Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am here with Senator Dodd and on behalf of Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy to introduce the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, program. This program provides funding to States for child care vouchers. Across the United States last year low-income parents of 2.3 million children were able to use these certificates or ``vouchers'' to help pay the cost of child care while the parents worked or continued their education so they could get a better job. Last year, my home State of Tennessee spent $251,760,528 for child care, much of which came through the CCDBG program. This important program legislates how States are to administer child care. States provide certificates to parents to choose the type of care that best fits their children's needs. In Tennessee, 1 percent of children receive care in their own home, 19 percent have chosen to place their children in family home care, 5 percent are in group care while the vast majority, 75 percent, are in child care centers. About 24,500 Tennessee families with children are enrolled in some form of subsidized child care, and as of January of this year, 46,591 children were receiving subsidized child care in my home State. A family of four, which is a typical size for eligible families in Tennessee, is eligible for child care support when their median income is no more than 60 percent of the State's median income. That means that families making $33,000 or less are eligible for some assistance, though they may also have to make a co-payment. For example, a family of four making $32,000 would be required to pay $56 per week for the first child and $42 per week for the second child. This year we are making the CCDBG program even better with four key improvements. First, the act increases the quality set-aside from 4 percent, current law, to 6 percent. Eighty percent of parents report that their child care is poor to mediocre, so we need to take steps to improve overall quality of care. The quality set-aside is used to offer training and professional development to child care workers. States can also use quality funds to provide technical assistance to child care facilities to help them enhance learning opportunities for pre-school or school-aged children while in care. Of course, States could choose to do even more, and I am happy to report that my own State of Tennessee spends at least 12 percent on quality improvements. Second, the act requires States to use at least 70 percent of funds for direct services. This will ensure that more of the money gets into the hands of parents rather than State bureaucracies. Under current law, States vary greatly in what percentage they use for direct services since current language simply specifies that a ``significant'' portion be used for services. Third, the legislation emphasizes the importance of school preparedness by adding a new goal: development of pre-reading, prenumeracy, math and language skills for children in care. Research has proven that a child's brain doubles in size between birth and age 3. These are formative years for both physical and cognitive development. Fourth, the bill establishes a temporary small business competitive grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. Senator Roberts developed this innovative $30 million grant program, and I am glad it could be included in the bill. The CCDBG program is important for supporting parents raising children across the country. One such parent is Tameka Payton. Tameka was nineth grade when she had her first child, Javonta. When she became pregnant, Tameka was a ward of the State. She had grown up with an abusive mother who was addicted to drugs. After being removed from the care of her mother, she was placed in the care of her aunt who also proved abusive. Tameka ran away, and was placed in the foster care system until she was 18. She then had two more children, Jayla and Michael, before finding a family resource center at the Salvation Army that connected her and her children to Tennessee's Family First program. The Family First program and the child care certificates she receives through this program enabled Tameka to find work and become a better mother. She is currently working 40 hours a week while working on her GED. She is about to take the test. Everyday she brings her children 4, 2, and 1 to the McNeilly Center. Tameka feels confident that not only are her children receiving quality care but also she is learning how to be a better mother. Her children's teachers are receptive and answer all of her questions. She has learned to spend time reading to her children so she can contribute to their education, too. The Federal CCDBG program funds the child care certificates Tameka receives. Without them, Tameka, and her children, would be in a very different place today. Tameka's dream is to get her GED and attend Tennessee State University. The support she receives has given her the chance to realize that dream, and make a better life for herself and her children. I expect her hard work to payoff. Another Tennessee parent who has benefited from the program is Renee Prigmore. Renee is currently a toddler teacher at the McNeilly Center in Nashville. But she first found McNeilly as a parent, not as a teacher. As a single parent of three, she used her child care certificates at McNeilly to leave her kids in quality care while she attended community college. Renee has attained her degree as a Child Development Associate, CDA. Her children are now 10, 6, and 4 and she is exiting out of the child care program because she is able to provide for her three kids. The child care certificates she received enabled her to take the time to receive that degree and provide for her family. People like Tameka Payton and Renee Prigmore have used the CCDBG program to build a new and better life for their families. With the introduction of the Caring for Children Act, we can make that program even stronger, so that parents raising children are able to build a better future for their families. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this important endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I am here with Senator Dodd and on behalf of Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy to introduce the Caring for Children Act of 2005 which reauthorizes the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, program. This program provides funding to States for child care vouchers. Across the United States last year low-income parents of 2.3 million children were able to use these certificates or ``vouchers'' to help pay the cost of child care while the parents worked or continued their education so they could get a better job. Last year, my home State of Tennessee spent $251,760,528 for child care, much of which came through the CCDBG program. This important program legislates how States are to administer child care. States provide certificates to parents to choose the type of care that best fits their children's needs. In Tennessee, 1 percent of children receive care in their own home, 19 percent have chosen to place their children in family home care, 5 percent are in group care while the vast majority, 75 percent, are in child care centers. About 24,500 Tennessee families with children are enrolled in some form of subsidized child care, and as of January of this year, 46,591 children were receiving subsidized child care in my home State. A family of four, which is a typical size for eligible families in Tennessee, is eligible for child care support when their median income is no more than 60 percent of the State's median income. That means that families making $33,000 or less are eligible for some assistance, though they may also have to make a co-payment. For example, a family of four making $32,000 would be required to pay $56 per week for the first child and $42 per week for the second child. This year we are making the CCDBG program even better with four key improvements. First, the act increases the quality set-aside from 4 percent, current law, to 6 percent. Eighty percent of parents report that their child care is poor to mediocre, so we need to take steps to improve overall quality of care. The quality set-aside is used to offer training and professional development to child care workers. States can also use quality funds to provide technical assistance to child care facilities to help them enhance learning opportunities for pre-school or school-aged children while in care. Of course, States could choose to do even more, and I am happy to report that my own State of Tennessee spends at least 12 percent on quality improvements. Second, the act requires States to use at least 70 percent of funds for direct services. This will ensure that more of the money gets into the hands of parents rather than State bureaucracies. Under current law, States vary greatly in what percentage they use for direct services since current language simply specifies that a ``significant'' portion be used for services. Third, the legislation emphasizes the importance of school preparedness by adding a new goal: development of pre-reading, prenumeracy, math and language skills for children in care. Research has proven that a child's brain doubles in size between birth and age 3. These are formative years for both physical and cognitive development. Fourth, the bill establishes a temporary small business competitive grant program to encourage small businesses to work together to provide child care services for employees. Senator Roberts developed this innovative $30 million grant program, and I am glad it could be included in the bill. The CCDBG program is important for supporting parents raising children across the country. One such parent is Tameka Payton. Tameka was nineth grade when she had her first child, Javonta. When she became pregnant, Tameka was a ward of the State. She had grown up with an abusive mother who was addicted to drugs. After being removed from the care of her mother, she was placed in the care of her aunt who also proved abusive. Tameka ran away, and was placed in the foster care system until she was 18. She then had two more children, Jayla and Michael, before finding a family resource center at the Salvation Army that connected her and her children to Tennessee's Family First program. The Family First program and the child care certificates she receives through this program enabled Tameka to find work and become a better mother. She is currently working 40 hours a week while working on her GED. She is about to take the test. Everyday she brings her children 4, 2, and 1 to the McNeilly Center. Tameka feels confident that not only are her children receiving quality care but also she is learning how to be a better mother. Her children's teachers are receptive and answer all of her questions. She has learned to spend time reading to her children so she can contribute to their education, too. The Federal CCDBG program funds the child care certificates Tameka receives. Without them, Tameka, and her children, would be in a very different place today. Tameka's dream is to get her GED and attend Tennessee State University. The support she receives has given her the chance to realize that dream, and make a better life for herself and her children. I expect her hard work to payoff. Another Tennessee parent who has benefited from the program is Renee Prigmore. Renee is currently a toddler teacher at the McNeilly Center in Nashville. But she first found McNeilly as a parent, not as a teacher. As a single parent of three, she used her child care certificates at McNeilly to leave her kids in quality care while she attended community college. Renee has attained her degree as a Child Development Associate, CDA. Her children are now 10, 6, and 4 and she is exiting out of the child care program because she is able to provide for her three kids. The child care certificates she received enabled her to take the time to receive that degree and provide for her family. People like Tameka Payton and Renee Prigmore have used the CCDBG program to build a new and better life for their families. With the introduction of the Caring for Children Act, we can make that program even stronger, so that parents raising children are able to build a better future for their families. I ask my colleagues to join with me in this important endeavor. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for giving me this opportunity. I am glad to join with the President pro tempore and the majority leader in cosponsoring this resolution. I would like to add a few words about Howard Baker. When Howard Baker left for Japan, there was an enormous ceremony hosted by the President of the United States in the East Room. It was a signal of the importance of our country's relationship with Japan. It was a demonstration of the long list of distinguished United States Ambassadors to the country of Japan. It was a reminder of the importance of the job Ambassador Baker would have at this listening post and action post in Asia. Howard Baker's coming home deserves a little bit of fanfare, too. The relationship between Japan and the United States has never been better. A good bit of that credit goes to President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi for their close relationship, but Howard Baker had a lot to do with it, too. His homecoming helps to bring to a close, as Senator Stevens and Senator Frist have said, another chapter in one of the most distinguished public careers in our country. Howard Baker was a very successful Senator. There would not have been a Reagan Presidency, as we know it, without Howard Baker. I remember Howard Baker told me that when the tax cuts passed in the early 1980s, after the Republican majority was elected, he, Senator Baker, the majority leader, took the tax cuts and walked them over to the House of Representatives and handed them to Tip O'Neill. Then, of