Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 22, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Regulation N.M.S. and Developments in Market Structure.''

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 July 22, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Department of the Army Inspector General Report on Detention Operation Doctrine and Training.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would like to salute the Senator from Oregon. I am glad I was here to hear his discussion, especially about mountain bikers' great conservation majority in this country. We ought to do a better job of creating a bigger conservation majority in the Senate. We sometimes split up on the issues, it would appear. But I don't think that is necessary. For example, I was in Idaho a couple of weeks ago and took a mountain bike ride on the Hiawatha Trail which is between Idaho and Montana where the Milwaukee Railroad used to run from Chicago to Takoma. At one point, they were going to dig up the tracks. But this is a place where they have long tunnels and the speculator high trestles where people used to go in the 1950s and 1960s. But now, because of the work by Members of this body, some on this side of the aisle, some on that side, that is a rails-to-trails project. On that Sunday morning, there were maybe 500 or 600 mountain bikers who had that experience. It made me think of something I failed to do when I was Governor of our home State. I still deeply regret it. I thought toward the end of my term about but couldn't quite get done the notion of whenever we build a new highway we should provide for a pedestrian or bike trail along the side of it--it is too expensive to do a lot of times on existing roads--that every time you build a new road or widen a road, acquire a little bit more right of way. If we had done that 20 years ago in Tennessee, we would all be grateful for that today. Senator Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, and I are working on legislation called the American Outdoors legislation, to try to assure a steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for urban parks, for the Game and Fish Commission, and other conservation purposes. Senator Wyden, Senator Landrieu, and I are all in the same committee. I look forward to working with them on this legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American History Achievement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This is part of my effort to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our school curriculum so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. This is especially appropriate on a day when the September 11 report is being released. We tend to think of ourselves as Americans and wonder who we are and what we value and what we have to defend at times when we are threatened or even frightened. This should be a day when we should feel threatened. We are reminded of the challenges we face. I am especially glad that Senator Kennedy has joined me in this. Senator Kennedy is especially appropriate to be a leading sponsor of this legislation. He and his family are, in fact, part of American history in a unique way. He, as well as Senator Reid, Senator Byrd, and a number of Senators on this side of the aisle have been working hard in a variety of ways to support efforts that are appropriate in the Federal Government to celebrate our own history. This modest bill provides for improved testing of American history so we can determine where history is being taught well and where it is being taught poorly so that improvements can be made. We also know when testing is focused on a specific subject, States and school districts are more likely to step up to the challenge and improve performance. For example, a number of professors and teachers of history have worried that because of the emphasis in No Child Left Behind on reading and mathematics, that history would be left behind. There are two answers to that. One is, if our citizens cannot read, they are not going to know much history, except from watching the History Channel, which is a pretty good way, and another answer is there is a specific provision in the No Child Left Behind Act, which we call the Byrd grants, after Senator Byrd, providing $100 million a year to school districts across the country for the teaching of traditional American history. Those programs are in full flourish in Tennessee, North Carolina, and many parts of this country. They are excellent programs. When you combine those with the We the People Project of the National Endowment of the Humanities--I attended one of their workshops in Nashville on Friday. Forty teachers across the country met at Andrew Jackson's home, the Hermitage. We are doing more to put this in the rightful place. The bill Senator Kennedy and I offer today is one more effort of putting the teaching of American history and civics back where it belongs. We could certainly use improvement in the teaching of American history. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, commonly referred to as the Nation's report card, fewer students have a basic understanding of American history than have a basic understanding of any other subject which we test, including math, science, and reading. When we look at our national report card, American history is our children's worst subject. Yet, according to recent poll results, the exact opposite outcome is desired by the American people. Hart-Teeter recently polled 1,300 adults for the educational testing service and asked what the principal goal of education should be. The top response: Producing literate, educated students who can participate in our democracy. Twenty-six percent of respondents believed that should be our principal goal. ``Teach basics: math, reading'' was selected by only 15 percent as the principal goal of education. The late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers used to say our common schools were created for the purpose of teaching immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic, the three R's, and what it means to be an American, so they could go home and teach their parents. They have forgotten that latter role, more and more. Our children don't know American history because they are not being taught. For example, the State of Florida just passed a bill permitting high school students to graduate without taking a course in U.S. history. When our children are not being taught our history, they are not learning what is most important. According to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, a 1987 study of high school students found more who knew who Harriet Tubman was than knew Washington commanded the American Army in the Revolution, or that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I am all for teaching about Harriet Tubman and teaching about the history of the Underground Railroad. My ancestor, the Rev. John Rankin, like Harriet Tubman, was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I would like for more children to know about them both. But surely children ought to learn first about the most critical leaders and events in the Revolution and in the Civil War. Let me give a couple of examples of how bad things have gotten. The fourth grade NAEP test asked students to identify the following passage: We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . Students were given four choices for the source of that passage: the Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation. Only 46 percent of students answered correctly, that it came from the Declaration of Independence. The eighth grade test asked, Imagine you could use a time machine to visit the past. You have landed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. Describe an important event that is happening. Nearly half the students, 46 percent, were not able to answer the question correctly, that the Declaration of Independence was being signed. This legislation aims to help in the effort to do something about that. The American History Achievement Act gives the national assessment governing board the authority to administer a 10-State pilot study for the NAEP test in U.S. history in 2006. The board already has the authority for reading, math, science, and writing. The pilot program should collect enough data to attain a State-by-State comparison of 8th and 12th grade student knowledge and understanding of history. That will allow us to know which States are doing a better job of teaching American history and allow other States to model their programs on those that are working well. This legislation is part of a broader effort in the Senate. Earlier this year, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Kennedy, and I and others joined with Senators to pass the American History and Civics Education Act, by unanimous vote, to create summer academies for teachers and students of American history. Senator Schumer and I have introduced a bill to codify the oath of allegiance which immigrants take when sworn in as new citizens of the United States. The oath should be protected in law just as the national anthem and Pledge of Allegiance are. Today we are putting a new focus on the teaching of American history. Our children are growing up ignorant of our Nation's history. Yet a recent poll tells us that Americans believe the principal goal of education is ``producing literate, educated citizens who can participate in our democracy.'' It is time to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. Our diversity is a prized value in the United States. But more prized is that we have been able to turn all that diversity into one nation. Our motto is: ``e pluribus unum,'' not the other way around. It is: ``one from many.'' One thing we have in common is our history, and we should teach it. This bill takes us one step closer to achieving that noble goal. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would like to salute the Senator from Oregon. I am glad I was here to hear his discussion, especially about mountain bikers' great conservation majority in this country. We ought to do a better job of creating a bigger conservation majority in the Senate. We sometimes split up on the issues, it would appear. But I don't think that is necessary. For example, I was in Idaho a couple of weeks ago and took a mountain bike ride on the Hiawatha Trail which is between Idaho and Montana where the Milwaukee Railroad used to run from Chicago to Takoma. At one point, they were going to dig up the tracks. But this is a place where they have long tunnels and the speculator high trestles where people used to go in the 1950s and 1960s. But now, because of the work by Members of this body, some on this side of the aisle, some on that side, that is a rails-to-trails project. On that Sunday morning, there were maybe 500 or 600 mountain bikers who had that experience. It made me think of something I failed to do when I was Governor of our home State. I still deeply regret it. I thought toward the end of my term about but couldn't quite get done the notion of whenever we build a new highway we should provide for a pedestrian or bike trail along the side of it--it is too expensive to do a lot of times on existing roads--that every time you build a new road or widen a road, acquire a little bit more right of way. If we had done that 20 years ago in Tennessee, we would all be grateful for that today. Senator Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, and I are working on legislation called the American Outdoors legislation, to try to assure a steady stream of revenue for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for urban parks, for the Game and Fish Commission, and other conservation purposes. Senator Wyden, Senator Landrieu, and I are all in the same committee. I look forward to working with them on this legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American History Achievement Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This is part of my effort to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our school curriculum so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. This is especially appropriate on a day when the September 11 report is being released. We tend to think of ourselves as Americans and wonder who we are and what we value and what we have to defend at times when we are threatened or even frightened. This should be a day when we should feel threatened. We are reminded of the challenges we face. I am especially glad that Senator Kennedy has joined me in this. Senator Kennedy is especially appropriate to be a leading sponsor of this legislation. He and his family are, in fact, part of American history in a unique way. He, as well as Senator Reid, Senator Byrd, and a number of Senators on this side of the aisle have been working hard in a variety of ways to support efforts that are appropriate in the Federal Government to celebrate our own history. This modest bill provides for improved testing of American history so we can determine where history is being taught well and where it is being taught poorly so that improvements can be made. We also know when testing is focused on a specific subject, States and school districts are more likely to step up to the challenge and improve performance. For example, a number of professors and teachers of history have worried that because of the emphasis in No Child Left Behind on reading and mathematics, that history would be left behind. There are two answers to that. One is, if our citizens cannot read, they are not going to know much history, except from watching the History Channel, which is a pretty good way, and another answer is there is a specific provision in the No Child Left Behind Act, which we call the Byrd grants, after Senator Byrd, providing $100 million a year to school districts across the country for the teaching of traditional American history. Those programs are in full flourish in Tennessee, North Carolina, and many parts of this country. They are excellent programs. When you combine those with the We the People Project of the National Endowment of the Humanities--I attended one of their workshops in Nashville on Friday. Forty teachers across the country met at Andrew Jackson's home, the Hermitage. We are doing more to put this in the rightful place. The bill Senator Kennedy and I offer today is one more effort of putting the teaching of American history and civics back where it belongs. We could certainly use improvement in the teaching of American history. According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, commonly referred to as the Nation's report card, fewer students have a basic understanding of American history than have a basic understanding of any other subject which we test, including math, science, and reading. When we look at our national report card, American history is our children's worst subject. Yet, according to recent poll results, the exact opposite outcome is desired by the American people. Hart-Teeter recently polled 1,300 adults for the educational testing service and asked what the principal goal of education should be. The top response: Producing literate, educated students who can participate in our democracy. Twenty-six percent of respondents believed that should be our principal goal. ``Teach basics: math, reading'' was selected by only 15 percent as the principal goal of education. The late Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers used to say our common schools were created for the purpose of teaching immigrant children reading, writing, and arithmetic, the three R's, and what it means to be an American, so they could go home and teach their parents. They have forgotten that latter role, more and more. Our children don't know American history because they are not being taught. For example, the State of Florida just passed a bill permitting high school students to graduate without taking a course in U.S. history. When our children are not being taught our history, they are not learning what is most important. According to Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington, a 1987 study of high school students found more who knew who Harriet Tubman was than knew Washington commanded the American Army in the Revolution, or that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I am all for teaching about Harriet Tubman and teaching about the history of the Underground Railroad. My ancestor, the Rev. John Rankin, like Harriet Tubman, was a conductor on the Underground Railroad. I would like for more children to know about them both. But surely children ought to learn first about the most critical leaders and events in the Revolution and in the Civil War. Let me give a couple of examples of how bad things have gotten. The fourth grade NAEP test asked students to identify the following passage: We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . Students were given four choices for the source of that passage: the Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation. Only 46 percent of students answered correctly, that it came from the Declaration of Independence. The eighth grade test asked, Imagine you could use a time machine to visit the past. You have landed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. Describe an important event that is happening. Nearly half the students, 46 percent, were not able to answer the question correctly, that the Declaration of Independence was being signed. This legislation aims to help in the effort to do something about that. The American History Achievement Act gives the national assessment governing board the authority to administer a 10-State pilot study for the NAEP test in U.S. history in 2006. The board already has the authority for reading, math, science, and writing. The pilot program should collect enough data to attain a State-by-State comparison of 8th and 12th grade student knowledge and understanding of history. That will allow us to know which States are doing a better job of teaching American history and allow other States to model their programs on those that are working well. This legislation is part of a broader effort in the Senate. Earlier this year, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Kennedy, and I and others joined with Senators to pass the American History and Civics Education Act, by unanimous vote, to create summer academies for teachers and students of American history. Senator Schumer and I have introduced a bill to codify the oath of allegiance which immigrants take when sworn in as new citizens of the United States. The oath should be protected in law just as the national anthem and Pledge of Allegiance are. Today we are putting a new focus on the teaching of American history. Our children are growing up ignorant of our Nation's history. Yet a recent poll tells us that Americans believe the principal goal of education is ``producing literate, educated citizens who can participate in our democracy.'' It is time to put the teaching of American history and civics back in its rightful place in our schools so our children can grow up learning what it means to be an American. Our diversity is a prized value in the United States. But more prized is that we have been able to turn all that diversity into one nation. Our motto is: ``e pluribus unum,'' not the other way around. It is: ``one from many.'' One thing we have in common is our history, and we should teach it. This bill takes us one step closer to achieving that noble goal. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this morning at about 10 a.m. we were given an opportunity to meet with Governor Kean and Lee Hamilton, the cochair of the 9/11 Commission. That is the subject of the news today. I know both men well. I know Governor Kean better. We served as Governors at the same time. I have known a lot of Governors. He was Governor of New Jersey at the time he served. My judgment was he was the best Governor in the country. Those leadership characteristics certainly showed themselves with this report. Mr. Hamilton said he had been working actively with the directors of the CIA in every administration since Lyndon Johnson. In a few words, he gave us a very impressive presentation. I believe this is an impressive report. It is an impressive committee. It has had impressive leadership, and it certainly will command my attention as one Senator. I intend to read it all the way through, and I intend to take seriously the recommendations. I hope all Americans will take time to read it. Terrorism, as they remind us, whether or not we like it, is the greatest challenge today to our national security. It will be for our lifetimes and perhaps much longer than that. This is a hard matter for us to come to grips with in the United States of America, because it seems too remote from us. It seems as if it is on television. That is hard to say after 9/11 when 3,000 people were killed in an hour. But as Mr. Hamilton gave his report to us, he emphasized four areas of failure--not President Bush's failure, not President Clinton's failure, but our failure. In fact, he said both Presidents were active and busy and interested and working hard on the threat. But in these four areas, we as a country failed. First was the failure of imagination. We didn't imagine what could have happened that day. Second was a failure of policy. A third was a failure of capability. And fourth was a failure of management. It made me think, if I may give a personal reflection. I have thought about it many times because I have heard various people suggest, ``Why didn't President Bush think of this?'' or ``Why didn't President Clinton think of this?'' As the Chair knows, I was busy in the mid 1990s trying to occupy the same seat President Bush occupies today. I was a candidate for President of the United States in 1994, 1995, and 1996. I thought back many times. It never once occurred to me a group of people might fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon and try to fly them into the Capitol. It never occurred to me. And it also never occurred to me that if I should by some chance be successful in that race, that within a year and a half of taking office I would suddenly be interrupted in a meeting in Florida with some schoolchildren, and in a short period of time I would have to decide whether to shoot down a plane load of U.S. citizens on a commercial airline headed toward Washington, DC. It never occurred to me. I thought for a long time: Maybe that is just me. Maybe I am naive and have not had enough experience, but I have asked other public officials with a lot more experience. I did not ask the Presiding Officer, whose husband was a candidate for our country's highest office, if that occurred whether they might have to shoot down such an airplane. Maybe with her background in transportation, she would have thought of that, but I didn't. And I think most policymakers did not. Obviously, many people in intelligence didn't. What Mr. Hamilton was saying, and Governor Kean, is we are going to have to imagine all of the things that could be done, some of us at least, and think about them and take those things very seriously in the future. As fortunate as we are to live in this big country with remote, safe places, far away from a lot of the fighting we see on television, an unfortunate part of living in today's world is there are real threats and we are going to have to imagine those things that even candidates for the highest office in our land a few years ago would not have ever imagined. I salute the Commission for its work. I thank them for it. I like the fact that it is unanimous, without a single dissent, without a dissenting opinion. I thank them for their job. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, what is the pending matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see the Senator from South Carolina. I know he wants to speak so I will be succinct in my remarks. I have listened to the Senator from Ohio, whom I greatly respect. I believe there are good free-trade agreements and there are bad free- trade agreements. I believe the proposed United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a good free-trade agreement. I intend to vote for it. I believe it will strengthen our economy. I believe it will create more jobs in the United States and it will also strengthen the historic close ties between our two countries. I have a special fondness for Australia. In 1987, when I finished two terms in the Governor's Mansion, our family moved to Australia and we lived there for 6 months, my wife and I and three teenagers and a 7- year-old. I remember my 7-year-old son wanting to know if there would be McDonalds there. I remember fly fishing in Tasmania with my older son Drew, and thinking I was about as far from Nashville as I could get on Earth. I think maybe I was. We didn't know much about Australia when we went, but we learned about Australia there, and we found it a great place to learn more about our own country. In spite of the distance between our countries, our countries could not be closer. Australians and Americans are literally cousins, almost first cousins. We are both pioneers. We both started out as underprivileged people. In some cases, our ancestors started out as prisoners, stuck in a new place, far from home, trying to find a new life. They lived hard lives, those earlier ancestors, but each generation worked hard to make life better for the ones who came next. We successfully settled continents and, from a patchwork of natives and immigrants, created a unique identity, of which we are each proud. It is our similarities that have led us to the close relationship we enjoy today. Australia has been one of our staunchest allies in our toughest times. We stood together in World War II, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the first gulf war, and in Iraq today. Australia contributed more than 2,000 troops to the effort in Iraq and has been a strong supporter in the war on terror. Their F-18 fighter aircraft have joined ours in air strikes on enemy military targets. Few countries in this world have been stronger allies of ours than the Australians. Even before this agreement, Australia has been one of our major trading partners--$28 billion in two-way trade annually passes back and forth between the United States and Australia. In fact, the United States enjoys a rare trade surplus with Australia, $9 billion last year. This agreement means our relationship can only grow stronger. It is good for us. It is good for them. The U.S. Trade Representative estimates the agreement will generate at least $2 billion per year in dollars for both countries by the year 2010. More than 99 percent of United States exports of manufactured goods to Australia will become duty free immediately upon ratification of this agreement--the most significant, immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved in a United States free-trade agreement. Australia in turn will see the elimination of tariffs on more than 97 percent of its exports. U.S. investment in Australia will increase, and closer ties with the United States economy will generate investment in Australia from all over the world. I believe the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement is good for our economy and it is good for our alliance. It benefits the farmers and manufacturers and investors and citizens of Australia as well. It further opens the door to trade in Southeast Asia, one of the fastest growing regions in the world. I am pleased to add my voice in support of this momentous agreement and to celebrate the further strengthening of the tie between the United States and our first cousins in Australia. The Senate will be talking about the tobacco buyout later today. I will be voting for the proposed amendment when it comes up. Tobacco farmers in Tennessee have increasingly struggled to succeed under the antiquated federal supply and price controlled tobacco programs. I grew up in East Tennessee, and small family tobacco farms were a part of the lifestyle and economic vitality of that area where my family has lived for seven generations. Because of the Depression- era federal tobacco programs, the number of tobacco farmers in Tennessee has decreased from more than 35,000 farms in 1980 to roughly 20,000 today. Revenue has gone down by $25 million. We have 80,000 Tennesseans who depend on quota lease payments for some part of their income. This legislation, that I intend to vote for, will provide a short term bridge to tobacco growers and quota holders and the communities in which they live. Tennesseans who own quotas will receive a fair transition away from lease income they have received. Growers will receive transition payments as well. The buyout would last over ten years and mean roughly $1 billion to the family farmers, quota lease owners, and communities in Tennessee. I believe if we pass this legislation that it can be combined with what has passed the House of Representatives to be a program that is fair to the tobacco growers, good for the economy and doesn't cost the American taxpayer one red cent. It's hard to come up with a combination that good very often. I have not been a fan historically of FDA regulation of tobacco, a legal product, and while I am not 100 percent satisfied with the FDA proposal, I am willing to accept this compromise in order to move the tobacco buyout forward.