Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I commend the Senator from Louisiana. She has worked hard for 6 years on legislation like this. I am proud to join her on the 40th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to continue its bipartisan support. If I may ask through the Chair a question to the Senator from Louisiana. She mentions that for 50 years we have had a tradition in this country of a State royalty. In other words, if you drill for oil in Wyoming, for example, there is a royalty paid to the State of Wyoming, which is 50 cents out of every dollar of revenues. I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana knows what amount of money that royalty produced for the State of Wyoming this year?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. The Senator and I understand that those concerned about the appropriations process in the Senate have to deal with this issue. Today, under our budget rules, if we were to create a conservation royalty for offshore oil drilling and made it identical to what we have been doing for 50 years with onshore oil drilling, that would require us to treat it in a different way today than they did 50 years ago when they started it. We know that. But what we are trying to suggest is there is no real difference between creating a royalty on oil drillings or gas drillings onshore and oil or gas drillings offshore. In fact, there is a better argument for creating a conservation royalty than for creating just any old royalty for the State of Wyoming or the State of New Mexico or Arizona or Montana. The logic is this. I am one who votes for more drilling for oil and gas because I don't like us relying so much on the Middle East for it, so I vote for that. But I don't know why we cannot agree that, if we have an environmental burden on the one hand, we cannot create an environmental benefit on the other hand. This is a subject the Senator from Louisiana and I hope to talk over with our Members and say yes, this is an issue. We understand that. But for 50 years we have been taking 50 cents out of every dollar that comes from drilling on Federal lands onshore--90 cents in Alaska--and leaving it in the State where the drilling is done. What we are suggesting is we take about 25 cents of every dollar from offshore drilling and create a conservation royalty for the State to fund these programs the Senator talked about. We think that makes good sense, and that it is in the 40-year bipartisan tradition of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am convinced there is a bipartisan conservation majority in the United States of America, and that on this legislation there will eventually be a bipartisan conservation majority in support of the Americans Outdoors Act. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to co-sponsor, the Higher Education Access, Affordability and Opportunity Act being introduced to day by Senator Enzi. This legislation is an issue of great concern to Senators and our constituents: job loss. There is really nothing new about job loss in America. Our strength as an economy is not measured by how many jobs we lose; it is measured by how many good new jobs we create to replace those jobs and how well we train those people to fill those jobs. We don't want to lose any jobs. We want to recognize the pain that goes with moving from one job to another. But, the best thing we can do about job loss is to create an environment in which good new jobs can grow and to offer the training resources necessary to hold those jobs. Senator Enzi believes, as do I, that a comprehensive approach to creating jobs and training workers is necessary to adapt to the changing demands of the modern economy. The Higher Education Act was enacted to give more students a change to attend college. It was not intended to be a job training bill, nor should it become one. There is, however, a need to create a stronger partnership between institutions of higher education and the 21st century workforce. The goal of access to higher education and the goal of training a highly skilled workforce are not mutually exclusive. Community colleges are our secret weapons in workforce development. This bill used our secret weapon to create a competitive grant program to help community colleges develop academic programs focusing on areas of high-growth employment. Among other things, it provides additional subsidized loans for high-growth job sector training programs such as technology and health care. In higher education we focus really on two principles: The first is autonomy and the second is choice. We allow generous amounts of government money to follow students to the schools of their choice. These principles provide students with flexibility to choose among fast moving institutions, and facilitate contracts with businesses. These competitive grants and additional subsidized loans will give local governments both the resources necessary and autonomy to work with their local community colleges to develop programs that will train workers for the jobs that are available within their communities. I will continue to work with Senator Enzi on these important legislative initiatives and make them a part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to co-sponsor, the Higher Education Access, Affordability and Opportunity Act being introduced to day by Senator Enzi. This legislation is an issue of great concern to Senators and our constituents: job loss. There is really nothing new about job loss in America. Our strength as an economy is not measured by how many jobs we lose; it is measured by how many good new jobs we create to replace those jobs and how well we train those people to fill those jobs. We don't want to lose any jobs. We want to recognize the pain that goes with moving from one job to another. But, the best thing we can do about job loss is to create an environment in which good new jobs can grow and to offer the training resources necessary to hold those jobs. Senator Enzi believes, as do I, that a comprehensive approach to creating jobs and training workers is necessary to adapt to the changing demands of the modern economy. The Higher Education Act was enacted to give more students a change to attend college. It was not intended to be a job training bill, nor should it become