course, Senator Baker put his own Presidential aspirations aside a few years later and served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. I was living in Australia at the time, and I remember the relief the Australians had in 1987 hearing on the radio that Howard Baker was going to the White House to help straighten out some problems. I saw him up close, and I have seen him up close for a long time. I came here to this body in 1967, as his legislative assistant, 1 year before the President pro tempore became a Member of this Senate. Howard Baker was not a shy first-termer. We sat around in staff seats in the back of the Chamber and waited until he and Ted Kennedy, then another young Senator, took on Everett Dirksen and Sam Ervin on ``one man, one vote.'' The youngsters beat the oldsters on that vote. He ran for leader twice, I think, in the first 6 years. In 1977, he changed the name ``Minority Leader'' to ``Republican Leader'' on the wall out here. He began to talk about the second-best view in Washington being in the leader's office. And we knew he was thinking about trying for the first-best view in Washington, which is from the White House. When he accepted this post in Japan, at President Bush's request, some people said to me: Why in the world would Howard Baker do that, with all he has already done in his life? I was not one bit surprised that he did. Howard Baker has always had the bit in his teeth. He has done everything he has ever done with consummate skill. He is the reason I am in public service today. We once said there was a whole generation of us--former Senator Thompson, the late Howard Liebengood--a number of us who were a generation of people inspired by Howard Baker. Now there is a second generation, including our majority leader. There really would not be a two-party system in Tennessee without Howard Baker. We used to say the best thing about Howard was that when people saw him on TV, he always made Tennesseans look good. We can now say that about the country. When people see Howard Baker around the world, he makes us Americans look even better. He represents the best of us. We welcome him home just in time for his 80th birthday on November 15, and just in time, I am quite confident, to prepare for another sparkling chapter in one of our country's most distinguished public careers. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing entitled, ``Programs in Peril: An Overview of the GAO High-Risk List.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, at 2:30 p.m. to review the National Park Service's implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorized in Public Law 108-447.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 17, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate for a hearing entitled, ``The President's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request for the SBA'' on Thursday, February 17, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226. I. Legislation: S. 256, A bill to Amend Title 11 of the United States Code, and for Other Purposes Act of 2005, [Grassley, Hatch, Sessions]

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., in SD-430.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Russia.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 17, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006 and future years defense program.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 17, 2005, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Daniel R. Levinson, to be Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; Harold Damelin, to be Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC; and Raymond Wagner, Jr., to be a Member of the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board, Washington, DC.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real authorities on energy. We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective, do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way that is environmentally sound. That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be. The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third of all the money is one way to put it. How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs have come from advances in science and technology. There are other countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense. Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power. Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his words, toward an energy catastrophe. It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil. The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next 25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800. That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do. So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in the United States. If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas. And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the world and come over here. So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge. They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of their need for an energy supply. What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20 National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon. One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can-- through technology, working with people in other parts of the world, and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad to have a chance to be associated with this bill. Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is, What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all unconcerned about it; we just have different degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the evidence we see. I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and without having the solution. Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a cap on it. I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion, technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to put on mandatory caps. If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be almost all of it. There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles. I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not produce much energy. But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps. One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500 years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same. The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe. I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make it an important part of energy hearings.