. Senators from Washington are rarely elected President and Governors from outside Washington often are. That is one reason why Americans elected the Republican Congress in 1994. I am optimistic about federalism because Democrats are now looking for a way to get into office, and we Republicans are looking for a way to stay in office. I believe that whoever wins that argument will have to get on the right side of the federalism issue. So as a good Republican I am using this birthday celebration tomorrow of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act to remind my Republican colleagues that we promised the people no more unfunded mandates. We said, ``If we break our promise, throw us out.'' I am sure if we forget our promise, our Democrat friends will remind us of it. Most of our policy debates in Congress involve conflicting principles. The principle of federalism should not always be the trump card. There are other important principles to weigh: liberty, equal opportunity, laissez faire, and many others. But the federalism that the Republican Congress was elected to protect in 1994 has gotten lost in the weeds. It is time for us to find it and pick it up and to put it back up front where it belongs. Step No. 1 would be to pass this budget, which would increase to 60 the number of votes it takes to enact an unfunded mandate. Then we should move to put term limits on Federal court consent decrees, which has strong bipartisan support in the House, as well as the Senate, and then require Congress to announce when it decides to preempt State and local law. If we in Congress do that, then maybe on the 20th birthday of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act, 10 years from now, we can celebrate an American Federal system that has the kind of respect for mayors and Governors, legislators and local council members that the Founders of this great Republic envisioned. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, during the last session of Congress, Senators on the other side of the aisle blocked an up-or-down vote 20 times on 10 of President Bush's nominees for the Federal appellate courts. Filibusters were threatened against five more judicial nominees. With one possible exception, this has never happened before. The Senate has a 200-year tradition of majority rule when it comes to confirming judges. In fact, until the last session of Congress, the idea of not voting on a President's judicial nominee once it reached the floor was unthinkable. It would be difficult to imagine a case in which passions ran higher than during the confirmation proceedings for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. Yet President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas in July of 1991, and 3 months later the Senate voted to confirm him, 52 to 48. There was never any discussion of blocking his nomination by blocking an up-or-down vote. So in the spirit of compromise, I would like to, once again, offer my solution for avoiding what some in the minority call the ``nuclear option'' that would change Senate rules to prevent filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees. In an address on this floor 2 years ago, on March 17, 2003, I said I would reserve the right to vote against any judicial nominee of any President but that I would not filibuster the qualified court nominee of any President. That was before I knew whether the President would be named Bush or Kerry. This is what I said then: Before I finish my remarks, I make this pledge. I may be here long enough, and I hope it is a while, before I have an opportunity to cast a vote for a nominee for a Federal judgeship that is sent over by a Democratic President, but I can pledge now how I will cast my vote. It will be the same way I appointed 50 judges when I was Governor. I look for good character. I look for good intelligence. I look for good temperament. I look for good understanding of the law and of the duties of judges. I will look to see if this nominee had the aspect of courtesy to those who come before the court. I will reserve the right to vote against some extremists, but I will assume that it is unnecessary and unethical for the nominee to try to say to me how he or she would decide a case that might come before him or her. When it comes time to vote, when we finish that whole examination, I will vote to let the majority decide. That is what I said 2 years ago. I also said: In plain English, I will not vote to deny a vote to a Democratic President's judicial nominee just because the nominee may have views more liberal than mine. That is the way judges have always been selected. That is the way they should be selected. Mr. President, that was my pledge 2 years ago. That is my pledge today. And if a few other Senators of both parties would individually make this same pledge to eventually allow up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees, then there would be an end to this discussion of the so-called nuclear option. I have no doubt that changing the Senate's cloture rule by a majority vote is clearly constitutional. Some have argued that the Senate's cloture rule, which allows just 41 of us to block up-or-down votes, carries over from one Congress to the next by rule V. But no less an authority than the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, when he was majority leader, argued very persuasively and with great common sense that this is not true. He said: This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have changed from time to time. . . . So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate. . . . It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two- thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would repeal it by majority vote. That was the Senator from West Virginia talking. So, very simply, the Constitution provides that 51 Senators can change Senate rules to allow a majority to cut off debate on a President's nominee of an appellate court judge. Now, that does not mean that we ought to rush to make a change in that way. To extend the analogy, nuclear weapons have been effective in world