one. There is, however, a need to create a stronger partnership between institutions of higher education and the 21st century workforce. The goal of access to higher education and the goal of training a highly skilled workforce are not mutually exclusive. Community colleges are our secret weapons in workforce development. This bill used our secret weapon to create a competitive grant program to help community colleges develop academic programs focusing on areas of high-growth employment. Among other things, it provides additional subsidized loans for high-growth job sector training programs such as technology and health care. In higher education we focus really on two principles: The first is autonomy and the second is choice. We allow generous amounts of government money to follow students to the schools of their choice. These principles provide students with flexibility to choose among fast moving institutions, and facilitate contracts with businesses. These competitive grants and additional subsidized loans will give local governments both the resources necessary and autonomy to work with their local community colleges to develop programs that will train workers for the jobs that are available within their communities. I will continue to work with Senator Enzi on these important legislative initiatives and make them a part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the chairman for the time and the leadership. I simply wish to join our leaders today in remembrance of the tragic events of September 11. As I remember those events, I remember more how clearly our country pulled together in response. September 11 is one of our worst days but it brought out the best in us. It unified us as a country and showed our charitable instincts and reminded us of what we stood for and stand for. It showed that we had the resolve to fight against terrorism. We put partisanship aside in our Government offices. We began to proudly say to the rest of the world, we know what it means to be an American. The best way we can remember September 11 is to remember why this is an exceptional country. We are the only country in the world that has taken people from so many different backgrounds, which is a great achievement by itself, but an even greater achievement is that we have turned all of that variety and diversity into unity. That unity depends upon a few principles in which we believe: liberty, equal opportunity, individualism. President Bush has eloquently spoken of the American character since September 11. But we in the Senate have a role to play, too. That is why, with the support of many other Senators on both sides of the aisle, I have been working hard to harness that spirit to help us remember for generations to come what it means to be an American. That means teaching it to our children and to those who become new citizens of our country. One of the great tragedies of education in this country today is that high school seniors perform worse in American history than in any other subject for which they are nationally tested. That is not right. The assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and I proposed legislation last year which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote to create summer academies for outstanding students and teachers in U.S. history. The House still needs to act on this bill. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I have introduced legislation that would allow our Nation's report card to test eighth graders and high school seniors on U.S. history, on a pilot State-by- State basis. This will help us know where it is being taught well and where it is not so improvements can be made. Shining the spotlight on these results also encourages school districts to work harder to teach American history and civics as well. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and I have introduced legislation to preserve the oath of allegiance in its present form, so that oath--to which all new citizens swear on naturalization--is given the same respect as we give to the Pledge of Allegiance, to the national anthem, and to the American flag. While that legislation is pending in committee, with the support of the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, the Senate unanimously passed yesterday an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to prevent the oath from being changed during the next fiscal year while the Senate works its will on the legislation proposed by the Senator from New York and me. I am also working on a second amendment to that legislation to establish a new foundation that will work with the Office of Citizenship to promote the teaching of English, history, and civics to the soon-to-be new citizens of our country and to other new citizens. We are a nation of immigrants. We are proud of that. We should do our best to help those who are new to our country become thriving members of our society so they can learn our history, learn about citizenship, speak our common language. That will help them on the path to the American dream. The Senate has been hard at work over the last 2 years to help enshrine the values and history that bind us together as Americans. Nothing could be more important as we remember September 11, as we mourn those we lost, but take pride in what was found, our national unity. The best way to remember September 11 is to remember what it means to be an American. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the purpose of my remarks today is to suggest a way to come to a solution in the debate we have been having as to what extent Congress should interfere with State and local regulations and taxation of high-speed Internet access. In April, after a good many months of discussion, the Senate came to a good temporary compromise on the issue. Our legislation, the Senate legislation, allows States already collecting taxes on Internet access to continue to do so for 2 or 4 years, depending on the type of access tax. It makes clear that State and local governments can continue to collect taxes on telephone services, including telephone calls made over the Internet. Our work here in the Senate modified legislation that came over from the House of Representatives that would have permanently taken away from State and local governments authority to include high-speed Internet access in its taxation plans and would put at risk literally billions of dollars in revenues that States and cities and towns now depend on to pay for police, for schools, for parks, and for other essential local services. Both sides in this debate have legitimate points to make. We see here a conflict of the principles of federalism in free markets, and I believe it is a debate about whether there is any justification for giving additional government subsidies to the high-speed Internet access industry, which, so far as I can tell, must already be the most heavily subsidized new technology in our country today. For now, I would respectfully suggest the logical course would be for the House of Representatives to adopt the Senate modification. This would provide temporary certainty in this policy area. But it is an unsatisfactory long-term solution. For the long term, here is my suggestion. I propose that representatives of States, of cities, of counties, and of the telecommunications industry meet together between now and the opening of the 109th Congress in January and develop a framework to assist Congress with how to approach this highly technical but very important set of issues. In developing this framework, I suggest the parties ought to abide by the following principles. No. 1, separate the issues of taxation and regulation. This fall, in some preliminary work on legislation proposed by Senator Sununu from New Hampshire, the Senate Commerce Committee did just that. They produced a bill regarding the regulation of Internet telephony, but also preserving the right of State and local governments to make their own decisions about how to tax the industry. Put in its simplest terms, I agree that it makes sense to have a different, simpler kind of regulation of this new technology which we call broadband. But I want to achieve this in a way that does no harm to State and local government revenue bases. Second, when making decisions about regulation, the principle to honor should be simplicity, so that the new technology can continue to flourish. Voice over the Internet technology is not the same as plain old telephone service. Our regulatory structures need to recognize that. Finally, when these representatives of industry and State local governments get together, as I hope they will, in determining tax policy, the principles to consider should be simplicity, certainty, and doing no harm to State and local governments. There are more than 11,000 State and local tax jurisdictions in the United States of America. Obviously, it would be burdensome for a small Internet telephone company who offers services in most or all of these districts to file that many or even more returns. On the other hand, there is no justification whatever that I can see for depriving a State or local government of 5 or 10 percent of its existing revenues simply to exempt an already heavily subsidized industry from paying its fair share of taxes. The idea of inviting those who will be most affected by our decisions about taxation and regulation to suggest a policy to us is not a new idea. For example, in February of this year, something called the Voice on the Net Coalition announced that a number of VOIP providers would work together to establish voluntary agreements on how to integrate E 9-1-1, access to the disabled, and Government wiretapping, into this next generation of telephone technology. They might well also consider universal service in this discussion-- how we would continue to provide telephone service to people in rural areas with this new kind of technology. In another example of groups working outside the Congress to make it easier for us here, for the last several years something called the Streamline Sales and Use Tax Project has been going on. States have been building the technical and legal foundations for a system in which online sellers or merchants would be required to collect taxes on sales over the Internet and forward the money to the State where the buyer lives. This will make it much easier for Congress to then enact legislation authorizing such collections. So in the same way I believe industry representatives working with State and local representatives could quickly suggest a framework that would make our work here in Congress simpler and speedier. If this does not happen, I believe we are in for a long debate with a likelihood of a poor result or even no result. This would serve no one's purpose. The telecommunication companies and high-speed Internet access industry would benefit from certainty and simplicity. Governors, legislators, and mayors at the same time need to know where revenues are coming from. They want certainty, too. There are other, bigger fish to fry in the telecommunications area. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs a fresh look in some fundamental ways. When Congress enacted it, maybe no one in the Senate or the House knew very much about high-speed Internet access. State and local governments would like to move ahead with their streamline tax project. Neither is likely to happen until the Internet access tax issue is resolved. Let me say a final word about the technology we are discussing, high- speed Internet access or, as we sometimes call it, broadband. Last year, during our debate, there were dire predictions that if States were allowed to continue to tax this access, it would become a terrible burden for the industry and restrict its growth and put the United States in some kind of technological backwater. Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost every day in my mailbox comes a new offer from someone to sell me high-speed Internet access. From my phone company, from my long distance company, from my satellite TV company-- even electric companies are selling high speed-Internet access. Next thing you know I expect the milkman to show up offering to provide me with high-speed Internet access. And the prices, as usually happens with a new technology and competition, are going down. Most of the offers I receive in my mailbox are in the range of $20 a month, and in many states and communities-- Texas is an example--these costs to the consumers are further reduced by government subsidy. Here are some of the facts. Market data from the research firm Nielsen/NetRatings shows in July of 2003 38 percent of home-based Internet users had a broadband connection. One year later, in July 2004, that number had jumped to 51 percent. The same report shows that the number of broadband connections altogether in July 2004 rose 47 percent from a year ago. Meanwhile, investment in broadband over powerlines, as I mentioned earlier, is gaining steam. According to the Chartwell research firm, the percentage of utility companies planning or considering broadband deployment rose from 6 percent in 2000 to 20 percent in 2003. This means if you have an electric line coming into your house, you have access to high-speed Internet access. Internet telephones, called VOIP, are experiencing the same kind of rapid growth. According to the telecommunications industry, by the end of this year, in only 4 months, there will be 6 million VOIP access lines. They expect that figure to rise to more than 19 million by 2007. Cablevision Systems began offering VOIP service in November of 2003 and in 2 months had 29,000 customers and was signing up new customers at the rate of 2,500 a week. The VOIP explosion has hit traditional telephone service providers. In August, the Washington Post reported both MCI and AT&T traditional long-distance services are suffering, in part from the increase in telephone calls made over the Internet with VOIP service. As a result, even these companies have moved into the VOIP market. AT&T has introduced its CallVantage VOIP service and now has it available in 39 states as well as the District of Columbia. Sprint has teamed with Time Warner Cable to begin offering VOIP services to 11 million customers and is forging new relationships with other cable providers to expand its services availability. Finally, one of the pioneers of the VOIP industry, Vonage, announced in August that investors had sunk another $105 million in venture capital into the company, the largest venture capital deal to date this year. So the bottom line is this: Broadband, or high-speed Internet access, continues to be adopted at a tremendously rapid rate. It is being adopted at a faster rate than CD players, than cell phones, than color TVs and VCRs were being adopted during the same periods in their development. As the Congressional Budget Office has specifically told Congress, there is absolutely no justification whatever for additional Government subsidy for this industry. High-speed Internet access is a fine, remarkable, admirable, new technology. But so was television, so was radio, so was electricity, so was the internal combustion engine. It is not the American way to subsidize such new inventions. It is the American way to let these inventions earn their way forward in the marketplace. Americans never got a tax break to buy a television set and TV manufacturers never got a subsidy, so far as I know, to build them. Yet 30 years after they were introduced to the market, almost 90 percent of Americans owned a television set. That is the American way. Telephone companies, in the same way, introduced cell phones without any prompting from the U.S. Government. In less than 15 years, more than 40 percent of all households now own cell phones. Of course, what is especially galling to me is that Congress would even consider creating this big tax break or tax subsidy for Internet access companies and then send the bill for that tax break to State and local governments who are already struggling with additional costs because of our failure to create a rational health care policy and our failure to create a national immigration policy and our bad habit of enacting expensive ideas in Washington, DC, taking credit for them in press conferences, and then sending the bill for the ideas to mayors and Governors and legislators and city council men and women. It is my hope that the telecommunications industry representatives, Governors, and mayors will spend some time with one another during the next 3 or 4 months and figure out a framework for resolving how Congress should approach these issues in the most sensible way. I would be glad to be a part of such discussions if I could be helpful. I am sure other Members of Congress would as well. The Federal Communications Commission could provide technical advice. May I say one word to Governors and mayors. And perhaps I can do this more appropriately because I once was a Governor. I know Governors are busy, and they have staffs to help them do their work. But this matter will not be resolved by a few phone calls from Governors or by staff members to staff members on Capitol Hill. If Governors and mayors want the Internet tax issues resolved in a way that does no harm to State and local governments, in a way that does not threaten 5 to 10 percent of their base, in a way that does not cost them billions of dollars, then Governors and mayors are going to need to become personally involved in helping to resolve this issue, meeting with the telecommunications industry representatives, and coming up with a rational way to provide certainty and simplicity for this new technology and, at the same time, do no harm to State and local governments. Mr. President, I believe this will be the speediest, most sensible way to resolve the conflict we have between principles of federalism and free markets and to clear the way for Congress to move beyond the issues of taxing and regulating high-speed Internet access to other larger, more important telecommunications policy issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Grant of my staff be allowed to be on the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the manager and the assistant Democratic leader for this opportunity, which will take only a moment. This amendment is very simple and straightforward. The idea behind this amendment has the support of 34 Members of this body, with the principal Democratic sponsor being Senator Schumer in the authorization process. In this appropriation process, the amendment simply says: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to amend the oath of allegiance required by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Said more simply, it assures the oath of allegiance will not be changed at any time during the next fiscal year without congressional action. The language in this amendment is