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding me time. I am in support of the President's nominee, Judge Michael Chertoff. He seems to have worked for almost every part of the Federal Government, including this body. I heard the Senator from Maine say that she had never seen a better witness before her committee. As Secretary of Homeland Security, Judge Chertoff will play a very important and visible role in our everyday lives, protecting us from terrorism, but my purpose today is to highlight another job he has. He is also the chief immigration officer. As Secretary, he will oversee the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the successor to the INS, which manages immigration in this country. This job of Judge Chertoff is not primarily about keeping people out of the United States; it is also about welcoming new Americans into the United States. The numbers are down some since 2001, but as many as 1 million immigrants become new American citizens each year. I have attended a number of the ceremonies which are held in Federal courthouses all over America every month to welcome and naturalize these new citizens. I was in Nashville in December when 50 or 60 people from all backgrounds were administered the oath of allegiance by Judge Echols. The oath requires each new American to renounce any old allegiance and swear a new one to the United States of America. Each one of these new citizens has waited at least 5 years. They have learned English. They have learned something about U.S. history. They have proved they are of good character. Many new citizens have tears in their eyes as they recite that oath. It is an inspiring scene. Each of these new citizens brings a new background and cultural tradition to the rich fabric of American life. That increases our magnificent diversity, but diversity is not our most important characteristic. Jerusalem is diverse. The Balkans are diverse. Iraq is diverse. A lot of the world is diverse. What is unique about the United States of America is that we take all of that diversity and make ourselves into one country. We are able to say we are all Americans. We do that because we unify it with principles and values in which we all believe: liberty, equality, rule of law. It also helps that we speak a common language. It is hard to be one people if we cannot talk with one another. Many of these new citizens and many others living in this country lack a solid grasp of our common language or a clear understanding of our history and civic culture. Without proficiency in English, our common language, and an understanding of our history and values, immigrants will find it difficult to integrate themselves into our American society. So my hope today is that Judge Chertoff does a magnificent job in his role at preventing terrorism. My hope also is that he does a good job in keeping out of this country people who are not legally supposed to be here. But equally important is Secretary Chertoff's role in welcoming new citizens to this country, helping them learn our history, our common language--helping all of us remember those principles that unite us as one country. That is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It is of increasing interest to Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to working with Judge Chertoff in this new role and I support his confirmation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I salute Senator Hagel for his leadership and his contribution on this issue. I am glad to be here with my colleague, Senator Craig, who is one of the Senate's real authorities on energy. We have had some trouble passing an energy bill in the Senate. We are having some trouble passing a clean air bill in the Senate. If we are being logical--which is hard for a Senate to be--we would set clean air objectives and pass a clean energy bill to help reach that objective, do it at once, and give ourselves a low cost, reliable supply of energy, less dependent on the rest of the world, and do it in a way that is environmentally sound. That is our objective. We have different approaches on this, but Senator Hagel has put his emphasis today exactly where it needs to be. The United States of America is a country that has about a third of all the GDP in the world. We have 5 to 6 percent of the people and a third of all the money is one way to put it. How did we get that money? How did we get our position? The National Academy of Sciences says that since World War II, half our new jobs have come from advances in science and technology. There are other countries in the world--a growing number of countries--that have great capacity for science and technology. Some of the greatest scientists and engineers who have worked in this country have come from other countries in the world. But if any country in the world ought to be putting a focus on science and technology as a way of helping not just their country but the rest of the world deal with the issue of greenhouse gases, it ought to be the United States of America. Senator Hagel is exactly right to put the spotlight there. He does it in a three-part bill. In the first part, he talks about international cooperation. That also makes a lot of sense. Three weeks ago, I was visiting with the chairman of one of the largest energy companies in Germany. If there is a country in the world that has a more irrational energy policy than we do, it would be Germany. They have just decided to close 19 nuclear powerplants at the same time, across the Rhine river, France is 85 percent nuclear power. Of course, Germany will never do that because they will not be able to meet the Kyoto carbon standards if they close the plants. But the point that my friend from Germany was making is that we are headed, in his words, toward an energy catastrophe. It is a catastrophe of two kinds. One is energy supply, and one is clean air. Now, why is that? It is because other countries in the world are growing. In China, the average Chinese person uses about one-sixth the amount of energy that the average person in the European Union uses, in the 15 original countries. Now, in China, when the average Chinese person, with all the people there, gets up to three-sixths or four-sixths or five-sixths or six-sixths, as they will, there will be an unbelievable demand for energy in this country. We are already seeing it in the prices for natural gas, in the prices for oil. The figures we heard in our Energy Committee were that over the next 25 years--and my numbers are approximate--China might build 650 new coal plants to begin to supply its energy, and India might build 800. That does not count the rest of Southeast Asia or what Brazil might do. So we cannot just look at this issue in terms of what is happening in the United States. If there is not a supply of energy, and the other countries are demanding so much, our prices will be so high that our million chemical jobs in the country will move overseas looking for cheap natural gas. And it will not make much difference how we clean the air in the United States of America if China and India and Brazil build so many old coal plants and throw stuff up in the air because it will blow around the world and come over here. So we have, on two counts, a major, major challenge: energy supply and clean air. It would make enormous sense for the scientists and engineers in the United States to work with the scientists and engineers in Germany who have exactly the same challenge and the scientists and engineers in China who have even more of a challenge. They have just stopped 26 of their coal plants because of environmental concerns, but they will not be able to stop them for long because of their need for an energy supply. What the Senator from Nebraska has done is to say to us, hey, we are talking about mandates and rules and regulations, but what we ought to be trying to do is to create a solution to the problem using the thing that we in the United States do better than anybody, or historically have, and that is our science and technology. This is the country with the 50 great research universities. This is the country with the 20 National Laboratories. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in my home State, is already doing important work on how we recapture carbon. One of the things we can do in the Senate, without arguing about Kyoto, without arguing about mandates, is to say, let's see if we can-- through technology, working with people in other parts of the world, and encouraging our own businesses and laboratories--find better ways to deal with greenhouse gases. I salute the Senator for that. I am glad to have a chance to be associated with this bill. Now, the second thing I would like to say is that is not all there is to do. We have different opinions in this body about so-called global warming. I believe, of course, there is global warming. Our grandparents can tell us that. The question, as Senator Craig said, is, What is causing it? And do we know enough about it to take steps? We have different opinions about that issue. That does not mean we are all unconcerned about it; we just have different degrees of understanding of it and different opinions about the evidence we see. I have a little different opinion than the Senator from Idaho. I support legislation that Senator Carper and Senator Chafee and Senator Gregg and I supported in the last session of Congress that put modest caps on the utilities section for the production of carbon. I was not willing to go further than that because of the science I read and I'm not sure we know exactly how to solve this problem. My reading of it did not persuade me, one, that we know all that we need to know about global warming; and, two, maybe more importantly, I was not sure we knew what we were doing by just saying, OK, we will do this, and without having the solution. Again, Senator Hagel has suggested, well, let's come up with some technology. Let's come up with some science. And then we can make a better assessment about what we would be able to do if we were to put a cap on it. I would suggest that in addition to Senator Hagel's technology that he encourages in his legislation--that is one way to do it--a second way to do it is with some kind of caps, and there are a variety of proposals in this body to do that. That also encourages, in my opinion, technology. But then there is also a third point to make, and that takes us out of the debate as to whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to put on mandatory caps. If China is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants and India is going to build hundreds of coal-fired powerplants because that is the only technology available to them and the only source of fuel they have readily available, then we had better get busy trying to figure out a way to recapture carbon--not to comply with the Kyoto Treaty, but because we are going to have to have it in this world. Any realistic look at the sources of energy in the world says that for the next 20 or 25 years, nuclear power, natural gas, oil, and coal will be almost all of it. There is a lot of support for renewable energy. Some people want to put up wind turbines taller than football fields covering square miles. I do not. I think that destroys the American landscape, and it does not produce much energy. But one of the most thoughtful presentations I have heard on the solution to our common issues of clean energy and clean air has come from the National Resources Defense Council, one of the leading environmental organizations in this country. They are in favor of a coal solution--I hope I am attributing this correctly to them--of a coal solution for our clean air, clean energy policy. A big part of their reasoning is, they see what is happening in the rest of the world. If the United States, they reason, can figure out a way to gasify coal and then recapture the carbon, that gets rid of most of the noxious pollutants--sulfur, nitrogen, mercury. It recaptures the carbon, which we have not really figured out how to do yet, but it does not just do that for the United States, it shows the rest of the world how to do it. And then China, instead of building 800 new coal plants with the old technology, will build 800 coal gasification plants and recapture the carbon. India will do the same, and maybe Germany will do the same. There will be more energy, and we will all be able to breathe. And that is quite irrespective of mandatory caps. One of the things I like about Senator Hagel's proposal is there is not any way to study the technology of how we deal with greenhouse gases without getting into questions of coal gasification and the recapturing of carbon. There is not any way to do that. He is leading us to the tantalizing possibility that in the United States we might one day be able to say: We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have 500 years' worth of it. We can turn it into gas. We can recapture the carbon. We can use that to create the hydrogen for the hydrogen economy that we think might one day be down the road, and that, plus our supplies of natural gas and nuclear power, will give us clean energy and will give us clean air and will show the world how to do the same. The Senator from Nebraska has put the spotlight where the spotlight ought to be. The United States of America, of all countries, should start with technology and science and say: Greenhouse gases is a problem. We are still researching how much of a problem it is. But we should, working with other countries, use our science and technology to deal with it and, in the process, see if it can lead us toward that brilliant intersection of clean energy and clean air that will one day give us a steady supply of energy and clean air that we can breathe. I salute the Senator for his leadership and am glad to be a cosponsor. I look forward to working with him. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on energy, we have some jurisdiction over global warming as well as energy technology commercialization. Senator Domenici, chairman of our full committee, had a full roundtable the other day on natural gas. We have one coming up on coal and coal gasification. I can assure my colleagues that the Hagel legislation will be an important part of that roundtable. I will do my best to make it an important part of energy hearings.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Muhs be granted privileges of the floor during my remarks.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy. The hearing, entitled The Future of Liquefied Natural Gas: Siting and Safety, will be held on Tuesday, February 15th at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD- 366. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the prospects for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the United States, Panel 1, and to discuss the safety and security issues related to LNG development, Panel 2. Witnesses will be the FERC, the Coast Guard, State authorities, and industry stakeholders. Issues that will be discussed include LNG siting process; risk assessment; and the State and local governments' role. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is Black History Month. I look forward to Black History Month each year because it reminds me of my late friend, Alex Haley. Alex Haley died 13 years ago this month. I can still remember his funeral in Memphis and the big crowd there-- people from all over America, leaders like Jesse Jackson. I spoke too; lots of us did. There must have been 300 people in the room who thought they were his best friend. There were thousands of people around America and around the world who thought they were Alex Haley's best friend. He was a remarkable individual. I remember saying that Alex Haley was God's storyteller, because he could tell a story. I remember saying, too, that I think we just used him up because he was such a generous man with his time. After the funeral in Memphis, a procession drove to Henning, TN--not so far from Memphis--50 or 60 miles. We were there at the home where Alex Haley stayed in the summers with his grandparents. This was a Friday. The African flute played a beautiful melody. It was cold. It was cold in February. After the casket was laid in the grave, the stone was put there. On that stone were the words that Alex Haley lived his life by: ``Find the good and praise it.'' I remember that afternoon as if it were yesterday, even though it was 13 years ago. I remember Alex Haley as if he were perched here in this room looking us over. I remember Alex Haley not just because of his death during Black History Month 13 years ago, but because of how he lived his life during Black History Month in the Februaries before 1992. Almost every February would find Alex Haley on an all-night red-eye flight to Tennessee from a speaking engagement in some distant place so he could drive to some small Tennessee town and fulfill a commitment he made months earlier to a 4th grade teacher to help her students celebrate Black History Month. Teachers loved Alex Haley's visits because he had wonderful stories to tell, stories of Frederick Douglass, of Thurgood Marshall, of Martin Luther King. Of the heroes and heroines, both black and white of the underground railroad, of Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, W.E.B. Dubois, James Baldwin, and Ralph Ellison. But the most riveting of all the stories that Alex Haley told those children were the ones Alex learned sitting on the porch steps in Henning, TN, in the summertime, listening to his great-aunts and his grandmother tell stories of his ancestor Kunta Kinte. He used to say his Great-Aunt Plus, rocking on the porch, telling those stories, could knock a firefly out of the air at 15 feet with an accurate stream of tobacco juice. Once Alex Haley rode across the Atlantic Ocean for 3 weeks in the belly of a freighter to try to imagine what it must have been like for Kunta Kinte to be captured in the Gambia, Africa, and brought to Annapolis and sold as a slave. Alex spent 13 years tracing what had happened between the arrival of Kunta Kinte, his seventh generation grandfather, and Alex's own birth. Alex Haley discovered one important piece of that puzzle when speaking in Simpson College in Iowa in the early 1970s. He told students and faculty there that he had found the name of the man who had bought Kunta Kinte on the Annapolis dock, but Alex could not trace what had happened after that. A faculty member arose and said, Mr. Haley, my seventh generation grandfather purchased your seventh generation grandfather. Alex stayed with that faculty member for several weeks and because of that encounter was finally able to weave together the rest of the story of the struggle for freedom which became America's best-watched television miniseries, the story of ``Roots.'' It is in the spirit of Alex Haley that I offer this resolution celebrating Black History Month. This resolution honors the contributions of African Americans throughout the history of our country. It recommits the Senate to the goals of liberty and equal opportunity for every American. It condemns the horrors of slavery, of lynching, of segregation, and other instances in which our country has failed to measure up to its noble goals, and it pledges to work harder to improve educational, health, and job opportunities for African Americans and for all Americans. African Americans were brought forcibly to these shores in the 17th century. From that dark beginning, however, they have overcome great obstacles and continue to do so, to take a prominent place among the many people of diverse backgrounds who have come together here to form a single nation. African Americans have made and continue to make significant contributions to the economic, educational, political, artistic, literary, scientific, and technical advancement of the United States of America. I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of the study of American history. One of our national tragedies and embarrassments is that our twelfth graders score lower on the national assessment of educational progress on U.S. history than on any other subject. We should be ashamed of that. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, Senator Kennedy, other Senators on this side, and I have worked together to try to change that. This is our opportunity--in a month devoted to black history--to especially recognize the history of African Americans in this country and to recognize that it is one of the greatest examples of our national quest to reach the high ideals set for us by our Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence dedicated us to the proposition that ``all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'' Our history is one of striving to reach this lofty ideal. The treatment of African Americans is our most egregious failure. Slavery, lynching, and segregation are all examples of times when this Nation failed African Americans. We failed to live up to our own promise of that fundamental truth that all men are created equal. However, for every time we have failed, we have struggled to come to terms with that disappointment and we have recommitted ourselves to try again. Where there once was slavery, we passed the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments abolishing slavery and declaring equal protection