history because of the threat of their use, not because of their actual use. And that has been true here on this Senate floor. In the debates on the adoption of Rule XXII on the Senate floor in 1917, and later modifications in 1953 to 1959, and then 1960 to 1975, the debate and eventual compromises were driven by the threat of the constitutional option, which we are discussing today. The chairman of our Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, has said he ``intends to exercise every last ounce of [his] energy to solve this problem without the nuclear option.'' I hope he will continue that effort. The Senate protects the minority party's rights for a reason. In writings about early America, Alexis De Tocqueville warned that one of the potential failings of democracy would be the ``tyranny of the majority.'' South Africa succeeded in creating a constitutional government because the new Black majority was willing to protect the minority rights of White citizens. As we watch the people of Iraq struggle to create a constitutional government, we know that a major sign of their success will be whether they are able to include and protect the rights of Sunnis who are only 20 percent of the country but who formerly dominated the country. I can remember back when I came here as a legislative assistant to Howard Baker in the Senate in 1967, Republicans were the ones worrying about protecting minority rights then. There were 64 Democrats and 36 Republicans. And then, 10 years later, when I came back to the Senate as an aide to Senator Baker for a few months, when he was elected Republican leader, there were 38 Republicans. In 1979, when the distinguished Senator from West Virginia made his persuasive argument that a majority of the Senate could change Senate rules, there were 58 Democrats and 41 Republicans. So just as our Republican majority should be cautious about making changes that would lessen minority rights, I would respectfully suggest that the Democratic minority should be equally cautious about provoking such a change. One way, of course, to avoid provoking rules changes would be for the Democratic Senators who opposed the President's nominees in the last session to look them over again and reconsider their basis for opposition. For example, I believe if some of the Senators on the other side would really study the record of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi, they would be impressed with his commitment to civil rights. At a time when it was hard to do, he testified against a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in 1967, and did it in open court. At the same time, he put his children in public schools when many White Mississippians were putting their children in what were called ``segregation academies.'' Any Senator who carefully looks at the record of former Attorney General Bill Pryor of Alabama, I believe, would admire his record on civil rights. He was a law clerk for Judge John Minor Wisdom, probably the leading civil rights Federal judge of the last century. Bill Pryor showed, as attorney general, he could take a position on abortion, on prayer before football games, on reapportionment, and on displaying the Ten Commandments that were at odds with his personal views because he believed the decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution required it. Both Judge Pickering and Judge Pryor have served in recess appointments and have even more of a record now to consider favorably. But the other way to avoid a lengthy and damaging procedural battle is simply for individual Senators now to declare their willingness to support allowing an up-or-down vote of any qualified nominee for the bench by any President. This would apply to this Republican President's nominees or to some future Democratic President's nominees. I do not know what terrible grievances in the past have caused such strong feelings on the other side causing them to take these unprecedented steps to block an up-or-down vote on nominees once the nominee gets to the floor. As I say, there is a 200-year tradition--a 200-year tradition--in this body of then moving to an up-or-down vote. It never happened before like this. And if it continues, even though I hope it does not, it will almost certainly force a Senate rules change. I hope we don't come to that. I have suggested two ways to avoid it. I have taken a step myself to forgo some of my rights as an individual Senator as one way to help solve the problem. I hope others will do the same. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks from March 17, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, some say we are living in the post-Christian era, but you would not have known it yesterday if you were among the 13,829 worshippers, as I was, at the retirement tribute to pastor Adrian Rogers at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis. I am a Presbyterian--but Presbyterian or Baptist, believer or nonbeliever, one could not help but be inspired by the services on Sunday and especially by Dr. Rogers himself. Adrian Rogers is one of America's best-known preachers. His ``Love Worth Finding Ministries'' is broadcast in more than 150 counties in both English and Spanish. He has authored 17 books, 48 booklets and 78 cassette tapes. He has been elected three times to lead the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Rogers came to Bellevue in Memphis in 1972 when the Church was in Midtown, the enrollment was 9000 and the annual budget was $625,000. Today the church spreads across 375 acres in Cordova, the enrollment is 29,000 and the budget is $21 million. What impresses me most is not this growth but the man himself. Like his friend Billy Graham, Adrian Rogers has not allowed his fame to diminish him personally. The most moving statements yesterday came from his children who testified that this man who everyone knows can talk the talk always walks the walk at home. Those who know him best say that he practices what he preaches. When he told his congregation, ``I am what I am by the grace of God,'' it was not mock humility. There was much love expressed yesterday for Joyce Rogers, who Adrian said ``is the only girl that I have ever dated.'' She has sung in the choir, taught Sunday school and been his partner since their marriage in 1951. Our founders made sure that we do not have a state church but that we do have freedom of religion. As a result of this constitutional guarantee, there is a church of some denomination on almost every American corner. This freedom has also proved to be a nurturing environment for independent leaders such as Adrian Rogers whose good lives attract us and inspire us and lead us to be among the world's most religious people. No mortal is perfect. I know of one blemish on my friend Adrian Rogers: He is a Florida Gators fan. In the spirit of yesterday, the Christian thing to do is to forgive him.