Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, the leader has asked me to say that the Senate will conduct the 90 minutes of debate prior to appointing conferees with respect to the budget resolution. Following that action, the Senate will resume consideration of the welfare reauthorization bill. Moments ago, the majority leader filed cloture on the committee substitute to that bill. That cloture vote will occur on Thursday of this week. We hope cloture would be invoked to allow us to finish the welfare legislation. It is also the majority leader's hope that we will be able to move forward with germane amendments to the welfare reauthorization bill and make progress on the bill during tomorrow's session. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during tomorrow's session. Senators will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. I object to further proceedings on the bill at this time on behalf of the leader in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for second reading.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this afternoon to speak on the welfare reform legislation that the Finance Committee has worked on. I compliment Chairman Grassley and the Senator from Montana for their hard work in bringing this important piece of legislation forward. I am going to comment on two aspects of the bill. Iraq Before I do that, Mr. President, I have been sitting here listening for a while. I think it is important to complete the story of what the Senator from North Dakota was saying. Let me be specific about this. As I heard his remarks, he was basically saying the President of the United States made a mistake when he decided the United States should use force to change the regime in Iraq. I suppose one could come to that conclusion. There were some in the Senate who did. But I think it is important, if we are going to begin to read quotations and comments from those who have come to that conclusion today, that we finish the story, as Paul Harvey said. Here is the rest of the story. Here is what others were saying, others were thinking, at the time President Bush had to look at the whole world and look at this different world that we are in and make a decision. It is true that it has been against the traditions of the United States to make a preemptive strike. That was a major discussion during the Cuban missile crisis. Bobby Kennedy brought that up in the councils. He was right to do that. And I am sure in President Bush's councils that was discussed. But, suddenly, we were facing a different kind of enemy. We were facing terrorists. And we had just experienced an unexpected attack. There are some even today who say that someone should have imagined that a handful of men would hijack two airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center. Maybe someone should have. But I can assure you that during the 1990s, there was no one running for President of the United States who expressed that thought or who had that thought in the remotest back of his mind that such a thing like that could happen. Terrorism, yes. But that kind of attack? No. So, suddenly, we are in this new environment. And the President of the United States is doing what I would hope any President would do of either party when confronted with radically different circumstances. He asked some questions and he took some action. Now, it is important for us to remember that at the same time the President was making decisions about whether we should invade Iraq to defend ourselves, to prevent a terrorist attack--because there was a threat there to American lives and American safety--there were others in our Government who also had a chance to consider that information, and to talk about it, and to vote on it. We voted on it here. I was not here yet, but I remember the overwhelming majority--bipartisan majority--in this Senate that authorized the use of military force against Iraq. And I can remember very well what was said. So if the issue is whether a prudent President--who is sworn to uphold the oath to defend the United States of America--made a wise judgment to challenge Saddam Hussein, whether he could have done that based upon the facts presented to him, let's take a look at what other people, other well-informed people were saying and thinking at the time. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota read some quotations. Let me read some more. Here is a member of the Senate's own Intelligence Committee, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, one of our most distinguished and wisest Senators, a man who has been a Governor, with whom I have served, a man who is also on the Foreign Relations Committee. Here is what the Senator from West Virginia, speaking on the Senate floor, said on October 10 of the year 2002, about the time the President of the United States was looking at this information. Senator Rockefeller said: There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have it earlier if he is able to obtain fissile missile materials on the outside market, which is possible--difficult but possible. We should also remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Now, that was not the Vice President of the United States. That was not Secretary Rumsfeld. That was not President Bush. That was the Senator from West Virginia, a member of our Intelligence Committee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who was coming up with his own conclusions. Here is another quotation made on the Senate floor on October 9, 2002, about the same time. This came from the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry: I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior, which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by the use of force if necessary. That was Senator Kerry, at about the time that President Bush was having to make this terrible decision. I want to move on to other issues. But I don't think it serves our purpose as a country to dredge up comments that show some second- guessing, some second thoughts on one side, but not look back at what other distinguished, fairminded