under the law for all races. Where there was segregation, came Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act. There are so many moments like these in our history and it is these moments we also celebrate with this resolution. In addition, I do not believe we should simply rest on the accomplishments of our past. We celebrate and remember our history so we can learn its lessons and apply them today. Today's wrongs are begging for attention. African Americans in this country face significant and often crippling disparities in education, in health care, in quality of life, and in other areas where the Federal Government can play a role. The best way for each one of us, and for the United States Senate, to commemorate Black History Month is to get to work on legislation that would offer African Americans and other Americans better access to good schools, better access to quality health care, better access to decent jobs. There is no resolution we can pass today that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS, or stop one more violent crime. However, I hope by joining me and supporting this resolution, the Members of this Senate will also join me in finding ways to look to the future and continue to contribute to this work in progress that is the United States of America. I don't know what my friend Alex Haley would say about this Senate resolution, the one I am about to introduce, or that Senate resolution. But I do know how he lived his life. I do know how he celebrated Black History Month. He told wonderful stories about African Americans and other Americans who believed in the struggle for freedom and the struggle for equality. He minced no words in describing the terrible injustices they overcame. He said to those children he had flown all night to see that they were living in a wonderful country of great goals, and while many in the past had often failed to reach those goals, that we Americans always recommit ourselves to keep trying. So, Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate resolution celebrating Black History Month, and it is in the spirit of Alex Haley that I offer it.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for such time as I may require.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, some of my colleagues are suggesting that as a result of yesterday's election in Iraq, the United States needs an exit strategy, that we should begin to withdraw troops, and that we should set a timetable for bringing the rest of our military men and women home. That is a very appealing thought. I can think of about 3,000 families in Tennessee of the 278th Cavalry of the National Guard whose husbands and wives and sons and daughters have interrupted their lives for up to 18 months. And they are now in northern Iraq. Their families would like to have them home. I can think of families around Fort Campbell and Nashville. They would like to have their loved ones home. I think of the $80 billion the President is going to ask us to spend, and I can think of 80 billion ways to spend it on education and improving our competitiveness. It is a very appealing thought--to bring the troops home. But we don't need an exit strategy in Iraq. The United States needs a success strategy in Iraq. If we are to succeed in Iraq, I am afraid that means those troops are likely to have to stay there for a while longer. Yesterday, the Iraqis did for themselves what we haven't been able to do for them in 22 months: they isolated the terrorists. The count was about 7 million or 8 million to 5,000 or 10,000--voting Iraqis versus terrorists. In October of 2003, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum which was widely circulated around Washington. He said: It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog. Concerning the overall war on terror, Secretary Rumsfeld went on to ask: Is our current situation such that ``the harder we work the behinder we get?'' The Rumsfeld memorandum leaked, and some accused the Secretary of not having all the answers. I am glad we had a Secretary who is willing to ask the questions that he didn't know the answers to. He was worried that our actions in Iraq and being successful in the war were, in the postwar time, inflaming Arab opinion in such a way that we were creating more terrorists than we were destroying. I know a lot of wise people around Washington, DC, who have been thinking about Secretary Rumsfeld's question since October of 2003. I have yet to hear one of them come up with a very good answer to his question. How do we in the postwar conflict keep from creating more terrorists than we are destroying? The answers to the question come from all sides. We in Congress have discussed, for example, more public relations, more television, more radio programming, more cultural exchanges. Those are all good ideas. They are important parts of effective public diplomacy. I hope we do them. But yesterday we witnessed a much better answer to Secretary Rumsfeld's question: elections; elections giving people a voice and a stake in the future of their own country. Those elections yesterday isolated the terrorists. That was the most important lesson of yesterday. It was 7 million or 8 million for democracy and 5,000 or 10,000 for the terrorists. It wasn't the Americans who were in the 7 or 8 million; it was the Iraqis. It was the Iraqis. We discovered that we know how to give people their freedom. We have a military strong enough to do that virtually anywhere in the world. We did it in Iraq, and with stunning success, in 3 weeks toppling Saddam Hussein's government. We can give most countries their freedom in a few weeks or a few months, but we are being reminded in Iraq that building a democracy takes a long time. And people have to build a democracy for themselves. We can't do it for them. We should know that from our own history. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. Our Constitution was signed in 1787. But women didn't receive the right to vote in America until 1920. It took 133 years. Blacks were enslaved and counted as three-fifths of a person by our Constitution until our Civil War, and they didn't receive full voting rights until the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 180 years after the signing of our Constitution. Even today, the United States of America is still a work in progress. We are the oldest democracy in the world. There is no such thing as an instant democracy. We, of all democracies, should understand that. We also could learn some lessons from our role in nation building in the world. We spent 8 years in Germany and Japan. We are still in Bosnia and Kosovo. According to this book, ``America's Role in Nation Building: From Germany to Iraq,'' a RAND study by Ambassador James Dobbins and others, ``There is no quick route to nation building. Five years seems to be the minimum required to enforce an enduring transition to democracy.'' This is a book about nation building in Germany to Afghanistan