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, have joined Senator Pryor and me in introducing this bill. Congressman Jim Cooper from Tennessee will be introducing similar legislation in the House of Representatives. This is bipartisan legislation that will help slow down the practice of democracy by decree--Federal courts running State and local governments. Consent decrees--judicial orders based on the consent of parties engaged in a civil court action--can be an effective judicial tool when drawn narrowly and with respect for State and local policy choices. Congress passes laws and sets conditions on grants that must be followed by State and local governments, and when they are not followed it is important for citizens to be able to turn to the courts to see that the rule of law is upheld. That is at the heart of the idea of federalism. Unfortunately, in many cases, rather than preserve the separation of powers between the Federal Government and State governments, consent decrees have done just the opposite. What we are seeing in State after State is government policy controlled by courts and judges instead of by Governors, mayors, and legislatures. In Maine, in 2003, the Governor had to propose deep cuts to mental health services for children because consent decrees made it almost impossible to cut other parts of the budget. In New York City, Latino parents are outraged because schools are forcing their children into bilingual education programs when the parents want them in all-English classes. Why? Because for the last 30 years, bilingual education in New York has been mandated by a consent decree that the schools have no choice but to obey. In Los Angeles, a consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to send $110 million per year on improving city buses. That is 47 percent of its budget just on buses, leaving the remaining 53 percent pay for street and freeway improvements, rail systems, transportation planning programs, and the reduction of its debt. Meanwhile, ridership on MTA buses increased only marginally in the first 6 years of judicial management and residents of Los Angeles complain that other MTA services are suffering. The State of Tennessee has also become a victim of democracy by decree. In Tennessee, like in every State, governments do not have the luxury we have up here of being able to deficit spend. State governments need to balance the budget, and I can speak from experience when I say that is a process that involves making excruciating choices. In Tennessee, however, Governor Bredesen has had fewer choices to make because the Federal court has refused to let him do what he needs to do to balance the budget. Late last year, it became apparent that the rising cost of providing Medicaid--and in the case of Tennessee, we have a program called TennCare on a waiver from CMS would result in an additional $650 million in costs to the State of Tennessee in the upcoming 2006 budget. Now, Governor Bredesen has a plan that he says would result in costs only rising $75 million in the next year, but he can not implement it because he is constrained by a series of consent decrees. These consent decrees prescribe policies on medical screenings for children, require the State to provide patients with high-cost, brand-name prescription drugs, and affects the ability of the State to verify the eligibility of the patients it serves. On the face of it, it sounds like these are all good things. Of course we want children to get screenings that will help prevent serious illness and of course we want to make sure patients have prescription drugs. The problem is that whereas the Federal Medicaid laws say one thing, Federal judges are turning that into a whole series of requirements that States are then bound by for as long as a Federal judge decides it is necessary. For example, regarding medical screenings for children: Medicaid law--section 1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act requires that children receive ``such other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment and other measures . . . to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses under the State plan.'' Now, from that one line of Federal code, the court entered a consent decree that established a deadline for Tennessee to improve its performance to ensure that 80 percent of eligible beneficiaries were receiving this screening. Nonetheless, even in the face of enormous budget pressures, the Federal courts are going to force Tennessee to maintain the programs that will keep it on track to meet that 80 percent goal. So Governor Bredesen had to make a painful decision; he had to cut 323,000 adults from TennCare and limit benefits for the remaining 396,000 adults. Let's be clear here--these beneficiaries are people that the State of Tennessee has decided to provide health care services to even though the Federal Medicaid laws do not require the State to do so. These are optional populations and services, and Governor Bredesen was exercising his option not to provide these services. But hang on a minute. Maybe they are not as optional as we all thought. On January 29, 2005, Judge William J. Haynes, Jr., a U.S. District Court Judge, declared that he must approve any changes to TennCare. So now, the Tennessee State Legislature is waiting for Judge Haynes to make a decision