reasonable men and women were saying. Here is what Senator Biden said at about the same time on the Senate floor, October 9, 2002: If the world decides it must use force for his failure to abide by the terms of surrender, then it is not preempting, it is enforcing. It is enforcing, it is finishing a war he reignited, because the only reason the war stopped is he sued for peace. And finally, here is what the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, said on October 10, 2002: In the 4 years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Those are the conclusions of the distinguished Members of the other side who know a lot about this, the same conclusion President Bush had. We don't have to listen to what the administration tells us here. We have our committees. We travel the world. Some of us have been in other administrations. We read. We listen. We talk. We come to our own conclusions. The conclusions of most Senators was the same as the conclusion of the President, that as terrible as it was, this was a time we needed to act. There is one other quotation I would like to mention before I turn to the Welfare Reform Act. This is a comment of a former President of the United States who has, to his great credit, not backed away insofar as I have heard from this remark. President Bill Clinton said, on February 17, 1998, in an address for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff: Now let us imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made. Well, Saddam Hussein will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. That was President Clinton in 1998 in an address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon staff. The No. 1 issue on all of our minds is the war in Iraq. But I would hope we could look forward and not look backward in recrimination. That is not too much to hope in a Presidential election year. I believe the people of this country want President Bush and Senator Kerry to say where do we go from here, how do we win the peace, how do we secure freedom, how do we get the men and women home from Iraq and Afghanistan, what can we do to help their families. That is what the focus ought to be rather than reading long, incomplete lists of second-guessing quotations to try to pin the blame on a decision that was broadly and widely shared based upon information that had been piled up over 10 or 12 years. That does not serve our process well. I came to the floor today on another matter. I am glad I had a chance to mention former President Clinton in terms of doing it. I remember well. In my second term as Governor in the mid-1980s, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the National Governors Association and created the first welfare reform task force. I asked then-Governors Pete DuPont and Bill Clinton, who was vice chairman of that association, to be the co-chairs, working with me to figure out something better. And we did, and they did most of that work and that leadership. The work that the Governors started that year continued. Ten years later, when Bill Clinton was President in 1996 and there was a Republican Congress, Congress passed the landmark welfare reform legislation which today we call TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. That 1996 welfare-to-work legislation was very controversial at the time. It was controversial because it got us out of the rut that we had been in for 30 or 40 years of creating a permanent class of welfare and caused us to rethink that. It is possible that it only could have been done with the President of one party who had immersed himself in the subject and who talked about it and believed in it and a Congress of another party. It was that big a change. It changed the way we think about welfare, from a program that fosters dependence to a program that serves as temporary assistance, a program that restores dignity and encourages people to stand on their own two feet. That welfare-to-work program that President Clinton and the Republican Congress created 10 years ago--many Members of the House who were there at the time are now in the Senate--has been a very successful program and one in which they can take pride. From a high of 5 million in 1994, welfare caseloads have dropped by over 50 percent. But since 2000, the national caseload has leveled off at slightly above 2 million. In more than half the States, including my own of Tennessee, caseloads are growing. And in every State, the remaining 50 percent on the welfare rolls present a bigger challenge. There are some other warning signs. The number of families is rising who have exhausted their 60-month or 5-year time limit for Federal aid under TANF. We have a 5-year limit. We don't want permanent welfare. And a number of families have exceeded that 5-year limit so they are off welfare. Another warning sign is the remaining caseload holds a rising proportion of Black and Hispanic families. Another is that unemployment among single mothers, which declined sharply in the early years of our welfare-to-work program, went back up in 2001 and 2002. Finally, another warning signal is in response to their own fiscal crises--we can remember we had to send a $20 billion welfare check of our own to the States last year--some States have recently had to restrict cash benefits and support services, spreading limited resources even thinner. The President and the Congress recognized from the beginning that helping people go from dependence to independence would be expensive in the short run. It would take some money. If you are saying to somebody who is down and out and in the third generation of welfare dependence, we want you to change your lifestyle and we are going to offer in exchange for that childcare, education opportunities, job training, counseling, removal of barriers to work, offering all that, that takes people, that takes work, and that takes money. We have provided money over a period of time. One of the most successful of those programs has been the childcare voucher. Not everyone likes to call it a voucher because some people don't like vouchers. The Pell grant is a voucher