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an educator who has not only been an exemplary teacher, administrator, and community servant, but also has the distinguished honor of being the longest serving educator in the region we call Middle Tennessee. Dr. J. Deotha Malone will retire from the Sumner County Board of Education today. She has been dedicated to educating the students in Middle Tennessee for more than 55 years. Dr. Malone's career in education has been filled with many achievements. She has taught students from pre-school through the college levels. This Tennessean began her teaching career at Union High School in Gallatin, TN, in 1949 where she taught English and civics and was the class sponsor. Dr. Malone did not limit her role as an educator to the classroom. She opened her home as well, holding remedial classes in reading and teaching beginners French, all free of charge. She held classes for young pregnant women in the basement of the local health department before they were enrolled in the homebound programs. She taught the fourth and sixth grades, directed the ESL programs for 12 years, was a Head Start teacher and later became the supervisor of that program. In 1969, Dr. Malone was appointed supervisor of elementary education for Sumner County and in the same year became supervisor of adult education. In 1981, she was appointed supervisor of secondary education and she continues in that capacity today. She also remains the coordinator of district policy for Titles VI and IX. Dr. Malone has dedicated her life to public service--and not only as an educator. In 1958, she became the first African-American female notary public in Sumner County. She was subsequently trained by H & R Block to prepare income taxes--a service she rendered free of charge to those not able to afford the fees. Dr. Malone was elected to the Gallatin City Council in 1969. Two years after her first election, she was elected as the vice mayor of Gallatin and has been serving the city in that capacity for the past 33 years. She is an active church member as a teacher of the Adult Ladies Sunday School Class, singer in the mass choir and president of the Willing Workers Club. Dr. Malone has touched and enriched so many lives that it is impossible to measure the debt of gratitude owed her. So I take this moment to honor her and thank her for all that she has done in her life's work.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I are introducing the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004, bipartisan legislation that will provide nearly $1.5 billion annually to help Americans in every State enjoy the great American outdoors. The Americans Outdoors Act would provide a reliable stream of funding by collecting a conservation royalty on revenues from drilling for oil and gas on offshore Federal land. It would use this conservation royalty to fully fund three existing Federal programs: the so-called State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $450 million annually; wildlife conservation, $350 million annually to fully fund that Federal program; and to fully fund urban parks initiatives, another $125 million. It would also provide an additional $500 million each year for coastal impact assistance, including wetlands protection. In addition, Senator Landrieu and I intend to offer an amendment to our legislation that would fully fund the $450 million per year Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but only after we have consulted further with our colleagues to develop a consensus. We offer this legislation because there is nothing more central to the American character than the great American outdoors. We offer it because we want to provide a conservation legacy for the next generation. We believe there is a huge conservation majority in America and in the Senate that will support this legislation. In 1985, when I was Governor of Tennessee, President Ronald Reagan asked me to chair the President's Commission on American Outdoors. Gilbert Grosvenor, president of the National Geographic Society, was vice-chairman. Patrick Noonan of the Conservation Fund and other distinguished Americans served on the commission. President Reagan himself was an outdoorsman. The President challenged his commission to look ahead for a generation and tell the country how we can have appropriate places to do what we want to do outdoors. In the report of our commission in 1987, we found many threats to the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors: exotic pollutants, loss of space through urban growth, and disappearance of wetlands. Changing lifestyles and new technology presented new challenges as well as opportunities. Differences in needs and Federal land ownership between the eastern and western States created challenging conflicts to resolve. In our report we emphasized that most outdoors recreation occurs close to home, near towns or cities where 80 percent of us live. We therefore recommended more land trusts, greenways, city parks and scenic byways. We suggested that most of this action be accomplished by a prairie fire of local concern rather than by action in Washington, DC, but we did recommend that Congress dedicate at least $1 billion a year from offshore oil and gas drilling revenues to provide a steady, reliable flow of funds to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Much of what we recommended has happened and is now law. But it is now time to build on the commission's work of 20 years ago and look ahead for another generation. By fully funding State wildlife grants, urban parks and the State programs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 will continue that legacy. It will enlarge on the legacy by providing new funds for coastal assistance, including wetlands protection. It will do so through a new steady stream of funding by creating what I think of as a ``conservation royalty.'' This new conservation royalty is not such a new idea at all. This conservation royalty is modeled after the existing State royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling that was created in the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920. That act gives 50 cents of every dollar from drilling--and in the case of Alaska, 90--as a royalty to the State in which the drilling occurs. In a similar way, The Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 would create a conservation royalty of about 25 percent for revenues of the funds collected from offshore drilling on Federal lands. Some of the royalty would go to the States where the drilling occurs. More would go to all states for parks, game and fish commissions and projects funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The idea is very simple: if drilling for oil and gas creates an environmental impact, it is wise to use some of the proceeds to create an environmental benefit. In 2001, the Federal Government received $7.5 billion in oil and gas revenues from federal offshore leases. This revenue comes from the Outer Continental Shelf, which supplies more oil to the United States than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Chairman Peter Domenici has scheduled a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 13. In the meantime Senator Landrieu and I will continue our discussion with other committee members and other colleagues to create a consensus. There is at least one piece of unfinished business. At some point in the process, Senator Landrieu and I will offer an amendment to our own legislation that will fully fund--at $450 million a year--the Federal side of the Land and Water conservation Fund. It was this provision in earlier legislation that helped to cause the legislation not to be enacted by the Senate. We believe that by listening to our colleagues and developing more flexibility among states in how these dollars might be spent, we can develop legislation that will pass the Senate. We are glad to see that Congressmen Young and Miller have introduced a similar piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. We look forward to working with them. We are pleased tat already more than two dozen national organizations representing millions of Americans have expressed their support for the American outdoors Act of 2004. These organizations range from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to the National Wildlife Federation, to Ducks Unlimited, and the City Parks Alliance. We invite all Americans and our colleagues of both political parties, to join with us in providing a legacy for the next generation to enjoy the great American outdoors. Someone once said that Italy has its art, England its history, and the United States has the great American outdoors. Our magnificent land, as much of our love of liberty, is at the core of our character. It has inspired our pioneer spirit, our resourcefulness and our generosity. Its greatness has fueled our individualism and optimism, and made us believe that anything is possible. It has influenced our music, literature, science and language. It has served as the training ground of our athletes and philosophers, of poets and defenders of American ideals. That is why there is a conservation majority--a large conservation majority--in the United States of America. That is why, I believe, that when this bill comes to the floor, there will be a large conservation majority in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the more than two dozen organizations--from the United States Conference of Mayors, to the National Wildlife Federation, to Ducks Unlimited, to the Conservation Council, and many others--representing millions of Americans in support of the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 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. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I are introducing the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004, bipartisan legislation that will provide nearly $1.5 billion annually to help Americans in every State enjoy the great American outdoors. The Americans Outdoors Act would provide a reliable stream of funding by collecting a conservation royalty on revenues from drilling for oil and gas on offshore Federal land. It would use this conservation royalty to fully fund three existing Federal programs: the so-called State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, $450 million annually; wildlife conservation, $350 million annually to fully fund that Federal program; and to fully fund urban parks initiatives, another $125 million. It would also provide an additional $500 million each year for coastal impact assistance, including wetlands protection. In addition, Senator Landrieu and I intend to offer an amendment to our legislation that would fully fund the $450 million per year Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but only after we have consulted further with our colleagues to develop a consensus. We offer this legislation because there is nothing more central to the American character than the great American outdoors. We offer it because we want to provide a conservation legacy for the next generation. We believe there is a huge conservation majority in America and in the Senate that will support this legislation. In 1985, when I was Governor of Tennessee, President Ronald Reagan asked me to chair the President's Commission on American Outdoors. Gilbert Grosvenor, president of the National Geographic Society, was vice-chairman. Patrick Noonan of the Conservation Fund and other distinguished Americans served on the commission. President Reagan himself was an outdoorsman. The President challenged his commission to look ahead for a generation and tell the country how we can have appropriate places to do what we want to do outdoors. In the report of our commission in 1987, we found many threats to the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors: exotic pollutants, loss of space through urban growth, and disappearance of wetlands. Changing lifestyles and new technology presented new challenges as well as opportunities. Differences in needs and Federal land ownership between the eastern and western States created challenging conflicts to resolve. In our report we emphasized that most outdoors recreation occurs close to home, near towns or cities where 80 percent of us live. We therefore recommended more land trusts, greenways, city parks and scenic byways. We suggested that most of this action be accomplished by a prairie fire of local concern rather than by action in Washington, DC, but we did recommend that Congress dedicate at least $1 billion a year from offshore oil and gas drilling revenues to provide a steady, reliable flow of funds to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Much of what we recommended has happened and is now law. But it is now time to build on the commission's work of 20 years ago and look ahead for another generation. By fully funding State wildlife grants, urban parks and the State programs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 will continue that legacy. It will enlarge on the legacy by providing new funds for coastal assistance, including wetlands protection. It will do so through a new steady stream of funding by creating what I think of as a ``conservation royalty.'' This new conservation royalty is not such a new idea at all. This conservation royalty is modeled after the existing State royalty for onshore oil and gas drilling that was created in the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920. That act gives 50 cents of every dollar from drilling--and in the case of Alaska, 90--as a royalty to the State in which the drilling occurs. In a similar way, The Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 would create a conservation royalty of about 25 percent for revenues of the funds collected from offshore drilling on Federal lands. Some of the royalty would go to the States where the drilling occurs. More would go to all states for parks, game and fish commissions and projects funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The idea is very simple: if drilling for oil and gas creates an environmental impact, it is wise to use some of the proceeds to create an environmental benefit. In 2001, the Federal Government received $7.5 billion in oil and gas revenues from federal offshore leases. This revenue comes from the Outer Continental Shelf, which supplies more oil to the United States than any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Chairman Peter Domenici has scheduled a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 13. In the meantime Senator Landrieu and I will continue our discussion with other committee members and other colleagues to create a consensus. There is at least one piece of unfinished business. At some point in the process, Senator Landrieu and I will offer an amendment to our own legislation that will fully fund--at $450 million a year--the Federal side of the Land and Water conservation Fund. It was this provision in earlier legislation that helped to cause the legislation not to be enacted by the Senate. We believe that by listening to our colleagues and developing more flexibility among states in how these dollars might be spent, we can develop legislation that will pass the Senate. We are glad to see that Congressmen Young and Miller have introduced a similar piece of legislation in the House of Representatives. We look forward to working with them. We are pleased tat already more than two dozen national organizations representing millions of Americans have expressed their support for the American outdoors Act of 2004. These organizations range from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, to the National Wildlife Federation, to Ducks Unlimited, and the City Parks Alliance. We invite all Americans and our colleagues of both political parties, to join with us in providing a legacy for the next generation to enjoy the great American outdoors. Someone once said that Italy has its art, England its history, and the United States has the great American outdoors. Our magnificent land, as much of our love of liberty, is at the core of our character. It has inspired our pioneer spirit, our resourcefulness and our generosity. Its greatness has fueled our individualism and optimism, and made us believe that anything is possible. It has influenced our music, literature, science and language. It has served as the training ground of our athletes and philosophers, of poets and defenders of American ideals. That is why there is a conservation majority--a large conservation majority--in the United States of America. That is why, I believe, that when this bill comes to the floor, there will be a large conservation majority in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the more than two dozen organizations--from the United States Conference of Mayors, to the National Wildlife Federation, to Ducks Unlimited, to the Conservation Council, and many others--representing millions of Americans in support of the Americans Outdoors Act of 2004 be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Illinois for their remarks. The Senator from Kansas has spent a great deal of time in Africa and has been a good teacher to the rest of us on this subject. The majority leader, Senator Frist, has visited the Sudan many times. All of us are deeply concerned about what is happening in Darfur. Just at the time when we were starting to celebrate the beginning of a solution to a north-south conflict which has gone on for years and years, suddenly we are hit, literally in the face, with this terrible genocide in the western part of Sudan. It is important to this body that we show that in the midst of all of the other things that are going on in the world that we recognize this situation. We recognize the importance of it. We recognize that by our speaking out, by our actions, by visits by representatives of our administration, and by the Congress, we can make a difference in this genocide. As the Senator from Ohio remarked, we all look back 10 years to a time in Rwanda when we were thinking that we cannot be a policeman everywhere in the world, we cannot deal with every problem, but at the same time that problem ballooned to such a massive size we are all embarrassed about the fact that as a country we did not do more. That does not always mean we send troops into a country. It does not always mean we send ships nearby a country. But it does mean there are a number of things we can do, and with this bipartisan act today in the midst of perhaps the most important bill we have to discuss, which is the proper support for the men and women who are fighting to defend our country, we are taking a few minutes to say there is a terrible event happening in the western part of Sudan that could stop immediately if the Government in Khartoum would stop it. We ask them to do it in a bipartisan way and we further ask the United Nations, which in this case has more of a capacity than we do, to influence that government and to get busy and do its job. That is what we are asking today. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio appropriates $95 million to help in that effort. Last week I chaired a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the situation in Sudan. The alarm could not have been sounded more loudly. I chaired that hearing because I am chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee. One of our witnesses, John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, told the committee the first phase of the genocide in Darfur is already complete. The Government of Sudan, largely through its Janjaweed militia, has pursued an active campaign of ethnic cleansing. Over 30,000--maybe 50,000--have already been killed by direct attacks on villages in Darfur. They have leveled hundreds of villages. Other Senators have spoken of the details, but that is what is happening. So now the second phase of the genocide is underway. The Government of Sudan and its militias are forcing the starvation and death of hundreds of thousands of people. As the Senator from Kansas explained, these are people living on the margin. When they are moved away from their huts, when dead animals or dead people are thrown down their wells, they have very little ability to survive. As the rainy season comes, it makes it worse. On top of that, the Government of Sudan, in addition to tolerating the killing of these people, is putting obstacles in the way of our efforts and the efforts of others in the world to provide food and aid to people who are starving and dying. It is an unconscionable set of actions by that government. When we think of Sudan, we usually think of a conflict between a Muslim and Arab government, and an African and Christian insurgency. That is not the case here. This is Muslim against Muslim, but still Arab against African. Ethnicity, not religion, is the primary factor. Another of our witnesses, Julie Flint of Human Rights Watch, was there writing a report this spring, travelling by horse and camel through the area. She talked about refugees who fled to neighboring Chad, about 200,000 of them, family members being raped and killed in front of loved ones. She said the region is now largely empty. Where villages were, only rubble remains. The Sudanese Government claims the Janjaweed forces in Darfur are acting on their own and the government wants to stop them. The evidence suggests otherwise. Our administration has been a strong voice in this case, but the international community has failed to respond. The U.N. Human Rights Commission, which is supposed to confront flagrant abuses of human rights, especially when they occur on such a mass scale, failed to adopt a U.S. resolution condemning the atrocities. That body has become a travesty, condoning the very activity it was intended to prevent. The Bush administration, this Government, has had remarkable success in the peace process between the north and the south. We are proud of that. Protocols addressing all the major outstanding issues in that process were signed in May. Senator Danforth, who was the President's special envoy, has been a real leader. Other nations have joined in that effort: Great Britain, Norway, Kenya. Some of our friends are concerned if we confront the government in Khartoum, Sudan, too directly about the atrocities in the west, Darfur, that will jeopardize any prospect for lasting peace in southern Sudan. They may be right. But if hundreds of thousands of lives are the price of peace in southern Sudan, the price is too high. So the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, which I am glad to cosponsor, will enable the United States to step up to this crisis quickly, providing relief to those in need. Other nations are also contributing. I hope they will join the United States in condemning the actions of the Sudanese government in the U.N. Security Council and demand full humanitarian access to Darfur now. I congratulate the Senator from Ohio on this amendment. I am proud to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment that makes sure that military families don't lose eligibility for Head Start, the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, Child Care and Development Block Grants, and the Low Income Energy Assistance Program when a parent is sent off to war. Currntly, military families living on the margin, who qualify for Federal benefits, are at risk of losing those benefits if the service member in the family qualifies for special pay. If, for example, an active duty parent is deployed to a combat zone, and begins to receive additional combat pay, the temporary increase in income may result in his or her family losing eligibility for vital social services. My amendment would preclude additional military pay, specifically combat pay and the family separation allowance, from being counted as income for purpose of determining eligibility for certain federal benefits. The Federal programs that are affected are those that are available to all Americans and where Federal law determines eligibility and generally provide food, child care, educational, and energy assistance to needy families. More specifically, the programs that would be affected are: The School Breakfast and Lunch Programs, Child Care and Development Block Grants, Head Start, and the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. The Subcommittee on Children and Families, which I chair, in cooperation with the Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, chaired by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, has put a special focus on helping military parents raising children. Together we have held six hearings since June of last year--five in the field, and one here in Washington. A number of issues have come to the attention of Senators through these hearings. This amendment addresses one of them. Among the many military personnel I have head from during this process are Sergeant First Class Luis Rodriguez, his wife Lilliam, and their two young daughters. Sgt. Rodriguez, with the 101st Airborne, stationed out of Fort Campbell, and his family line in Clarksville, TN. When Sgt. Rodriguez and his family moved to Fort Campbell, they tried to get one of their daughters, who was 4 years old at the time, enrolled in their local Head Start program before Sgt. Rodriguez was shipped out to Iraq. However, the Rodriguezes were informed that they couldn't access Head Start because they were over-income because of receiving the special pay. Sgt. Rodriguez left for Iraq and in November the truck he was driving in Mosul hit an improvised explosive device, and he lost most of his right leg. Currently, he is recovering down the road at Walter Reed Medical Center, and Lilliam is spending her time among traveling up here to see her husband, tending to her girls in Tennessee, and trying to help provide for her family. I am sure if you went to Walter Reed and talked to Lilliam or Luis, they would tell you that there is something wrong when those who wear our country's uniform and their families can no longer benefit from Head Start, the School Lunch Program, or some other federal program because they've become ineligible due to the additional special pay received when they're off in harm's way protecting our country. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his assistance in crafting this amendment. I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman on the issue of military families, and how best to help them shoulder the burdens they face. We rely on our servicemen and women to defend our freedom and America's interests overseas, but at times, we forget that our soldiers have a support structure of their own: their families. We should do all we can to support our service members and their families in these tough times.