and give the State legislature permission to change the State health insurance program and balance the budget. In all of these cases, and in many more; we see courts and lawyers making decisions like this. Not just protecting rights, but running the government. Courts are making policy choices that are supposed to be made by elected Governors, mayors, legislators, city councilmen and women, school board members, and any number of other officials. When courts run the government, that is no democracy. Federal courts are not accountable. They do not have to answer to an electorate for the choices they make. This is not good government. The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act contains three main provisions that address many of these concerns. First, this bill lays out a series of findings that will guide Federal courts in approving future consent decrees. The findings give congressional endorsement to the Supreme Court's call for limiting decrees to make sure they are not unreasonably broad. The findings also advocate the entry of consent decrees that take into account the interests of State and local governments and give due deference to their policy choices. Finally, the findings also make it clear that consent decrees should contain explicit and realistic strategies for ending court supervision. Second, the bill creates ``term limits'' for consent decrees. It provides State and local governments with an opportunity to revisit the consent decree after either 4 years or 6 months after the end of the term of the State or local official who consents to the agreement. Four years is a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the success of judicial management and to determine whether or not it is still warranted. Alternatively, a provision allowing a decree to be revisited following the election of new State and local officials will give these officials the opportunity to bring fresh ideas to the table. I am sure that many of my colleagues who served as State and local officials can attest to the frustration of coming into office and having your hands tied by an agreement that the last mayor, attorney general, or Governor made. Finally, this bill shifts the burden of proof from the State and local governments to the plaintiffs in the case. Under the current law, State and local governments must prove that a decree is no longer necessary to protect plaintiffs' rights; that is, they must prove a negative. They must also show that they have complied substantially with all the terms of the existing decree. However, as I have already mentioned, the terms of these decrees often go far beyond simply upholding the plaintiffs' rights. By shifting the burden of proof, this bill requires the plaintiffs to show that judicial management is still necessary. It allows parents like those concerned about the New York bilingual education programs to make the point that they do not think they still need judicial management of this program. Passage of my bill will not immediately end the consent decree problem. We have separation of powers in our government, and there is only so much Congress can do. However, what Congress can do, and what I hope to do with this legislation, is level the playing field so that State and local governments can have a fair shot at getting back the authority that is rightfully theirs. Judicial management has become a national concern. Federal courts are running police departments, school districts, foster care programs, State health insurance programs, and numerous other programs that are rightfully left to the responsibility of State and local elected officials. No less an authority than the Supreme Court has recognized the overreaching of the Federal courts. In 2004, the court handed down a decision in the Frew v. Hawkins case. Although the court upheld the consent decree in this case, its opinion recognized the dangers of consent decrees and contained some guidance as to how to address these concerns. I think the Supreme Court's own words say it most effectively: The state officials warn that enforcement of consent decrees can undermine the sovereign interests and accountability of state governments. . . . The concerns they express are legitimate ones. If not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined in consent decrees involving state officeholders may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. They may also lead to federal court oversight of state programs for long periods of time even absent an ongoing violation of federal law. Referencing a previous Supreme Court decision involving consent decrees, the Court went on to say: `principles of federalism and simple common sense require the [district] court to give significant weight' to the views of government officials. . . . principles of federalism require that state officials with front line responsibility for administering the program be given latitude and substantial discretion. The federal court must exercise its equitable powers to ensure that when the objects of the decree have been attained, responsibility for discharging the State's obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials. As public servants, the officials of the State must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in deciding how best to discharge their governmental responsibilities. A State, in the ordinary course, depends upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources. The basic obligations of federal law may remain the same, but the precise manner of their discharge may not. The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act comes at a time when President Bush has called on Congress to offer more flexibility to State governments to manage Medicaid. That flexibility has to in part address the Federal courts' assumption of judicial control of these programs. This bill is one way of doing that. In a broader sense too, this bill is one small piece of the effort to promote federalism in the United States. In recent years, it has become the trend to treat States as the wayward little brother of the Federal Government. That was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. State governments provide the basic necessities of life that citizens demand. They are the laboratories that can serve as models of good government that the rest of the country can follow. They are our partners, not our wards. It is time we begin to treat them that way. This bill is the first of what I hope will be many steps toward restoring the relationship between the Federal Government and the State and local governments that do so much.