for college students, the Stafford student loans is a voucher for college students, and the childcare grant is a voucher. It is money that goes through the States--I think it is about $8 billion or so--to more than 2 million persons who are getting off welfare. As we say, largely to women who have children: We want you to go to work. They may say: What about our children? And we say: Here is a childcare grant that you may take to any accredited institution that you can. That is what we mean by voucher. That has been a big success as well. That is the reason why even though the Senate committee, in my judgment, has done an excellent job of bringing to the Senate the reauthorization or renewal of this welfare reform bill and has increased the amount of money available for childcare, I agree with Senator Snowe of Maine that we need to increase the money for childcare more. Senator Snowe spoke about that today at great length, so I don't feel the need to go into great length about it. Basically, the Snowe amendment, which I am glad to cosponsor, adds an additional $6 billion over 5 years for childcare. Both the House and the Senate versions of the welfare reform bills we are considering increase both the hours the parents are required to work each week and the number of welfare parents each week who are required to work. If we are going to require that the only parent who is at home go to work, and if that person is poor, and if that person is still on welfare after we have been working for 10 years to try to get as many people as possible off, we certainly are going to have to say as part of our deal we will help with childcare if you will go to work. That is the whole idea. Childcare is the linchpin between welfare and work. Studies show former welfare recipients who receive childcare assistance are 82 percent more likely to be employed after 2 years than those who don't; 65 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 and 79 percent of mothers with children ages 6 to 13 are in the labor force in our country today. As I mentioned earlier, about 2.5 million children receive our Federal childcare vouchers through the State. Childcare is expensive. It costs as much as a 4-year college--between $4,000 and $10,000 per child annually sometimes. I got a personal dose of learning about this in 1996 when I was under the mistaken impression the people of the United States wanted me to run for President of the United States. I got the message earlier that year that they preferred Bob Dole, the former majority leader. I went home to Tennessee. I received a call from Major Werthy of the Salvation Army. He said, ``I have been hearing what you had to say.'' I had been saying a lot about personal responsibility. He said, ``I am calling to draft you and put your feet where your mouth has been for the last few years.'' So I went to work for the Salvation Army in Nashville and helped create something called the Red Shield Family Initiative. This basically became Nashville's way of implementing the Federal law. Congress and the President decided we are going to change things. If you will get off welfare, we will give you help, childcare, job training. We will knock barriers out of the way and counsel you about drugs and work with you. Then somebody has to actually do all that. In Nashville a whole group of people got together, led by the Salvation Army. It included the metropolitan government, the State of Tennessee, all sorts of social services, and it included childcare centers. Down in the area of town where we have the most difficult circumstances, we had almost a mall, such as a shopping mall that exists to create a one- stop place for a mom on welfare who wanted to get off, so they could then be helped. There have been some wonderful stories that have come out of that Red Shield Family Initiative, but I can tell you they came out slowly, one by one. Tamika Payton was in the ninth grade. This is an example Major Werthy talked to me about. In the ninth grade, she was a ward of the State when she had her first child. She grew up with an abusive mother who was addicted to drugs. She was removed from the care of her mother and placed in the care of her aunt, who was also abusive, so she ran away. This is Tamika's story, but it is a story that occurs all over America. She had two more children before becoming connected to the Family First Program, which is what we call Tennessee's welfare-to-work program. Because of the childcare certificate, the vouchers she receives through the Tennessee Family First Program, the ones we pay for with Federal tax dollars, she now has a full-time job, she is working on her GED, her high school degree, and her children attend the McNealy Child Care Center, a nationally accredited childcare agency in the area where this Red Shield Family Initiative of the Salvation Army exists. In Tennessee, the State pays $105 a week for Tamika's 1-year-old, $105 a week for her 2-year-old child, and $90 a week for her 4-year old child. In Nashville, the average cost of a quality childcare center ranges between $100 and $150 a week. These vouchers we are voting for come within that range. Tamika's dream is to get her high school degree and then to attend Tennessee State University. In other words, what is happening with Tamika Payton is exactly what the Republican Congress and President Clinton hoped would happen in 1996 when this started. But as we consider the welfare reform legislation, I think it is very important that we remember in Washington, DC, while we may create large frameworks and set standards and provide money, it is people such as the Red Shield Family Initiative in Nashville, in Portland, in Austin, in New York City, who are doing the work--they have got to work one by one by one. So I will support and vote for Senator Snowe's amendment to add an additional $6 billion over 5 years for child care, because if in this welfare reform authorization we are going to require the only parent in the house to work away from home--more work than we have required before--then we will have to pay more for more childcare. We cannot require