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the Senators from Idaho, and the Senator from South Carolina for working with me on this amendment. I voted against the Cantwell motion to strike because Senator Graham agreed to work with me in making some modifications to the underlying bill. I am not opposed to reclassification of radioactive waste. What I believe is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must have a central role in this process. The bill as it stands now grants the Department of Energy the right to reclassify nuclear waste from high-level to low-level waste. Under current law, only the NRC has authority to define high-level and low- level radioactive waste. Congress gave the NRC that authority in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The NRC's authority should be maintained. We should keep that authority in the hands of one regulatory agency. This perfecting amendment ensures that the NRC has the final say in any re-classification criteria. One amendment would modify Section 3116 of the bill to require the NRC to approve the criteria that the DOE uses to determine whether waste incidental to reprocessing is high- level or low-level radioactive waste. This would maintain the NRC's authority over defining radioactive waste. I hope my colleagues will support quick adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Kentucky, and the Senator from New Mexico as well. The Senator from Kentucky has worked diligently, consistently, persistently, and made certain that this amendment saw the light of day. I thank the Senator from Virginia for permitting it to be considered in this way. I only have a brief comment to make, but this is an important comment. As the Senator from New York said, this amendment will fulfill the intent of the act in 2000 which intended to provide for our cold- war veterans, our sick workers. The Senator from Alaska, who is in the chair, has been one of those who have spoken eloquently about this in the Energy Committee on which we both serve. Over 24,000 of our Nation's cold-war veterans have filed claims with the Department of Energy, and over 18,000 of those claims are still being developed or awaiting development. There are more than 4,800 cold-war veterans in Tennessee who are sick and are getting the runaround from the Department of Energy. It needs to stop. We should be treating our cold-war veterans with the same respect they have treated our country. As of March 18 of this year, 60 percent of these cases were still awaiting development--60 percent. The Department of Energy has had, as has been said already, nearly 4 years to get its act together and has yet to do so. This amendment will transfer the responsibility of claims from the Department of Energy to the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor currently runs several workers' compensation programs and is well equipped to handle those claims. The changes will provide uniform medical benefits and allow a large number of claimants in the process to receive compensation much sooner. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from South Carolina for working with me on this amendment and allowing me to be a cosponsor. I voted against the Cantwell motion to strike because Senator Graham agreed to work with me in making some modifications to the underlying bill. I am not opposed to reclassification of radioactive waste. What I believe is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must have a central role in this process. The bill, as it stands now, grants the Department of Energy the right to reclassify nuclear waste from high-level to low-level waste. Under current law, only the NRC has authority to define high-level and low- level radioactive waste. Congress gave the NRC that authority in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I think the NRC's authority should be maintained. We should keep that authority in the hands of one regulatory agency. This perfecting amendment ensures that the NRC has the final say in any reclassification criteria. Our amendment would modify Section 3116 of the bill to require the NRC to approve the criteria that the DOE uses to determine whether waste incidental to reprocessing is high- level or low-level radioactive waste. This would maintain the NRC's authority over defining radioactive waste. I hope my colleagues will support quick adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 22, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding High Performance Computing: Regaining U.S. Leadership. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an outstanding native Tennessean, Frances Williams Preston. Frances Preston was born in Nashville, TN and attended elementary, high school and Peabody College at Vanderbilt University there. She holds honorary degrees from the Berklee School of Music, Boston, MA, Lincoln College, Lincoln, IL, and Oklahoma University, Tulsa, OK. Ms. Preston is married to Nashville businessman E.J. Preston, and she is the mother of three children and the grandmother of six children. This year, Frances Preston will retire from her position of President and Chief Executive Officer of Broadcast Music Inc., BMI. Under Ms. Preston's leadership for the past 18 years, BMI gained international respect as a leader in the entertainment industry and is viewed as one of the music industry's most consistently successful and progressive entities. BMI was founded in 1939 and it operates as a non-profit making business. After operating expenses are paid, BMI returns all royalties to approximately 300,000 creators and copyright owners that it represents. Ms. Preston began her career in the music industry when she joined the nationally known Nashville radio station, WSM, in mid-1950 as a mail room employee and where she answered fan mail sent to Hank Williams. Later, she became the popular hostess of a daily fashion and style television show on the WSM station. In 1958, Ms. Preston became a part of BMI when she opened a BMI operation in Nashville as a result of some slight prodding by the first President of BMI, Bob Burton. Ms. Preston began her career with BMI with one assistant working in her parents' garage and oversaw the company's growth to more than 400 employees in Nashville. In 1986, Ms. Preston was appointed to serve as President & CEO of BMI. Ms. Preston played a lead role in building BMI's 2004 repertoire of nearly 4.5 million musical works. Ms. Preston has been vigilant and supported legislation with respect to rights and incomes of songwriters, composers and publishers. Frances Preston has received numerous awards and recognition, including but not limited to the T.J. Martell Foundation Humanitarian Award in 1992, the Friar's Applause Award in 1993, the International Achievement in Arts Humanitarian Awards in 1995 and 1997, the American Women in Radio and Television's Outstanding Achievement Award in 1998, the American Women in Radio and Television President's Award in 1998, the National Trustees Award at the 1998 Grammy Awards, the Society for the Advancement of Women's Health Research Woman of Achievement Award in 1999, the National Music Publishers' Association's President's Award in 2001, the Nashville Songwriters Association International President's Award in 2002, the Women in Music Touchstone Advocate Award in 2003, the Michael Bolton Charities' Lifetime Achievement Award in 2003, the Irving Waugh Award of Excellence, and the Broadcasters' Foundation's Golden Mike Award in 2004. Ms. Preston sits on numerous boards and generously volunteers her time to many charitable organizations. This brief statement cannot capture all the strengths of Frances Williams Preston and her manifold good works for songwriters, composers and publishers, and America as a whole. I did want to bring to my colleagues' attention the accomplishments and legacy of Frances Preston, and I am honored to recognize the contributions of this great Tennessean.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, a few years ago when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, he attended one of the many press dinners which are held. I think it was the gridiron dinner. I think it is well known that maybe 90 percent of the press corps in Washington had a different point of view on issues than President Reagan did, but they liked him anyway, and they respected him and he had fun with them, just as they did with him. I remember on that evening he strode into the gridiron dinner looking like a million dollars, smiling big. The press rose, smiling back, applauding. He stood in front of them until it subsided, and then he said to his adversaries in the media: Thank you very much. I know how hard it is to clap with your fingers crossed. And they laughed, and they had a wonderful time with President Reagan. The first thing we think about, those of us who had any opportunity to get to know him--a great many of us--was that Ronald Reagan was a very friendly man. He was a congenial person, an easy person to know, the kind of person you want to spend a lot of time with, if you had the opportunity, and that what you saw in private was what everyone else saw in public. Howard Baker, the former majority leader of the Senate when Ronald Reagan was President, got to know him especially well, and then in 1987, President Reagan invited former Senator Baker to come to be his Chief of Staff, which he was for nearly 2 years. I remember Senator Baker telling me that, to his surprise, when his 9 a.m. meetings came every morning with President Reagan, he discovered that Mr. Reagan had a funny little story to tell to Senator Baker, his Chief of Staff. What surprised Senator Baker even more was President Reagan expected Senator Baker to have a funny little story to tell back. So for that whole 2 years, virtually every morning at 9 a.m. when the President of the United States and the Chief of Staff of the White House met, they swapped funny little stories. It is very reassuring to me that two men who have maybe the two biggest jobs in the world were comfortable enough with themselves, each other, and their responsibilities to begin the day in that sort of easy way. That is the part of Ronald Reagan we think more about. Another part of Ronald Reagan which I think is often overlooked is that he was a man of big ideas. I would say intellectual, although I guess there is a little difference between being devoted to ideals and being intellectual but not much difference. Unlike most people who are candidates for President of the United States, Ronald Reagan wrote many of his own speeches. When he had a few minutes, he would sit in the back of a campaign airplane and make notes on cards in the shorthand that he had. His former aide, Marty Anderson, has written a book about that and told that, to a great extent, Ronald Reagan's words were his own words, ideas he expressed or ideas he gathered himself and ideas he had thought through and wanted to promulgate. Maybe that is partly why he seemed so comfortable with himself when he finally entered public life. He came to it late in life. He was age 55 when he became Governor of California, so by then he knew what he thought, and he had a sense of purpose, and he knew what he wanted to do. I got an idea of that kind of big thinking when I went to see President Reagan in my second year as Governor--third year, I guess it was, his first year as President in 1981. I talked to him about a big swap which I thought would help our country. I suggested: Mr. President, why doesn't the Federal Government take over all of Medicaid and let the State and local governments take over all responsibility for kindergarten through 12th grade? That would make it clear, I said, where the responsibility lies. You cannot fix schools from Washington, and it would make more efficient our health care system if we did things that way. He liked the idea. It fit his unconventional brand of thinking. He advocated it. It was a little too revolutionary for most people in Washington in the early 1980s. He had the same sort of unconventional attitude toward national defense policy. Many people overlooked the fact that Ronald Reagan did not just want us to have as many nuclear weapons as the Soviet empire did, he wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons. He saw them as wrong, as bad, and he wanted a world without nuclear weapons. Instead of mutual assured destruction, which was the doctrine at the time, he built up our strength so we could begin to reduce nuclear weapons and then unilaterally begin to do it before the Soviets did, hoping they would then follow. We can see the results. At the time, some people said Ronald Reagan was naive to think we could transfer power from Washington, from an arrogant empire, at home or naive to think we could face down an evil empire abroad, and especially naive to think our policy should be based upon getting rid of nuclear weapons. It turned out Ronald Reagan saw further than most of those critics did. Perhaps his most famous speech, not my favorite speech--my favorite speech is the one we heard a lot about this weekend, 20 years ago at Normandy, which moved the whole world to tears and reminded Americans why we are Americans and what we fought for--but his most famous speech may be the one in 1987 at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin where he said: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Earlier this year, I visited Berlin with John Kornblum who at the time was U.S. minister and deputy commandant in the American sector of West Berlin where tanks challenged tanks and white crosses marked grave sites of those who were killed trying to escape over the wall from East Berlin. Mr. Kornblum talked about the development of that speech that Ronald Reagan gave that day. Those words, or the thought, ``tear down this wall,'' went into the speech at an early stage. Some fought to keep it in. Many fought to take it out. Those who had thought Ronald Reagan was wrong to say the Soviet Union was an evil empire were not anxious for him to say: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Some suggested that President Reagan try his hand at German as President Kennedy had in a memorable speech at the Berlin Wall in the early 1960s. Some suggested that the speech should not be made at the Brandenburg Gate. That was too provocative, Mr. Kornblum remembers. But the speech was made at the Brandenburg Gate, and Mr. Reagan did keep his words in that speech. He did make his point, and his point was clear: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. For those of us who had a chance to see the new countries of Eastern Europe and their enthusiasm for freedom and for a free market system, we can see the legacy of Ronald Reagan and his unconventional thinking. So I think it is important for us to remember that this genial President was a man of ideas, of all the Presidents I have worked with, as much a man of ideas as any one of those Presidents. Ronald Reagan also taught us something about leadership. I recall in 1980 when he and Mrs. Reagan visited the Tennessee Governor's mansion during the Presidential campaign. I had not known him very well. He had served as Governor. He was several years older. He was from the West. It was really my first chance to meet him. After 1 hour or an hour and a half of breakfast with him the next morning, I remember going away thinking this man has a better concept of the Presidency than anyone I have ever been privileged to meet. Ronald Reagan understood what George Reedy said in his book, ``The Twilight of the Presidency,'' is the definition of Presidential leadership: No. 1, see an urgent need; No. 2, develop a strategy to meet the need; and, No. 3, persuade at least half the people that you are right. Ronald Reagan was as good as anyone at persuading at least half the people that he was right. He taught that and he also taught us the importance of proceeding from principles. Sometimes we are described in Washington these days as being too ideological, too uncompromising, too partisan. President Reagan was a principled man. He operated from principles in all of his decisions, insofar as I knew. He advocated his principles as far as he could take them, but he recognized that the great decisions that we make here are often conflicts between principles on which all of us agree. It might be equal opportunity versus the rule of law. And once we have argued our principle and the solution, and strategy has been taken as far as it could go, if we get, as he said 75, 80, or 85 percent of what we advocated, well, then that is a pretty good job. So he was very successful because he argued from principles. He argued strenuously. He was good at persuading at least half the people he was right. Then he was willing to accept a conclusion because most of our politics is about the conflict of principles. There is another lesson that he taught us, and that was to respect the military. Now, that seems unnecessary to say in the year 2004 where we have a volunteer military that is better than any military we have ever had in our history; when we have witnessed the thousands of acts of courage, charity, kindness, and ingenuity in Iraq and Afghanistan recently; when the men and women of our National Guard and Reserves are also being called up. We have a lot of respect for our military. In 1980, we were showing a lot less respect for the men and women of our military. I remember riding with President Reagan in a car in Knoxville during the 1980 campaign. As we pulled out of the airport by the National Guard unit, there were a number of the soldiers waving at him, understanding and sensing that he respected them. He turned to me and said something like this: I wish we could think of some way to honor these men and women more. He said: We used to do that in the movies in the 1930s and 1940s. We would make movies honoring men and women in the military and that is how we showed our respect for them. Well, he did find a way to honor them during his Presidency in the 1980s, and by the time he left at the end of that decade there was no question but that the American people remembered to honor the men and women in the military. There is one other aspect of President Reagan's leadership that I would like to mention, which is probably the most important aspect of the American character, and that is the belief that anything is possible. The idea that we uniquely believe in this country, and people all around the world think we are a little odd for believing it, is that no matter where you come from, no matter what race you are, no matter what color your skin, if you come here and work hard, anything is possible. That is why we subscribe to ideals such as all men are created equal, even though we know achieving that goal will always be a work in progress and we may never reach it. That is why we say we will pay any price, bear any burden, as President Kennedy said, to defend peace, even though we know that is a work in progress and we may never reach it. That is why we say more recently we want to leave no child behind when it comes to learning to read. We know that is a work in progress and we may not reach it, but that is our goal. We Americans say that anything is possible, and nothing symbolizes that more than the American Presidency. And no President has symbolized that more in the last century than Ronald Reagan. He has reminded us of what it means to be an American. He lifted our spirits, he made us proud, he strengthened our character, and he taught us a great many lessons.