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Senator is absolutely right. Perhaps Congressman Cooper had the best phrase. He said the purpose of this legislation is to keep democracy fresh. The people are entitled to two things. One is to have their constitutional and Federal rights enforced in the Federal courts. This will continue under this legislation. But they are also entitled to have democratically elected leaders that can make the policy decisions and do the governing, which is what we say to the rest of the world. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, sacrificing lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to promote the idea that people have a right to elect their own officials, yet we have drifted into the situation somewhere, as in the Tennessee case, where we have four prior consent decrees that will leave in the Federal courts these decisions and the Governor cannot change them. Even though a previous Governor entered into them, the standards are such he cannot change them. He has a right to go in there and say, Judge, I hope you will review it. The plaintiff, not the Governor, has to persuade the judge that it needs to be continued. And if it does, the court may continue the consent decree if he considers it to be useful.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Alabama. When the word ``judges'' is mentioned in this Chamber, we automatically divide, especially during this season. That is why I am so glad Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Congressman Cooper have joined in this. Former Senator Bill Bradley has praised the ideas found in ``Democracy by Decree.'' This is not a Democratic or Republican idea. Democracy is everyone's idea in this country. One reason it has such broad support is that it is not just the court's fault that this is happening; sometimes Governors and mayors do not want to deal with the prison problem. They do not want to deal with the Medicaid problem, so they unload it on the courts. That hurts the people who should be helped. It deprives the voters of their right to choose elected officials. The bill has broad bipartisan support. I hope it continues to have. I am grateful to the Senator from Connecticut for giving me an opportunity to make my remarks today before he made his remarks. Exhibit A Praise for Democracy by Decree (By Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod) ``The first book that shows how courts can do their proper job of protecting rights without allowing elected officials off the hook for their proper job of making policy.''--Former Senator Bill Bradley ``A fascinating book for someone like me who regretted agreeing to a court-approved consent decree limiting the city's authority in programs involving prisons, welfare, education, homeless shelters, etc.''--Ed Koch, former mayor, New York City ``A brilliant, well-written, and brave account of how federal courts have distorted our political system by taking control of complex institutions like schools and prisons-- sometimes for decades--instead of enforcing rights, which is their proper domain.''--Diane Ravitch, New York University ``With fascinating blow-by-blow accounts, Sandler and Schoenbrod expose how advocates for one interest group inevitably undermine the interests of others and thwart the ability of those in responsibility to balance interests for the common good.''--Philip K. Howard, author of The Death of Common Sense ``Democracy by Decree is an impressive and thoughtful analysis of the current court-centered rights culture in which it is too easy for elected officials to `pass the buck' to courts while taking actions that are blatantly unconstitutional.''--Nadine Strossen, president, American Civil Liberties Union, and professor, New York Law School ``Democracy by Decree shows how courts can protect rights and still let mayors and governors do their job.''--John Sexton, president of New York University and dean of New York University School of Law ``Sandler and Schoenbrod's account--really a discovery--of the existence of a second government in our midst is meticulous, nuanced, and alarming. By showing how unilateral judicial government undermines both democracy and individual rights, they have done a significant service to both.'' Christopher DeMuth, president, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Mr. ALEXANDER. I failed to mention an early sponsor and a principal sponsor, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Senator Nelson of Nebraska is a former Governor. Senator Pryor is a former attorney general. Senator Cornyn is a former attorney general. I am a former Governor. That explains part of our interest in this. Congressman Jim Cooper, by the way, a Democrat from Nashville, will be the principal Democratic sponsor of this legislation in the House. It has strong bipartisan support. As I will show in a few minutes, it strongly supports the idea of limiting what we call democracy by court decree. Limiting the idea of Federal courts running the Government has strong bipartisan appeal. It has strong support from the left and the right, because democracy by court decree interferes with democracy. It interferes with the ability of voters to elect officials who are accountable, and then throw them out if they don't like what they are doing. Consent decrees, which are judicial orders based on the consent of the parties engaged in civil court action, can be an effective judicial tool when drawn narrowly, and with respect to State and local policy choices. Congress passes legislation and sets conditions on grants that must be followed by State and local governments. When they are not followed, it is important for citizens to be able to turn to the court to see that their rights and the rule of law are upheld. That is the heart of the idea of federalism. Unfortunately, in many cases, rather than preserving the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the State government, consent decrees have the opposite effect. What we are seeing in State after State is government policy controlled by courts and judges instead of by Governors, mayors, and legislators. For example, in Maine in 2003, the Governor had to propose deep cuts to mental health services for children because consent decrees made it almost impossible to restrain other parts of the budget. In New York City, Latino parents are upset because schools are forcing their children into bilingual education programs when they want them in a different kind of program to learn English. And why is that happening? Because for the last 30 years, bilingual education in New York has been mandated by a consent decree that the schools have no choice but to obey. In Los Angeles, a consent decree has forced the Metropolitan Transit Authority to spend $110 million per year on improving city buses. That sounds like a good idea. But that is 47 percent of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's budget spent on just buses, leaving the remaining 53 percent to pay for street and freeway improvements, rail systems, transportation planning programs, and the reduction of debt. Meanwhile, ridership on MTA buses increased only marginally in the first 6 years of judicial management, and residents of Los Angeles complain that other MTA services are suffering, and their elected officials are not able to do anything about it because the courts are running the transit authority. The State of Tennessee has also become a victim of democracy by court decree. Tennessee, like every State, has to balance its budget. I can speak from experience. I did it for 8 years. I know it involves some difficult choices. Our Democratic Governor Bredesen of Tennessee is making some of those choices. But he can't do it because the Federal Government has refused to let him to do what he feels he needs to do to balance the budget. Late last year, it became apparent that the costs of the Medicaid program in Tennessee are rising at an unsustainable rate. The Medicaid caseload has gone up 40 percent across this country in the last 5 years. When you combine that with sharp increase in the rate of inflation for health care costs over the regular inflation rate, we get a staggering impact, not only on the Federal Government but especially on State Governors who are balancing their budgets. The inevitable result of that is the Governors reach to find somewhere else to get the money to balance their budget. Where does it come from? It comes from education. It comes from especially higher education. In the last 4 years, Federal spending for K-12 education has gone up about 40 percent. In Tennessee, spending for K-12 education over those same 4 years has gone up about 11 percent. In other words, Federal spending is going up three times the rate of State spending. The reason is Medicaid is eating up the money, and the Governor is unable to control the growth of Medicaid because the Federal court says it can decide better than the Governor can where those dollars ought to be spent. For example, pre-K education is something on which Governor Bredesen wants to spend the money. He can't charter a preschool program, an important program such as I suppose the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is advocating nationally. His hands are tied. Governor Bredesen has tackled TennCare. He ran for office and said, ``I wanted to be elected to fix the TennCare Program.'' He has come up with a plan that would result in Medicaid spending in Tennessee rising only $75 million this year instead of the $650 million it will rise without those changes. But he is constrained by a series of four Federal court consent decrees entered into by his predecessors going back 25 years. These consent decrees dictate policies on medical screening for children, requiring the States to provide patients with high-cost, brand name prescription drugs, and affecting the ability of States to verify the eligibility of the patients they serve. But most importantly, they deny the voters the opportunity to have a new Governor and a new legislature look at all of their programs and make choices about how and where to spend the money. In the face of enormous pressures, the Federal courts are going to force Tennessee to maintain programs that the Governor says he would rather not maintain because he would rather spend the money for education. Governor Bredesen is making painful, difficult decisions. He has proposed cutting 323,000 adults from TennCare and limiting the benefits for the remaining 396,000 adults because he wants to strengthen Tennessee's pre-K and K-12 programs, and have a first-rate system for colleges and universities. I might emphasize that the services the Governor hopes to limit are not required by the Federal Government. They are optional services that States may or may not offer, according to the Federal law, except they are not as optional as we might think. On January 29, Judge William Haynes, U.S. District Judge, declared he must approve any of those changes. So we have a Federal court judge, not the Governor and legislature, making those decisions. The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act contains three main provisions that address many of these concerns. First, it lays out a series of guidelines that will guide Federal courts in approving future consent decrees. Basically, these guidelines follow suggestions which the U.S. Supreme Court made in the year 2004 in a decision in which it expressed concern about the fact that old consent decrees were limiting the actions of newly elected officials and interfering with democracy. The bottom line of these guidelines is to narrow the consent decrees and encourage the courts to get the decision-making back in the hands of the elected officials as soon as possible. Second, our legislation creates term limits for consent decrees. Fundamentally, it says any new Governor may go into the court and ask the judge to vacate or modify that consent decree; or a Governor or mayor may do that 4 years after the original date of the consent decree. Seventy-five of the 100 Senators in this body have served in State or local government before. I am sure they can understand the frustration of being elected to fix the schools, or improve the roads, or repair the prisons, or restrain growth of Medicaid, or improve colleges, and discover they don't have the authority to do it because the Governor or mayor 15 years ago entered into a consent decree and the court approved it, and the newly elected official can't change it. Finally, the bill shifts the burden of proof from the State and local governments to the plaintiffs in the case. Under current law, State and local governments must prove that a decree is no longer necessary to protect the plaintiffs' rights. In other words, they must prove a negative. Now the plaintiff will have to prove that the court interference with the decisions of elected officials is still needed. The court still retains full control of the case. The court still retains the ability to protect the rights of Americans. But the court would have instructions to say that if the parties come to you and say, ``Mr. Court, Ms. Court, we can't solve this problem, will you approve this consent decree?'' The court will say, ``I will temporarily get involved in what is your responsibility, but I will do it under a narrowly defined set of terms and very shortly I will make sure that it gets back in the hands of elected officials.'' I have in my remarks, which I will submit in complete form for the Record, some of the comments of the Supreme Court in Frew v. Hawkins in 2004. The Court took an extraordinary step in inviting the Congress to pass legislation such as this and in suggesting to the Federal courts that they might narrow their consent decrees and as soon as possible get these decisions back in the hands of elected officials. In other words, the principle here is democracy and whether unelected people or elected people will make the decisions. This is an especially important piece of legislation at a time when we are considering Medicaid. We are asking States to restrain the growth of Medicaid. We are still spending a lot of money. Over the next 10 years, we propose to spend $1.2 trillion--new dollars. We are not restraining spending much. But if the caseload is growing by 40 percent, and if the cost of health care is rising faster than the normal cost of living, and if we still require Georgia, or Connecticut, or Alabama, or Tennessee, to pay for 43 percent of Medicaid, and we haven't changed the eligibility requirements, and we don't give the States much flexibility, and the Federal court tells the Governors they can't do it, we are giving the States an impossible assignment. The only result will be the gradual destruction of our system of higher education, which is principally funded by State governments. I strongly urge my colleagues to seriously consider this legislation. I am glad to see 17 Senators of both parties have already signed on. I am glad a leading Democrat in the House, Congressman Jim Cooper, will be sponsoring a version of this bill as well. I will have printed in the Record a series of comments about a book, ``Democracy By Decree,'' which is the scholarship on which this legislation is based. This book is by Ross Sandler and David Schoenbrod, professors at the New York Law School. The book is published by Yale University Press. It has been widely praised by columnists as evenhanded. Among those who praise the scholarship are former Senator Bill Bradley, Ed Koch, Diane Ravitch, John Sexton, president of the New York University and Dean of the NYU Law School, and Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Policy Institute for Public Policy Research. Not many pieces of scholarship have support from such a broad spectrum. I ask unanimous consent to have printed after my remarks the complete comments of those individuals I just mentioned, as well as a column by George F. Will in Newsweek on November 28th, saying that ``Democracy By Decree'' is one of the most important books on governing in the last 10 years. I ask unanimous consent also to have printed an article from the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2002, by Thomas J. Main, assistant professor at the School of Public Affairs of Baruch College. I ask unanimous consent that a review of the book by Ross Weiner in the Legal Times also be printed.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, for giving me an opportunity to speak, and also my colleague, the Senator from Alabama. The Senator from Connecticut and I, Senator Dodd, on behalf of ourselves, and Senators Enzi, Kennedy, Roberts, and Hatch, yesterday introduced the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care Development Block Grant Program. This is a program that is very important to families across this country. I am pleased that our committee is progressing in a bipartisan way on the very important piece of legislation. Today I want to talk about a piece of legislation I introduced earlier this week. It is called the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act. It has to do with federalism, with democracy, with responsibilities of State and local government. It has to do with our effort to try to restrain the growth of the cost of Medicaid so that we can properly fund other programs such as higher education, elementary and secondary education, and research. I introduced that legislation, along with Senator Pryor of Arkansas, who is the lead Democratic sponsor. Senator Cornyn and Senator Kyl joined us at that time. Since that time, 12 other Senators have asked to join us. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to S. 489, the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act: Senators McConnell, Bennett, Cochran, Craig, Domenici, Hutchison, Inhofe, Lott, Roberts, Santorum, Smith, and Warner.