more work without paying more for more childcare. There is one other concern I have. It will be the subject of an amendment I intend to introduce along with Senators Nelson, Carper, and Voinovich later this week. We are working with the chairman and his staff to try to make certain it is consistent with the objectives of the general legislation, which we believe it is. This amendment would create a 10-State demonstration project designed to test the premise that if States had greater flexibility, States could do a better job getting people off welfare and becoming truly self-sufficient. Senators Nelson, Carper, Voinovich, and I are all former Governors. We know the importance of reducing welfare rolls. We all served as Governors of States in the AFDC days, when we had Aid to Families with Dependent Children. We all strongly support the welfare-to-work concept. But especially with this last group of men and women--mostly women--who are moving from welfare to work, we have the tougher cases. It will be harder for us to decide from here exactly how each of those persons we are trying to help can get from where they are to where we want them to go. We should not presume to have all of the answers. Here is how our demonstration project would therefore work. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would approve plans for up to 10 States. These plans would include what we call measurable outcome goals. In other words, in plain English, are we helping this person move toward self-sufficiency, toward independence, to get on their own two feet and off welfare? We would, in those 10 demonstration States, enforce the 60-month time limit for TANF benefits and require, as in the Senate bill, the self-sufficiency employment plan for each recipient. In other words, each individual would have a plan for that person's progress. We agree with the idea of no permanent welfare. While work continues to be at the heart of what we expect States to focus on, States will need to decide how best to meet each person's need, is taking into consideration individual circumstances. As wise as we may hope we are, each one of us is not going to be able to meet each Tamika Payton and make a judgment as to how Tamika can get on her two feet with her three children, succeed in life, and never receive a welfare check again. So in exchange for greater flexibility, we will ask the States to achieve better results and be measured against true outcome goals, a feature neither in the current law nor in the Senate and House bills. These are the kinds of goals that our legislation will include: One, work, employment, growth in the percent of recipients employed in that State; two, removal of barriers to stable employment. By that I mean drug treatment success. That is a barrier to stable employment. Education level, that is a barrier to stable employment. Attainable marketable skills, that is a barrier to stable employment. I remember visiting a welfare human services office in my State in 2002. I asked them what worked best. What they told me was: Get them into school. If we get them into school, we never see them again. What the welfare office hopes for from its clients is they do not see them again, at least they do not see them again in terms of assistance and checks. They want them to be on their own. Job retention is a measurable outcome goal. Earnings is a measurable outcome goal. Child well-being--whether the children of that mom have prenatal care, and for the pregnant mother--immunization rates of the children, the percent of children in child care, overall improvement in the children's education, test results. Within those specific measurable outcomes--employment, removing barriers to employment, job retention, earnings, and child well-being-- a State's plan would say: We believe we know better how to get to the goal of sufficiency; give us a chance to do that. Each State would be required to enter into a performance agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services to meet certain targets to coordinate with other programs, to work with the Secretary to demonstrate that a reasonable workforce participation rate is being maintained, to have an evaluation plan that includes accountability for the benchmarks. This will test the best way to help those on welfare today get off welfare for good. It would help some of those we now see in Tennessee who we were able to help because our State has unusual flexibility, but without that flexibility, we believe we would not have been able to serve them as successfully. Mr. President, there are many examples in my own experience, and I am sure in every State's experience, of how local ingenuity, local caring, working with persons who are in trouble, one by one, has helped them succeed. I would like to see us take this next step with welfare reform. I believe since it had a bipartisan origin with a Democratic President of the United States who invested years in trying to understand it, and a new Republican Congress that made it a priority, that we owe this important legislation, this welfare reform bill, our full attention for a few days. We can surely put aside some of these other issues long enough to help men and women get on their own two feet in this great country of ours, particularly to continue a program that for 10 years has worked so well. My goal will be to do what I can as one Senator to make sure we focus on welfare reform; No. 2, to support the Snowe amendment that makes sure that if we require more work, we provide for more child care; and, No. 3, to work with the committee to try to see if we can find a way so that a limited number of States during this 5-year period can have somewhat more flexibility in working with these difficult cases so when this comes back around again in 4, 5, or 6 years, we can see what we have learned. Too often as programs go on, the restrictions from Washington pile up. I would like to see a countervailing effort, countervailing movement within this legislation that continues to increase flexibility because, after all, it is stated right at the beginning of the 1996 law, giving States more flexibility is key to the success of welfare reform. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, is there any limit on time?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, today I voted against the Dodd amendment for two important reasons. First, it is the wrong policy for growing jobs. And second, it tramples on the principle of federalism. Nearly 150,000 Tennesseans are employed by foreign companies conducting business in Tennessee. As Governor, I helped attract some of those jobs and companies to our State--companies such as Nissan, Sharp, Bridgestone, Panasonic, and many others. The Dodd amendment could have denied them the ability to compete for government contracts. That's not right. If the Dodd amendment becomes law, it will discourage these foreign companies from investing in our country. In these times when we are trying so hard to grow new, high-paying jobs, the Dodd amendment is exactly the wrong policy. Further, the Dodd amendment ignores the principle of federalism by limiting the States' options on granting contracts using Federal funds. The whole point in sending money to the States is that they know better than the Federal Government how to spend it to meet the needs of their citizens. As a former Governor, I know how frustrating it is to have the Federal Government tell you how you can or can't spend your money. Neither Tennessee nor any other State should have new burdens placed on how it spends federally granted funds.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, my intention was to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 7 or 8 minutes, which may not be appropriate at this moment.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Over the weekend, the United States of America lost one of its great teachers of what it means to be an American. Daniel Boorstin died at the age of 89. He served as Librarian of Congress and director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Science and Technology. Daniel Boorstin's books about the American experience earned a Pulitzer Prize in 1974. He believed America's success came largely because we have been free from the ``virus of ideology,'' free to be flexible and responsive, ``free to take clues from the delightful, unexplored and uncongested world around us.'' Free from ideology, being an American became its own ideology. Daniel Boorstin celebrated Americans for always trying the new. He believed we have been at our best when we have been ``on the verge,'' encountering new territory--whether it was creating new schools, new crops, new planting techniques, new towns, a new form of the English language, new technologies, new cars and trains, or John Winthrop's new City on the Hill. He observed during these encounters with new circumstances, we have been more aware of our Americanness, that our appetite for the new has been whetted, and that we have leaned on one another for support, often organizing new forms of communities to deal with new circumstances. Boorstin believed America works community by community. He argued that the prototype early American was not the solitary trailblazer but a wagon train community. Despite his erudition and his Pulitzer, Dr. Boorstin was not especially popular with professional historians. Perhaps it was because he was such a booster, as have been most Americans. Perhaps it was because he contented himself with being an ``amateur'' historian, not shackled by the ruts along which professionals often trudge. Or, perhaps it was because he was a member of a diminishing band of public figures--the late Senator Pat Moynihan and American Federation of Teachers President Albert Shanker were two others--who believed passionately in American exceptionalism. A growing number of history professionals today reject this idea of exceptionalism. To them, our country is fortunate, rich and large, but not more exceptional than many other countries. These professionals prefer social studies to U.S. history. They take snapshots of our national experience instead of teaching the steady drumbeat of a work in progress toward grand goals. In their enthusiasm for overlooked victims, they themselves overlook heroes. Because of their growing influence we now find American history courses watered down, the great controversies of race and religion ``sensitized'' from textbooks. Civics is often dropped entirely from the curriculum. As one result, our high school seniors score worse on U.S. history tests than on any other subject. Daniel Boorstin's writings have reminded us of what is truly exceptional about America, warts and all. He emphasized that our greatest accomplishment is that, more than any other country, we have united people from everywhere into a single nation, united by beliefs in a few principles rather than by race, creed, and color. He taught that we may be proud of where we came from, but should be prouder to be Americans. He left us one other very special insight. In an essay written in 1962, Dr. Boorstin foresaw that television would create a world in which we would have a hard time telling the difference between heroes-- those worth paying attention to because we might learn from their nobility--and celebrities who are ``famous primarily for being famous.'' He invented the term pseudo event, which most of us will recognize as today's photo opportunity. My favorite of Daniel's Boorstin's books was not his Pulitzer winner. It was The Discoverers, a stream of stories about men and women in history who challenged dogma and created a better life for mankind. As we are poised on yet another verge in our national experience, we would do well to remember Dr. Boorstin's advice about what has served us well before: be more aware of our Americanness, whet our appetites for the new, and form new communities so that we might rely better on one another as we deal with changing circumstances.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I express my concern once again with the rising cost of medical liability insurance. Last July we debated this issue in the Senate, and unfortunately did not reach cloture on this important issue. Today we are limiting our debate on the issue to care for mothers and babies. We must protect a woman's access to obstetric and gynecological care to ensure healthy mothers and babies. The increasing cost of medical liability insurance is creating a patient access crisis because doctors are leaving the practice of medicine. At Hardin County General Hospital in Savannah, TN, the OB/GYN left the hospital to go practice in another state because the insurance premium was too high. High medical liability insurance is one more reason it is difficult to recruit specialists to rural areas. In 2002, the average net medical liability premium for an OB/GYN in Tennessee was $33,600. In 2003, the premium increased to $41,980, and in 2004, it increased again to $49,408. This is a 47 percent increase over the past 3 years. This sort of increased cost is not sustainable. I continue to be worried about who will deliver babies in my state. I believe that S. 2061, the Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act of 2004, will help protect access to care for mothers and babies in Tennessee. This bill will still allow unlimited economic damages, but it places a sensible cap on non-economic damages. I hope we reach cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can consider this very important legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Bunning for introducing the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gains treatment for certain self-created musical works, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. This bill will make songwriters eligible for the capital gains tax rate when they sell their portion of a song catalogue. It treats the taxation of songwriters fairly so that they are on equal footing with musical publishers. Many songwriters are self-employed small business owners, but they are distinguishable from other similar small business owners, such as authors, because the rate of pay for songwriters is set by the Federal Government. Historically, almost all professional songwriters assigned their copyright to a music publisher. As a result, the songwriters did not own the song or receive any royalty payments from the song. The songwriters did not own the copyright, and therefore, were not required to participate in any expenses toward exploiting it. Currently, songwriters and music publishers are equal, joint-venture business partners. The publisher serves as the songwriter's agent in getting songs recorded or placed, otherwise known as ``co-publishing.'' Under this scenario, the songwriter and publisher equally share expenses of, among other things, demos costs and legal fees, and they equally share in any royalty income. Alternatively, the songwriter is the music publisher and bears all of the expenses of, among other things, demo costs and legal fees. Under the first scenario, the songwriter is subject to ordinary income tax, rather than capital gains tax, despite the fact that the sale of the song catalogue was actually a capital gain and should have been taxed at a lower rate. A capital gain is the result of a sale of a capital asset. Clearly, a song catalog is a capital gain because it is an asset of the songwriter. Under current law, music publishers are eligible for the capital gains tax rate when they sell their portion of a song catalogue, but songwriters are not. When the publishing rights or the song catalogue is sold, music-publishing companies are allowed to claim the capital gains tax rate on their portion of the sale. However, because the songwriter wrote the song, they must pay ordinary income tax on their share of the same sale even though they share in expenses toward exploiting the copyright. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill because it levels the tax playing field between songwriters and music publishers.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Bunning for introducing the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide capital gains treatment for certain self-created musical works, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. This bill will make songwriters eligible for the capital gains tax rate when they sell their portion of a song catalogue. It treats the taxation of songwriters fairly so that they are on equal footing with musical publishers. Many songwriters are self-employed small business owners, but they are distinguishable from other similar small business owners, such as authors, because the rate of pay for songwriters is set by the Federal Government. Historically, almost all professional songwriters assigned their copyright to a music publisher. As a result, the songwriters did not own the song or receive any royalty payments from the song. The songwriters did not own the copyright, and therefore, were not required to participate in any expenses toward exploiting it. Currently, songwriters and music publishers are equal, joint-venture business partners. The publisher serves as the songwriter's agent in getting songs recorded or placed, otherwise known as ``co-publishing.'' Under this scenario, the songwriter and publisher equally share expenses of, among other things, demos costs and legal fees, and they equally share in any royalty income. Alternatively, the songwriter is the music publisher and bears all of the expenses of, among other things, demo costs and legal fees. Under the first scenario, the songwriter is subject to ordinary income tax, rather than capital gains tax, despite the fact that the sale of the song catalogue was actually a capital gain and should have been taxed at a lower rate. A capital gain is the result of a sale of a capital asset. Clearly, a song catalog is a capital gain because it is an asset of the songwriter. Under current law, music publishers are eligible for the capital gains tax rate when they sell their portion of a song catalogue, but songwriters are not. When the publishing rights or the song catalogue is sold, music-publishing companies are allowed to claim the capital gains tax rate on their portion of the sale. However, because the songwriter wrote the song, they must pay ordinary income tax on their share of the same sale even though they share in expenses toward exploiting the copyright. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill because it levels the tax playing field between songwriters and music publishers.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Thursday, March 4, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366, to receive testimony regarding ``New Nuclear Power Generation'' in the United States. (Contact: Pete Lyons at 202-224-5861 or Shane Perkins at 202-224- 7555.) subcommittee on national parks

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 9, I voted nay. I intended to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions and preambles be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, the above occurring with no intervening action or debate, with the consideration of these items appearing separately in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise to propose that we turn the Presidential nominating process over to the National Football League, except for Super Bowl half-time shows. Then maybe we can have a second Super Bowl, where anything is possible and everyone can participate. Take the example of our colleague Senator Kerry's team--I am sure the Senator from Vermont will be quick to point out it is the team of many Senators from New England--the New England Patriots. Last night, they became the Super Bowl champions. On September 12, in the season's first game, the Buffalo Bills trounced the Patriots 31 to 0. If this had been the first-in-the-Nation Presidential nominating caucus, the Patriots would have been toast. You know the pundits' rule: Only three tickets out of Iowa. The Patriots certainly didn't look like one of the three best professional football teams. Then, the Washington Redskins defeated the Patriots, as unlikely as it would have been for Dennis Kucinich to upend Senator Kerry in New Hampshire. But in the National Football League, upsets don't end the season. The Patriots played 14 more games. They won them all. Yesterday, they beat the Carolina Panthers in the Super Bowl for their 15th consecutive win. The National Football League schedules 20 weeks of contests over 5 months to determine its champion. The Presidential nominating process, on the other hand, uses the equivalent of two preseason games in Iowa and New Hampshire to narrow the field to two or three--and sometimes they effectively pick the winner. The NFL wasn't always so wise. In the 1930s, league owners rearranged schedules after the first few games so that teams that were doing well could play one another. This was good for the Chicago Bears, for example, but not for the league. Fans in other cities quit going to the games--just as voters in most States have quit voting in Presidential primaries. Bears owner George Halas and others created today's competitive system in which almost any one of 32 teams can hope to make the playoffs. Green Bay can make it because the league makes sure that even smalltown teams have enough revenue. Prime-time television opportunities are rotated. Each Monday, senior officials in the league's New York office grade every call and no call to second-guess even the instant replays. Professional football has become America's game because it symbolizes the most important aspect of the American character: If you work hard and play by the rules, anything is possible. As a result, 8 of 10 of the most watched network television shows have been Super Bowls; 98 of the 100 best watched cable television games have been NFL games. Every September, the NFL fields 32 teams, almost all with a shot at the playoffs. Every 4 years, the Presidential nominating process does well to attract a half dozen credible candidates for the biggest job in the world. All but half are effectively eliminated after two contests. If professional football were Presidential politics, Sportscenter would pick the Super Bowl teams after 3 or 4 preseason games. These two steps would fix the Presidential nominating process: No. 1, spread out the primaries. Twenty-eight primaries are crammed into 5 weeks after New Hampshire. Congress should assume the role of Paul Tagliabue. Create a window between February and May during which primaries may be held every 2 weeks. Iowa and New Hampshire could still come first, but they would become off-Broadway warmups and not the whole show. The second step that would fix the process would be to allow more money--to raise their first $10 million, let candidates collect individual ``start-up contributions'' of up to $10,000. Today's $2,000 limit makes it impossible for most potential candidates to imagine how to raise, say, $40 million. During 1995, when I was a candidate and the individual limit on contributions was $1,000, I fattened 250 fundraisers in that 1 year to collect $10 million. The combination of the new $2,000 limit, the increased coverage of new cable channels, and the growth of the Internet have made it easier to raise money. Still all but Senator Kerry was short of cash after New Hampshire. Put it this way: The Packers would never make it to the playoffs under the revenue rules of Presidential primaries. Mr. President, 45,000 Iowans voted for John Kerry in the first caucus. About 83,000 New Hampshirites voted for him in the first primary. More Americans actually attended last night's Super Bowl game in Houston, TX, than voted in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Ninety million others watched the Super Bowl game on television. Perhaps we should learn something from America's game about how to pick a President. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 424, S. 1879, relating to mammography quality standards.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m., Tuesday, February 3. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then conduct a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with 30 minutes under the control of Senator Graham of Florida and the remaining time under the control of the majority leader. I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party luncheons.