with lessons for Iraq. We have plenty of experience in nation building since World War II, and the lessons from those experiences are documented in this book and many other places: Any time we decide to engage in nation building, it is going to take more troops, more time, more money, and certainly more sacrifice than we at first thought when we invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean we should reconsider our presence in Iraq. We are there. We need to finish what we started. We need to get the job done. It does suggest that in the future we should think carefully about the number of troops, the amount of time, the amount of money, and the amount of sacrifice it takes when we engage in nation building. I believe the Bush administration as well as the Congress has some responsibilities going forward. First, as far as the administration goes, I would like to see the administration be more specific about its success strategy in Iraq. I mentioned last week in the Senate the Washington Post op-ed by two former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. They argue, eloquently and in detail, that we should not set, as some of my colleagues have suggested, a specific timetable for pulling out our troops. We do not need an exit strategy. But they went further than the administration has gone so far in outlining the framework for a success strategy. These are the kinds of questions they ask in their framework. Are we waging ``one war'' in which political and military efforts are mutually reinforcing? Are the institutions we are helping to build sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and major communications routes as opposed to 100 percent in every town and 100 percent security on every communication route? Do we have a policy for eliminating sanctuaries in neighboring territories, such as Syria and Iran? Are we designing a policy that could produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for control of the state and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining public support of the United States? Are we gaining international understanding? They went on to conclude: An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce positive answers to these questions. That is the administration's responsibility at this stage. We have a new Secretary. We have a new election. We are being asked to appropriate 80 billion new dollars. I would like to hear a more specific success strategy. We have our own responsibilities in the Congress. Our responsibility, now that we have authorized this war--we authorized it with 77 votes in this Chamber. Now that we have authorized this war, we have the responsibility to have the stomach to see it through to the end and not begin talking about premature exit strategies before we finish what we started. The focus should not be on what day in July or August we will get out. Instead, we should be asking, for example, what are we willing to do to help provide the security needed so that elections in October and December are successful? Yesterday's election was the first election. It was the first strong signal from the Iraqis that by a vote of 7 or 8 million to 5,000 or 10,000, they prefer democracy to terrorism. It did something that we could not do ourselves in 22 months: It isolated the terrorists in public opinion. There will be another election in October. There will be another election in December. And we should be talking about what we can do to help those elections be successful. Let's send another message isolating terrorists--not the United States, but the Iraqis. We will give them that opportunity two more times. What can we do to train Iraqis to take over their own defense and to establish a constitutional government? What can we do to encourage Iraqi neighbors to allow a success strategy to continue? Those are the questions we should be asking, and the answers to those questions will produce a success strategy. At some point, one thing we can do to isolate terrorists in the Middle East is to leave Iraq. Then Iraqis are defending Iraq. All of us want that as soon as possible. Iraqis want that as soon as possible. But to abandon Iraq before we have implemented a success strategy is abandoning a country we have led to risk its lives in order to vote, and abandoning the brave Americans and those from other countries who have fought, bled, and died to give Iraqis their freedom and to give them an opportunity to govern themselves. In 1994, I met a man named Larry Joyce in Chicago. He worked for the American Heart Association. Larry Joyce had been in Vietnam. He was about my age. He sought me out because he wanted anyone who might be in public life to learn the lessons he and his family had learned in Somalia. Larry Joyce's son, Casey Joyce, had been killed in Somalia. The lesson Larry Joyce wanted me to know and wanted every Member of this Senate to know and every policymaker to know was this: Before we engage in a military mission, we should do three things: One, we should have a specific mission; two, we should have more than sufficient force to complete the job; and he said, three, most importantly, we should have the stomach to see the mission through all the way to the end. His greatest complaint about the American Government in Somalia was not the mission, not the force, but that we did not have the stomach to see all the way through to the end the mission in which his son was killed. Larry Joyce himself has now died, but I remember that conversation. I think of his son. When I think about this war and committing American men and women to Iraq or any other place in the world, I think about seeing that mission all the way through to the end. That is why I react badly to the talk of my colleagues who suggest an exit strategy based on some artificial date. Leaving Iraq prematurely would undermine every objective we have in the war on terror and in the Middle East. I am disappointed to hear talk of an exit approach. I would like to hear more in this Chamber and more from the administration and more in this country about a success strategy in Iraq. Yesterday's election was a thrilling event. For the first time in 22 months it answered Secretary Rumsfeld's question of October 2003, How do we isolate the terrorists? If we do not do it, the Iraqi people do it, 7 or 8 million of them, versus 5,000 to 10,000 terrorists. They isolated the terrorists. We should not be talking about leaving Iraq before we are finished. We should be talking today about those October elections, about those December elections, and what we can do in our country and in Iraq to help the Iraqis have the opportunity to build a constitutional government and to be in a position in October and December to once again send a message to the world that they prefer democracy to terrorism and that they, the Iraqis, are isolating the terrorists by a vote of millions of Iraqis to a few thousand terrorists. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.