already in the House version of the bill. The oath of allegiance is a fundamental statement of what it means to be an American. Much of the language in the oath dates back to the 1790s when Congress first required new American citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States. Today all new U.S. citizens--and many years there are nearly a million such new citizens--take this oath when they are naturalized. One of the most inspiring events of my life has been to attend those citizenship days in Federal courthouses that take place all over America, usually once a month. Typically, in the Nashville courthouse or in some other courthouse, one might see 75 or 100 men and women and their families who come from all over the world. They spent 5 years waiting, learned the English language, and learned about U.S. history. They have conducted themselves well and they have decided to become citizens of the United States. There has been a lot of discussion in this body about the importance, especially in these times, of encouraging more focus on citizenship and what it means to be an American. The assistant Democratic leader and I proposed legislation last year, which passed the Senate unanimously, to create summer academies for outstanding students and teachers in U.S. history. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and I have introduced legislation that would allow our Nation's report card to test eighth graders and high school seniors on U.S. history on a State-by-State basis because at this time in our history, unfortunately, the lowest scores in any subject among seniors in high school in the United States is in U.S. history. So taking the oath of allegiance and treating it with respect, not changing it except by act of the Congress, is an important part of a series of steps that we need to take to underscore the importance of helping all citizens, and especially new citizens, understand our common culture and what it means to be an American. If my colleagues will indulge me, I would like to read the oath: I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. That is an oath with strength and decorum. It sounds like something that might have been written by a group of rowdy patriots in Williamsburg a long time ago. Since the late 1990s, under the Clinton administration and it continues today, there has been some movement to amend the oath. Under current law, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, now housed in the Department of Homeland Security, has the authority to unilaterally change the oath. That is not right. Congress, this Congress, not a Federal agency, has designated the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, of the National Anthem, of the national motto, and the content of our national flag. The oath, some of which predates all of those other national symbols, ought to be treated with the same respect. I have a bill pending in the Judiciary Committee, and I am joined in that bill by Senator Schumer and many others, including the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who is the manager of this bill, which will do just that. While the Senate works its will on that bill, this amendment will ensure the oath is not changed unilaterally by an agency in the meantime. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 2721 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') 9/11 Commission Report

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on the subject of Saturn.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight on the implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, Public Law 106-181.

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 July 22, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Buyer Beware: The Danger of Purchasing Pharmaceuticals Over the Internet.''

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Thursday, July 22, 2004, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 2 p.m. on ``Protecting Innovation and Art while Preventing Piracy'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, United States Copyright Office. Panel II: Mr. Gary Shapiro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Consumer Electronics Association; Mr. Robert Holleyman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Business Software Alliance; Mr. Andrew Greenberg, Vice-Chairman, Intellectual Property Committee, IEEE-USA; Mr. Kevin McGuiness, Executive Director and General Counsel, NetCoalition; and Mr. Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of America.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to continue its markup on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Agenda I. Nominations: Claude A. Allen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; David E. Nahmias, of Georgia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia; Ricardo H. Hinojosa, to be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Michael O'Neill, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; Ruben Castillo, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission; and William Sanchez, to be Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practice. II. Legislation: S. 1635, L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003, Chambliss; S. 1700, Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, Hatch, Biden, Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Kohl, Edwards; S. 2396, Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004, Hatch, Leahy, Chambliss, Durbin, Schumer; and H.R. 1417, to amend title 17, United States Code, to replace copyright arbitration royalty panels with Copyright Royalty Judges Act of 2003, Smith-TX, Berman-CA, Conyers-MI.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing entitled ``Terror Attacks: Are We Prepared?'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10 a.m. in SD- 430.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 3:30 p.m., to consider the nomination of Allen Weinstein to be Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

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, July 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq Post-Transition.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on The Role of Higher Education Financing in Strengthening U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy.