Lamar Alexander

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Then, Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Alabama talked about the situation going on there today where the chief judge is embroiled in a great controversy over whether the Ten Commandments have to be taken out of the courtroom. I ask the Senator from Alabama, Mr. President, what percent of Alabamians probably believe the chief judge is right about the Ten Commandments?

Mr. ALEXANDER. I am going to just guess, having lived a long time in a State that borders Alabama, that it is higher than that in Alabama. If I understood the Senator from Alabama correctly, here is the attorney general of Alabama, who may also agree with Judge Moore about the Ten Commandments, but he is endorsing the judicial proceedings against Judge Moore; is that what I heard the Senator say?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Against the judge who wants to keep the Ten Commandments there. I think I also heard the Senator from Alabama say there was a reapportionment case in the State of Alabama, and the Republican Party wanted the attorney general to work with them, since he was appointed by a Republican Governor and is a Republican, and that he wouldn't do that, and that he even lost the case in the appellate court and kept going. He finally defeated a law that was adverse to his party; did I understand that right, too?

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the distinguished occupant of the chair and I are new Members of the Senate. There are a great many privileges to being here, and one is the congeniality to new Members of the Senate. One is the seriousness of the issues with which we deal these days. One is the great traditions in the Senate. But there is a very special privilege of being here, and being here tonight, which I realize, and that is this: Every single one of us as Americans someday, sometime, while sitting at home or on our job, may suddenly realize something about our Government that really stirs us up and we wish we could say something and do something that somebody would hear. We are angry about it, we are upset about it, we want to say something about it. I have a privilege as a Member of the Senate of being able to do just that tonight. Nothing used to make me more upset as the Governor of Tennessee for the 8 years I was Governor than when Members of this distinguished body and the other distinguished body--Members of Congress--would get together and come up with some great idea and pass a law and tell us to do it, and then send us the bill requiring us to pay for it, even though they were printing money up here and we were balancing budgets at home. The distinguished occupant of the Chair was mayor of a great city for 8 years, I believe, the same amount of time as I was Governor. I know he must have felt the same way. It might have been the case in terms of storm water runoff. Somebody in Washington, like the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in that case may have said sometimes when it really rains hard, the water gets mixed up with the sewage and it runs into the river, so we need to fix that situation. Great idea, but who is going to pay the bill? I tell you who pays the bill. In Minneapolis, you have to raise the property tax, or in Nashville, you have to raise the sales tax. Or in Maryville, TN, you have to fire some teachers so you have enough money to do the storm water runoff. I remember back in the mid-1970s, about the time I was getting into politics, the Members of Congress decided we needed to help children with disabilities. We are all for that. That is a wonderful idea. But at the time, the Federal Government was paying, as it is today, about 7 percent of all the costs of elementary and secondary education in America. Most of that is paid for by Minnesota and Tennessee taxpayers through income taxes, and sales taxes, and property taxes that are raised at home. The Congress said, ``Help the children with disabilities,'' but they didn't pay the bill. So what happens. I meet with the Shelby County School Board in Memphis. What do they say to me? We have this huge, terrific cost and these orders from Washington and regulations about what to do, and then we have to take money we raise, that we would otherwise be spending for other purposes, and deal with the good idea from Washington, DC. I have heard many Members of this body talk a little bit about No Child Left Behind and the new provisions in that bill, wondering whether those are unfunded Federal mandates, a Washington word that if you boil it down to plain English means: We will do it up here in Washington; we will claim credit for it, but you pay the bill. On Thursday, thanks to the generosity of the majority leader in a very busy week, the Senate has agreed to consider whether we will impose yet one more unfunded Federal mandate on State and local governments, and I refer specifically to the proposal to extend the ban on State and local authority to tax access to the Internet. In advance of that vote, which will occur in the next few days, I want to discuss three basic considerations with my colleagues. No. 1, some of my colleagues have seemed surprised when I suggested the proposed ban on State and local Internet taxation is an unfunded Federal mandate. Let me say exactly in these remarks why the proposed ban on State and local ability to tax Internet access is an unfunded mandate plainly in violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 which was passed by this body with 91 votes, and 63 Senators who voted to ban unfunded Federal mandates in 1995 are still Members of this body. In 1994, over 300 Republican candidates stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and said in the Contract With America: We will stop passing unfunded Federal mandates, and if we break this contract, throw us out. That is why, when this legislation is offered later this week, I plan to offer a point of order against its consideration because the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 says that it is out of order for this Senate to pass an unfunded Federal mandate. The first thing I want to describe why this proposed ban on Internet taxation is an unfunded Federal mandate. No. 2, I want to discuss a strange case of amnesia that seems to have enveloped this distinguished body, a strange disease that has caused many Members to forget, as I mentioned a few moments ago, that in 1995, at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, went down to Williamsburg, VA, and promised Republican Governors that ``The first bill in the Senate, S. 1, is going to be unfunded mandates.'' This is especially surprising because Senator Dole was good to his word and, in fact, the second plank of the Contract With America that was enacted in this Congress was the ban on unfunded mandates. It was at the heart of the Contract With America. It was at the heart of the Republican revolution in 1994. At that time, I was campaigning across this country in 1994. Nothing I found made local officials and citizens madder than Washington politicians who pass unfunded mandates, claiming credit without facing the costs, whether it was the legislation I described involving children with disabilities, storm water runoff, or highly qualified teachers. As a result, 91 Senators voted for the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and 63 of those Senators are still here today. No. 3, I would like to discuss an amendment I will be proposing. I am filing tonight an amendment I call the Unfunded Federal Mandate Reimbursement Act. If a majority of the Senate should decide that banning State and local taxation of the Internet is important enough to create an unfunded Federal mandate--that is, claim the credit up here, but make it be done down there--then my amendment would provide a way for Congress to pay the bill for that by authorizing our Department of the Treasury to reimburse Tennessee and Minneapolis and other State and local governments each year for the cost of this new mandate. Let me say briefly what we are talking about and what we are not talking about. We are not talking about the issue of whether to authorize States to require out-of-State companies, such as L. L. Bean, that sell by catalog or Internet, to collect the same Tennessee sales tax that Friedman's Army Surplus Store would collect when it sells me a red-and-black plaid shirt. That is an entirely different piece of legislation. The Senator from Wyoming and others have sponsored that legislation. The Senator from North Dakota is a part of that. We are not talking about making it easier to collect sales tax from Internet and catalog companies. What we are talking about is whether Tennessee and other States can collect a sales tax from an Internet service provider when it connects my computer to the Internet, just as it collects sales tax from the telephone company when it connects my telephone or from the cable TV company when it connects my TV. Tennessee has been collecting this tax since 1996. Nine other States and the District of Columbia also collect a tax on Internet access. The Knoxville News Sentinel had an excellent article on Sunday putting this into perspective. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Then there are some other steps that have to be taken. Not only is it defined as an unfunded intergovernmental mandate, there has to be a certain threshold of spending, $50 million adjusted by inflation, which today would be $64 million. So the Congressional Budget Office has given its opinion on that, and they have said yes; it is an unfunded Federal mandate. So what the legislation provides, and what I plan to do when this comes up on Thursday, is as the law says. That it is not in order for this body to pass an unfunded Federal intergovernmental mandate, and that a point of order may be raised against its consideration. I plan to raise such a point of order. The point of order may be waived by this body by 51 votes, which I hope it does not do because this body told the world in 1995 that it was through with this business of unfunded mandates. But we will see. We will see. I will agree that it sounds good to say we are not going to tax Internet access. I will agree that there may be a Federal interest in not taxing Internet access. I agreed when the issue first came up in the 1990s that while the Internet was still an infant, maybe for the first 3 years a moratorium would be in order. But if we think it is so important, then we should pay the bill. We should pay the bill. We should not fall into this bad habit that existed before the Republican revolution of 1994 of assuming that just because we were elected to come to Washington, suddenly we are all wise and that the Governors and mayors and legislators are not quite as wise and that we, therefore, ought to tell them what to do and that we ought to restrict their ability to do it or not do it based upon what their tax base is. Let them do their job and we can do ours. I want to end where I began. It is a privilege to be in this body. One of the greatest privileges is to stand up here and say, on the floor of the Senate, something I used to think about as Governor time after time: Why are those Senators and those Congressmen assuming I can't do my job here? Why are they passing rules and then telling me to pay the bill, especially when they are printing money and we are balancing budgets? I think we should draw the line. If we really believe that a ban on Internet access in a segment of the telecommunications interest is so overwhelmingly in the Federal interest, then let's pass an unfunded Federal mandate reimbursement bill and send a check to the States, to Minneapolis, Nashville, Tennessee, every year, for whatever the cost of that is. I remind my colleagues, and I intend to do so as long as I am here, that they were right in 1994 about the Contract With America. They were right when they stood on the steps of the Capitol and promised: No more unfunded mandates. If we break our contract, throw us out. And they were right when they passed by 91 to 9 in 1995 the ban against unfunded Federal mandates. I hope the 64 of my colleagues who are still here remember that vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair. Let me go to my first point, why this proposed legislation is an unfunded mandate. The proposed legislation is an unfunded mandate because it would make it illegal for these States to continue to collect State and local Internet access taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these losses would amount to $80 billion to $120 billion a year. That is not all. The language of the legislation enacted by the House of Representatives, and every version of that language we have seen thus far in this Chamber, broadens the ban on taxation on Internet access and increases the size of the Federal unfunded mandates, extending to some degree to other telecommunications services, which is why I suppose we have begun to see the halls filled with lobbyists from the telecommunications industry as they anticipate the possibility that this Congress might be exempting them from some or maybe all of the taxes that State and local governments put on telecommunications. Now, there are many estimates about how much this would cost State and local governments. I have a study prepared in November of 2001 by Ernst & Young for the telecommunications State and local tax coalition. This study by Ernst & Young says that telecommunications providers and consumers of telecommunications services paid a total of $18.1 billion in State and local taxes in 1999. I am not suggesting this ban on Internet taxation would eliminate all of the $18 billion of State and local taxation on telecommunications, but virtually everyone agrees that it would eliminate some. Every time we, in our wisdom, tell a State or a city that it cannot use this tax, all we are doing is increasing the chance that Minneapolis or Tennessee will increase some other tax, or fire some teachers or lay off some employees or close some parks. We have to balance budgets where we come from. If we knock out a substantial part of the ability to State and local governments to tax the Internet and some part of the telecommunications industry, we are only increasing the possibility in Tennessee of raising the property tax, of raising the sales tax, of raising the tax on medicine, of raising the tax on food or, in our State, making it more likely that we will have sooner or later an income tax. That is just one estimate. Another estimate by the Multistate Tax Commission reported on September 24, 2003: The Internet tax moratorium passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 17 would end up reducing State and local revenue collections by at least $4 billion, and as much as $8.75 billion by 2006, rather than the $500 million estimated cost under the legislation's narrow original focus. The sponsors of the Internet tax ban in the Senate, Senators Allen, Wyden and others, have been working with State and local officials and with other Senators to try to reduce the amount of loss to State and local governments. The House bill, which is also before the Senate, would cost Philadelphia, Nashville, Minneapolis, and our States up to $4 billion according to this study. So which taxes are they going to raise to replace it? Which teachers are they going to fire, from which school? Which park are they going to close? We are substituting our judgment for theirs. There are other more specific estimates. We have been hearing from States. The Governor of Tennessee called me. He is a Democrat. I am a Republican. That does not matter so much because I respect the office. I had lunch with another former Governor of Tennessee, one of my predecessors. He is a Democrat as well. He agrees with us, too. The Tennessee Department of Revenues says the managers' amendment will cost us $358 million a year. That is what the improved version of the House bill will cost one State, according to our State revenue department. Then other States have been writing me, and writing their Senators. They say the Allen-Wyden amendment will cost Kentucky $40 million to $50 million, maybe $200 million. The new Governor of Kentucky is being elected, I guess as we speak. He will have a surprise on his hands perhaps when he finds out that he has some taxes to raise or some services to cut because we, in our wisdom, wanted to dictate that. Iowa, $45 million to $50 million; Maine, $35 million; New Jersey, $600 million; Ohio, $55.7 million; South Dakota, $34 billion; Tennessee, $358 million, as I said; Washington State, $33 million. These are what the State governments are telling us the new and improved Senate version of the Internet tax ban would cost State and local governments. Those are some of the estimates we have heard about. Now, to my second point, why is this so important? Why should we just not let it go on through? Well, maybe one of the advantages of having been around a little while is I have seen and heard some things that I remember, such as 1994, I remember the Contract with America. I see my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. He remembers the Contract with America. He was a candidate, I believe, in that same year. While I do not believe he was there, surely we all remember the 300 Republicans who stood on the steps of the Capitol. This was in September of 1994. This was just before something that was to happen that had not happened in half a century. It was a resurgence in the country that elected a Republican Congress. What fueled all of that? What fueled that, according to the Heritage Foundation, in a candidate's briefing book that they did in 1996, looking back at 1994, chapter 14: With frustrated Americans focusing their anger increasingly on Washington and gridlock, many political candidates in 1994 successfully ran against Washington, appealing to voters to throw the bums out, replace them with individuals more honest and devoted to the public welfare. Then they began to list the items of the Contract with America, one of which was to stop unfunded mandates. I can remember that in 1994, the Republican Governors assembled in Williamsburg. They typically do this after an election every 2 years. There were 30 of them there. Governor Allen, now Senator, was the host, and Bob Dole, the new majority leader, came down. This is what he promised the Republican Governors, that S. 1, the first bill of the Senate, was going to be unfunded mandates. That was what Senator Dole promised the Republican Governors. At about the same time, the Heritage Foundation was making a list of the unfunded mandates in this country that had given rise to all of this anger and frustration among the American people. I will not read them all but it reports, for example, that the National Conference on State Legislatures had identified 192 unfunded mandates on the States, including Medicaid, regulations governing the use of underground storage tanks, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, only to name a few. Those are all wonderful acts, but what was happening was they were claiming credit up here and those of us who were down there were having to pay some of the bill. The U.S. Conference on Mayors and Price Waterhouse estimated that the 1994 to 1998 cost of these mandates, excluding Medicaid, on 314 cities was $54 billion, or 11.7 percent of all local taxes. The EPA estimates that environmental mandates cost State and local governments $30 billion to $40 billion annually. State and local governments spend $137 billion to ensure safe drinking water. These are good laws. I would like to have voted for them. I wish I had proposed many of them. But the reason we had to come in here this year and pass legislation sending $20 billion back to the States and to local governments was not just because of the recession. It was because, consistently over the last 20 years, we have undercut the ability of State and local officials to make decisions for themselves about what services to provide and how to pay the bills. One of my most vivid memories is of the distinguished former majority leader of the Senate, Bob Dole, who was elected in 1995 with that new Congress. He had a little copy of the United States Constitution, and he pulled it out when he met with the Governors in 1994 in Williamsburg, when they made the ``Williamsburg Resolve'' to stop these unfunded mandates. Senator Dole said he wanted to read to them the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Senator Dole went across this country during 1995, reading this amendment to Republican audiences and to audiences in general. I know because I was there at many of the same meetings; and I know because I was there, that this is the heart and the soul of the Contract With America and the Republican revolution in 1994. I am surprised that this case of amnesia has come over so many of my colleagues and that we have forgotten about the importance of this. This is a body that is very respectful of one another. It would not be appropriate, I do not think, for me to mention a Senator's name. I suppose I could do it within the rules of the Senate and then mention what he said about unfunded mandates in 1995 and apply it to the vote that we will be taking later this week. But let me read to you just a handful of examples of the kind of things that Members of this body said on this floor in 1995 when the Senate, by 91 to 9, passed the unfunded mandates bill. One Senator said: In my own State, I repeat to the Senate, local officials, whether it be the Secretary of the State or Labor implementing motor vehicle registrations, or the mayor of the little town where I come from, attempted to meet the needs of the small city. I have heard their appeals and they clearly are tired of the Federal Government telling them precisely how to do things by regulation when they could do it just as well in different ways at less cost to their people. A Democrat from the South: I believe there is a tendency, particularly during a time of constrained Federal resources, to look to the imposition of obligations on State and local government as a means of accomplishing national objectives which we at the national Government are either unwilling or unable to pay for. Another southern Senator, this one a Republican: We worry about how we attract good people into office. It is things like unfunded mandates that drives them out. Another Senator from the West: I served in the legislature and a good deal of our budget was committed before we ever arrived by Federal unfunded mandates. This goes on and on. The one other matter that I would like to specifically mention before I conclude is I want to remind, if I may, my colleagues of why this is an unfunded mandate. Several have come up to me and said: This doesn't sound like an unfunded mandate to me. I thought an unfunded mandate was only when you pass a law to do a program, like help children with disabilities, and then only pay half the bill, which is what we do. That is one kind of unfunded mandate. But another kind of unfunded mandate that is specifically defined by the Budget Act that was amended in 1995 by this Congress is a direct cost that . . . would be required to be spent or prohibited from raising in revenues, in order to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate. In other words, the term ``unfunded mandates'' just requires the requirements that we impose when we don't pay the bill. Whether we are requiring a new program or whether we are telling the State it cannot do this tax or that tax, it is a requirement we are imposing without paying the bill. In other words, we are claiming credit and asking others to pay the cost. The Uniform Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 created a very specific procedure for this. This isn't guesswork. It said that when there appears to be an unfunded mandate, that here is how we enforce that. First, the Senate committee of relevant jurisdiction--in this case it would be the Commerce Committee--under section 423 of the Budget Act, submits a request for an assessment, identification, and description of any unfunded Federal mandate. That was done. The Commerce Committee asked the Congressional Budget Office: Is this ban on Internet access taxation an unfunded Federal mandate? And the Congressional Budget Office said: Yes. I ask unanimous consent that a report by the Congressional Research Service be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that is very generous. How much time do I have to finish the speech?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come at this differently than the Senator from Mississippi. I don't know Charles Pickering. I have met him briefly only twice. But I care about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bridget Lipscomb and I have studied his record diligently. Nearly 40 years ago, I was a law clerk on the Fifth Circuit for the great Judge John Minor Wisdom. I have been trying to think of something to say to the Members on the other side to help them change their minds on this nomination. Judge Wisdom was a member of the Federal court that ordered the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith to Ole Miss. The Fifth Circuit played a crucial role in desegregating the South. Judges Tuttle, Rives, Brown, and Wisdom were real heroes at that time. Crosses were burned in front of their homes. I will have more to say about this, but Judge Pickering is a worthy successor to the court of Judges Wisdom, Tuttle, Rives, and Brown. While those judges were ordering the desegregation of Deep South schools, while crosses were being burned in front of their homes, Judge Pickering was enrolling his children in those same newly desegregated schools, and Judge Pickering in his hometown was testifying in court against Sam Bowers, the man the Baton Rouge Advocate called the ``most violent living racist,'' at a time when people were killing people based on race. Many of my generation have changed their minds about race in the South over the last 40 years. That is why the opposition to Judge Pickering to me seems so blatantly unfair. He hasn't changed his mind. There is nothing to forgive him for. There is nothing to condemn. There is nothing to excuse. He was not a product of his times. He led his times. He spoke out for racial justice. He testified against the most dangerous of the cross burners. He did it in his own hometown, with his own neighbors, at a time in our Nation's history when it was hardest to do. He stuck his neck out for civil rights. Mr. President, will our message to the world be: Stick out your neck for civil rights for Mississippi in the 1960s and then we will cut your neck off in the Senate in 2003, all in the name of civil rights? I certainly hope not. Charles Pickering earned this nomination. He is a worthy successor to the court of Judge Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown.

Mr. ALEXANDER. May I ask for 10 minutes?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah for their generosity. Let me remake my first point. I care about this case because I care about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Many of the Senators know or knew Judge John Minor Wisdom. They knew what a great judge he was. They knew what the times were like in the Deep South during the 1960s and 1970s. I remember Judge Wisdom once telling me the Ku Klux Klan had burned a cross in the intersection between his home and that of Congressman Hale Boggs. Judge Wisdom said: They were getting both of us with one cross burning. So I set out some time ago, with my staff, to look through the record of Judge Pickering to see what he has done. All the evidence is that Judge Pickering, like Judge Wisdom, like Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown, stuck his neck out for civil rights at a time when it was hardest to do. Mississippians know that. William Winter, with whom I served, a leading former Democrat Governor, a leader for racial justice, strongly supports Judge Pickering. Frank Hunger, who served on that court with me as a law clerk back in the 1960s, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, Al Gore's brother-in-law, strongly supports Judge Pickering. I have lived in the South for a long time, about the same amount of time as Judge Pickering. I have learned to tell those who are racists, those who stood silently by, and those who stuck their necks out. Let me invite my colleagues to go back with me to Mississippi, to the late 1960s. James Meredith had become the only Black to graduate from the undergraduate school at Ole Miss. Reuben Anderson, who has endorsed Judge Pickering, had become the first Black graduate of the Ole Miss Law School. In Nashville, where I went to school at Vanderbilt, the first integrated class had just graduated from Vanderbilt University. Robert Clark became the first black elected to the Mississippi Legislature since the Reconstruction. It was not until 1968, that the first blacks were permitted to participate in intercollegiate athletics at the University of Florida and Georgia and Tennessee and other Southeastern Conference schools. The law had changed but there were still plenty of ``colored only'' signs on restroom doors in plenty old southern cities during the late 1960s. Martin Luther King was murdered in Memphis during 1968. Alabama Governor George Wallace won the Democrat primary for president in 1976 in Mississippi, and in Boston, Massachusetts. Perhaps my colleagues saw the movie, ``Mississippi Burning.'' That was about events during 1967 in Mississippi. Civil rights workers Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered. They were picked up by three carloads of Klansmen, shot and their bodies were buried in a 15- foot earthen dam. In 1967, seven men were convicted of federal conspiracy charges, eight were acquitted and three received mistrials. At the time, the state of Mississippi refused to file murder charges. To this day, no one has ever been tried for those murders. Wes Pruden, a young reporter at the time, told me he went to a Mississippi courtroom and everybody in the courtroom except the judge had a button on that said ``Never.'' That was the environment in which Charles Pickering was living in Laurel, Mississippi in Jones County in the late 1960s. Blacks were just beginning to serve on juries. A few Blacks voted. Schools were being desegregated one grade at a time starting with the lower grades so that older children would have less opportunity to interact socially. Race was not a theoretical issue in Laurel in the late sixties, or even a political issue. People were killing people based on race in the late 1960s in Jones County, MS. The White Citizens Council, a group of white collar, non-violent segregationists was the country club version of resistance to integration in Laurel. Klan members were known at that time in Laurel for putting on their white robes, opening up their bibles, building a bonfire in a pasture, crossing a sword and a gun over a bible, and proceeding to burn down the home of a black person. The KKK in Laurel shot into homes and beat blacks over the head with baseball bats. One did not speak out lightly against the Klan because its members could very well be your neighbor or your co-worker. The Klan infiltrated law enforcement departments and juries. The Klan put out fliers instructing residents not to cooperate with the FBI on cases. Laurel was Klan territory. It was the home of Sam Bowers. Bowers had created the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan because he believed that the regular KKK was not violent enough. The Klan was out to resist integration, but that was not enough for Sam Bowers. The White Knights set out to oppose racial integration ``by any means necessary.'' Since 9/11 we have heard a lot of talk about terrorists. This is not the first time we have seen terrorists in America. We had terrorists then. Sam Bowers and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Laurel, MS, were the terrorists of the 1960s. The FBI said the White Knights were responsible for at least 10 killings then. The Times of London said Bowers himself was suspected of the orchestration of 300 bombings. According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, Sam Bowers was ``America's most violent living racist.'' Charles Pickering made public statements condemning Klan violence. He worked with the FBI to prosecute and stop Klan violence. In the late 1960s, Bowers came up for trial for the murder of the slain civil rights worker, Vernon Dahmer, and Judge Pickering testified publicly against Bowers. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two documents. The first is a Klan newsletter from 1967 criticizing Pickering for cooperating with the FBI. The second is Bowers' own Motion for Recusal filed in Federal court, asking Pickering to remove himself from hearing a case involving Bowers because of Pickering's previous testimony against Bowers and taking credit for defeating Judge Pickering in a statewide race for attorney general.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will not dwell on the lifelong record of Mr. Pickering. But his testimony against Sam Bowers was not an isolated instance. I will not dwell on the charge some have made about a 1994 case. Senator Hatch dealt with that, although I ask unanimous consent to include two articles, one from the National Review Online and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explaining what really happened. In short, the Justice Department botched the case and the ringleader in the cross burning was turned loose. Pickering then properly reduced a juvenile accomplice's sentence from seven and one half years to 27 months, severely criticizing him. In terms of the struggle for equality and freedom, I have seen the South and our Nation change for the better during my lifetime. I have tried to help bring about that change. When I look back now, it seems embarrassingly slow and amazing that it was so hard. I remember as a student at Vanderbilt in 1962, when we raised the issue of integrating the student body, the student body voted no. I remember in 1980 I appointed the first Black Tennessee supreme court justice, and he was defeated in the next election. I remember it was 1985 before we had the Martin Luther King Holiday, and the legislature nearly voted it down. I appointed the first two African American vice presidents of the University of Tennessee, but that did not happen until 1989. Our country, from its beginning, has truly been a work in progress. And on this issue, racial justice, we have had an especially hard time making progress. We have had a hard time changing our minds. The truth is, most members of my own generation have had one view about race in the 1960's and another view today. Many of the men and women who are judges, who are mayors, who are legislators, who are Senators today, opposed integration in the 1950s, opposed the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. They were against the Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s, and we welcome them to society today. We have confirmed some of them to the Federal bench, some of them Democrats, some of them Republicans. What is especially ironic about this incident is that Judge Pickering was not one of those people whose ideas we have to excuse. He led his times. He spoke out. He would have, I am certain, joined Judge Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown in ordering Ole Miss to admit James Meredith to the University of Mississippi 40 years ago. Why would we not now recognize this man, who lived in the Deep South, who did what we all hope we would have had the courage to do, but might not have done in the late 1960s? Why would we not now honor and recognize that service by confirming his nomination to this appellate court? I care about the court. I care about these issues. I have studied the record as carefully as I could. All of the evidence supports the fact that Charles Pickering is a worthy successor on the Fifth Circuit to the court of Judge John Minor Wisdom, Judge Elbert Tuttle, Judge Richard Rives, and Judge John R. Brown. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words concerning the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering. Throughout the entire history of the Senate, no judicial nominee has ever been defeated by a filibuster. Yet in this session alone, four nominations have been blocked by this unconstitutional obstruction. Soon, there will be five, six, and likely even more nominees facing partisan filibusters. this obstruction flies in the face of more than 200 years of Senate tradition, the constitutional role of the Congress, and the consent of the governed. While all of these filibusters are wrong, it seems to me that the tactics employed against certain nominees is particularly disgraceful. First, we witnessed the hostile attitude towards Leon Holmes, a nominee for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Despite having earned the support of each of his home state Senators--both members of the minority--Mr. Holmes was sharply criticized--not for his legal work, but for his personal writings about his religious views. Then we witnessed the strident animus directed toward Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor--who was repeatedly challenged over whether his ``philosophy'' and ``deeply held views,'' particularly those arising from his religious beliefs, precluded him from becoming a judge. And now, today, we are witnessing the terrible treatment of Judge Charles Pickering. This is an issue that is of particular importance to my state, because Judge Pickering has been nominated to a long-standing vacancy on the Fifth Circuit--which covers Texas and Louisiana in addition to Mississippi. Like the other nominees, Judge Pickering is a deeply religious man. He is also a man from the South. And I believe he is clearly qualified to serve on the federal bench, as he has been serving for over a decade. Yet Judge Pickering has, like others, become the target of a venomous special interest group campaign, one directed against Southerners and against those who take their faith seriously. A representative of one of these groups recently called Judge Pickering a ``racist,'' a ``bigot,'' and ``a woman-hater.'' It is sad to see this shameful caricature of a well-qualified, respected man. And it is sadder still to see these special interests dominate the other side of the aisle. I hoped such tactics would never gain apologists among any members of this body, but hearing this debate today, I fear that my hope was all for naught. This Nation, both North and South, has for too long suffered from the scourge of racism. We have made a great deal of progress so far, and there is more to go. but even as we condemn racism with all our might, we must also condemn false charges of racism. Every false charge of racism weakens a true charge of racism, and ultimately, that hurts us all. Judge Pickering has been praised and supported by those who know him best--by those who have worked by his side, and seen him fight racism in his home state of Mississippi. My fellow Southerners who have reviewed the record carefully agree. All six Mississippi statewide officeholders, including five Democrats, have stated that Judge Pickering's ``record demonstrates his commitment to equal protection, equal rights and fairness for all.'' The senior Senator from Louisiana has applauded Pickering's lifelong campaign against racism, characterizing them as ``acts of courage.'' And the Senators from Georgia have written that, ``Pickering's critics have and will continue to unfairly label him a racist and segregationist,'' and that ``nothing could be further from the truth.'' But perhaps the most compelling views on this subject have been expressed by Mr. Charles Evers. He is the brother of the slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers, and he has personally known Judge Pickering for over 30 years. He is intimately familiar with Judge Pickering's numerous actions throughout his career to fight racism, often with deep sacrifice and personal cost. Mr. Evers wrote in the Wall Street Journal in support of Judge Pickering, saying, As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for equal treatment of African-Americans, I can tell you with certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on civil rights issues. He has taken tough stands at tough times in the past, and the treatment he and his record are receiving at the hands of certain interest groups is shameful . . . Those in Washington and New York who criticize Judge Pickering are the same people who have always looked down on Mississippi and its people, and have done very little for our state's residents. I hope that today the Senate will take a stand against the despicable tactics of radical special interest groups. We must not allow the special interests' exploitation of religious views, stereotypes, or false caricatures--concerning Southerners or any other people--to decide a vote on any nominee. Such reprehensible practices have no place in this debate. And it is a dark day for the Senate and for America's independent judiciary when we allow special interests to dictate the basis for disqualification. I ask my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Pickering, to reject the inhuman caricature that has been drawn by special interest groups intent on vilifying, demonizing, and marginalizing an admirable nominee. I hope that my colleagues will give all these qualified nominees what they deserve, and allow them to have an up or down vote. For the sake of the Senate, the Nation, and our independent judiciary, I hope that these days of obstruction finally end.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bridget Lipscomb, a member of my staff, be given the privilege of the floor during the consideration of Judge Pickering's nomination.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003. This bi- partisan bill proposes to reauthorize important legislation that provides meaningful assistance to 18 million Americans seeking to fight their way out of poverty. The bill includes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Program. Statistics show us that poverty touches a large proportion of Americans over their lifetimes. Sometimes poverty is a chronic condition that persists over several generations. But more often, poverty happens as a consequence of life's unexpected tragedies-- illness, job loss, divorce, or disability. These can seriously undermine a family's ability to support itself. What's needed is a safety net in such times of need. Our Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act can provide that help and can make the difference in a family's efforts to fight their way out of poverty become self-sufficient again. The services of the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act are provided primarily through Community Action Agencies, created 40 years ago. The heart of these programs are those provided through the Community Services Block Grant, created in 1981. The block grant allows for maximum flexibility to tailor programs to meet local needs with minimal administrative cost. Today the programs touch the lives of almost 25 percent of those living in poverty. These programs fund a state- administered community services network of more than 1000 local agencies that work to alleviate poverty and empower low-income families in communities across the United States. The agencies are very effective in leveraging their funds to mobilize additional resources from local businesses and foundations, as well as other public sources, to make an effective impact in fighting poverty in their communities. A number of social services are provided that are designed to help low-income individuals and their families achieve a better quality of life. They help people find and keep a good job, get an adequate education, obtain a decent place to live, pay their utility bills, and even learn how to manage a household income. The Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act has five major themes for its services: to assist families in poverty address their immediate, most basic needs and work toward self-sufficiency; to serve the non- traditional poor who are facing poverty due to unexpected events such as a plant closing or a major illness or injury; to assist special populations, including those dealing with chronic poverty and for whom conventional solutions have failed; to work for systemic change in low- income communities to promote economic development and community revitalization; and to provide direct assistance to help low-income individuals pay their utility bills. These programs are the true ``safety net'' for millions of low-income and at-risk families and individuals and serve as the centerpiece of most local social service programs in 96 percent of the counties across the country. Last year the programs in the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act served over 19 million people, primarily through CSBG, serving 13 million, and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, providing assistance to over 5 million. In Tennessee, over 100,000 individuals were served by CSBG last year, almost 25 percent of whom were disabled. Over 60,000 families were served, 90 percent were living below the federal poverty level, and 40 percent were elderly or disabled families living on a fixed income. And those who are helped in turn help others by volunteering in the programs and giving back to their community. For example, in my home State of Tennessee, long known as the Volunteer State, those who benefitted from these programs gave back to others by working over 190,000 volunteer hours. And there is good accountability for how those funds are spent in the community. Each agency is governed by a board of directors, a third of which consists of representatives who live in the low-income community, a third are locally elected officials, and the remaining third are community leaders from business, labor, religion, and education. These programs are not only important to those who receive services; they also make good use of the Federal dollar. Last year in addition to the Federal monies appropriated for these three programs, the community agencies identified other state and local monies and private contributions. In total, local agencies administered over $9 billion on behalf of low-income families and individuals in communities across the country. In addition to good fiscal accountability and effective use of Federal dollars to leverage additional resources, the programs are a model when it comes to tracking and reporting the outcomes they are helping people achieve. In Tennessee, for example, we know that 43 percent of individuals who were seeking employment were able to find a job, and two-thirds of those jobs included health care coverage. Over 75 percent of those seeking housing assistance were able to move from sub-standard to good, stable housing, and 524 families were moved out of homelessness. Over 85 percent of elderly households assisted were able to continue living independently. Through LIHEAP in Tennessee, over 72,000 received assistance in paying their utility bills, thereby avoiding having their heating and cooling cut off, which is of very real importance for health and safety as well as quality of life. The high cost of energy is a growing problem for those families trying to get by on a lower income and for our elderly living on fixed incomes. By helping these people in meaningful ways, the programs administered under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act have not only made a difference in thousands of lives but have also saved my state money in significant ways--by avoiding the higher costs of homelessness, reducing the number of people in poverty, reducing the need for nursing homes and institutional care, and providing an important ``bridge'' to help people moving off of welfare achieve permanent self-sufficiency, While these programs have had many very real successes in the past, as we approached this reauthorization we also looked for ways we could improve the programs and provide even better access to and delivery of these important services. In drafting the reauthorization we gave particular attention to clarifying and strengthening the purpose of these important programs, which, in summary, is to fight and reduce poverty, working in partnerships with community and state leadership. In this reauthorization we believed it was important to give states greater flexibility in determining who should receive services. We wanted to expand services to the extent possible to assist more of the working poor and their families achieve economic stability and self- sufficiency. While giving more flexibility, we also provided incentives to encourage States to focus on those most in need and to help those transitions from welfare to self-sufficiency. And we strengthened the accountability and monitoring of funds at both the state and local level. We explicitly asked States to hold the line on excessive administrative salaries and expenses, again at both the state and agency level. In this reauthorization we also wanted to highlight best practices and encourage creativity and innovation in fighting poverty. We called for identifying exemplary local agencies as Centers of Innovation to promote the sharing of best practices among all community agencies. Focusing on outcomes, we directed local agencies to have established clear goals for reducing poverty in their community and to show that substantial progress is being made in meeting those goals before receiving continuing block grant funds. These goals include leveraging community resources and fostering coordination across Federal, State, local, and private programs and services. In the area of heating and cooling assistance, we are recommending a significant increase in the funds authorized for this important program, and we have added provisions and specific triggers that allow for better, more effective release of emergency funds for LIHEAP assistance under extraordinary circumstances. The programs included under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003 are important to millions of Americans who deserve our consideration and need our support. The services touch almost every community in the country and are often the only source of assistance available to the people the programs are designed to serve. Quite simply, what these services do is help restore dignity to those we serve. Every day one of these programs makes a difference in the lives of our neediest citizens. What this bill can accomplish will make possible a better quality of life for individuals and for neighborhoods and communities across this great land. I join my colleague Senator Dodd in urging the passage of this important reauthorization legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003. This bi- partisan bill proposes to reauthorize important legislation that provides meaningful assistance to 18 million Americans seeking to fight their way out of poverty. The bill includes the Community Services Block Grant, the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Assets for Independence Program. Statistics show us that poverty touches a large proportion of Americans over their lifetimes. Sometimes poverty is a chronic condition that persists over several generations. But more often, poverty happens as a consequence of life's unexpected tragedies-- illness, job loss, divorce, or disability. These can seriously undermine a family's ability to support itself. What's needed is a safety net in such times of need. Our Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act can provide that help and can make the difference in a family's efforts to fight their way out of poverty become self-sufficient again. The services of the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act are provided primarily through Community Action Agencies, created 40 years ago. The heart of these programs are those provided through the Community Services Block Grant, created in 1981. The block grant allows for maximum flexibility to tailor programs to meet local needs with minimal administrative cost. Today the programs touch the lives of almost 25 percent of those living in poverty. These programs fund a state- administered community services network of more than 1000 local agencies that work to alleviate poverty and empower low-income families in communities across the United States. The agencies are very effective in leveraging their funds to mobilize additional resources from local businesses and foundations, as well as other public sources, to make an effective impact in fighting poverty in their communities. A number of social services are provided that are designed to help low-income individuals and their families achieve a better quality of life. They help people find and keep a good job, get an adequate education, obtain a decent place to live, pay their utility bills, and even learn how to manage a household income. The Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act has five major themes for its services: to assist families in poverty address their immediate, most basic needs and work toward self-sufficiency; to serve the non- traditional poor who are facing poverty due to unexpected events such as a plant closing or a major illness or injury; to assist special populations, including those dealing with chronic poverty and for whom conventional solutions have failed; to work for systemic change in low- income communities to promote economic development and community revitalization; and to provide direct assistance to help low-income individuals pay their utility bills. These programs are the true ``safety net'' for millions of low-income and at-risk families and individuals and serve as the centerpiece of most local social service programs in 96 percent of the counties across the country. Last year the programs in the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act served over 19 million people, primarily through CSBG, serving 13 million, and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, providing assistance to over 5 million. In Tennessee, over 100,000 individuals were served by CSBG last year, almost 25 percent of whom were disabled. Over 60,000 families were served, 90 percent were living below the federal poverty level, and 40 percent were elderly or disabled families living on a fixed income. And those who are helped in turn help others by volunteering in the programs and giving back to their community. For example, in my home State of Tennessee, long known as the Volunteer State, those who benefitted from these programs gave back to others by working over 190,000 volunteer hours. And there is good accountability for how those funds are spent in the community. Each agency is governed by a board of directors, a third of which consists of representatives who live in the low-income community, a third are locally elected officials, and the remaining third are community leaders from business, labor, religion, and education. These programs are not only important to those who receive services; they also make good use of the Federal dollar. Last year in addition to the Federal monies appropriated for these three programs, the community agencies identified other state and local monies and private contributions. In total, local agencies administered over $9 billion on behalf of low-income families and individuals in communities across the country. In addition to good fiscal accountability and effective use of Federal dollars to leverage additional resources, the programs are a model when it comes to tracking and reporting the outcomes they are helping people achieve. In Tennessee, for example, we know that 43 percent of individuals who were seeking employment were able to find a job, and two-thirds of those jobs included health care coverage. Over 75 percent of those seeking housing assistance were able to move from sub-standard to good, stable housing, and 524 families were moved out of homelessness. Over 85 percent of elderly households assisted were able to continue living independently. Through LIHEAP in Tennessee, over 72,000 received assistance in paying their utility bills, thereby avoiding having their heating and cooling cut off, which is of very real importance for health and safety as well as quality of life. The high cost of energy is a growing problem for those families trying to get by on a lower income and for our elderly living on fixed incomes. By helping these people in meaningful ways, the programs administered under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act have not only made a difference in thousands of lives but have also saved my state money in significant ways--by avoiding the higher costs of homelessness, reducing the number of people in poverty, reducing the need for nursing homes and institutional care, and providing an important ``bridge'' to help people moving off of welfare achieve permanent self-sufficiency, While these programs have had many very real successes in the past, as we approached this reauthorization we also looked for ways we could improve the programs and provide even better access to and delivery of these important services. In drafting the reauthorization we gave particular attention to clarifying and strengthening the purpose of these important programs, which, in summary, is to fight and reduce poverty, working in partnerships with community and state leadership. In this reauthorization we believed it was important to give states greater flexibility in determining who should receive services. We wanted to expand services to the extent possible to assist more of the working poor and their families achieve economic stability and self- sufficiency. While giving more flexibility, we also provided incentives to encourage States to focus on those most in need and to help those transitions from welfare to self-sufficiency. And we strengthened the accountability and monitoring of funds at both the state and local level. We explicitly asked States to hold the line on excessive administrative salaries and expenses, again at both the state and agency level. In this reauthorization we also wanted to highlight best practices and encourage creativity and innovation in fighting poverty. We called for identifying exemplary local agencies as Centers of Innovation to promote the sharing of best practices among all community agencies. Focusing on outcomes, we directed local agencies to have established clear goals for reducing poverty in their community and to show that substantial progress is being made in meeting those goals before receiving continuing block grant funds. These goals include leveraging community resources and fostering coordination across Federal, State, local, and private programs and services. In the area of heating and cooling assistance, we are recommending a significant increase in the funds authorized for this important program, and we have added provisions and specific triggers that allow for better, more effective release of emergency funds for LIHEAP assistance under extraordinary circumstances. The programs included under the Poverty Reduction and Prevention Act of 2003 are important to millions of Americans who deserve our consideration and need our support. The services touch almost every community in the country and are often the only source of assistance available to the people the programs are designed to serve. Quite simply, what these services do is help restore dignity to those we serve. Every day one of these programs makes a difference in the lives of our neediest citizens. What this bill can accomplish will make possible a better quality of life for individuals and for neighborhoods and communities across this great land. I join my colleague Senator Dodd in urging the passage of this important reauthorization legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in our political speeches, Senators, especially we Republicans, have a lot to say in defense of the Tenth Amendment, that all powers not expressly given to the central government are reserved to the States. We are big talkers about local control, about State responsibilities, and about State rights. Somehow, when we get to Washington and away from home, a lot of that goes up in smoke. We start thinking of grand ideas and sending State and local governments the bill to pay for our grand ideas. Special education for children with disabilities, but we say to the State and local governments, you pay the bill. New construction to stop storm water runoff, but we say to the cities, you pay the bill. Higher standards for roads, we say to the States, you pay the bill. New standards for highly qualified teachers, you pay the bill. We call these unfunded mandates. What I want to talk about today is the worst kind of unfunded mandate. Not only do we have grand ideas and are telling State and local governments that they have to pay for them, we now want to tell them how to pay for them. The latest such example is to tell State and local governments that a tax on Internet access or telephones is somehow a worse tax, a bad tax they should not be allowed to pursue, than a tax on medicine, food, or an income tax. I supported a moratorium for 7 years on State and local access to the Internet so the Internet could get up and get going, but now it is up and going. It ought to be absolutely on its own with other commercial activity. Yet our friends in the House of Representatives and some in the Senate would not only extend the moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access, they would broaden it. This is none of the Congress's business. It is a State and local responsibility to decide how to pay the bill to fund State parks, local schools, roads, prisons, colleges, and universities. That is what Governors do. That is what legislators do. That is what mayors do. That is what county commissioners and city council men and women do. The inevitable result of such unfunded mandates from Washington, DC, telling States what taxes they can and cannot use, is to transfer more government to Washington, DC, because here we can print money to pay for it. It sounds awfully good to say we are banning a tax, but what we are actually doing is favoring one tax over another tax with the decision made in Washington, DC. For example, if Tennessee's ability to have a broad-based sales tax is limited, then the chances that Tennessee will have an income tax are higher, or a higher tax on medicine or food, or higher college tuition for families to pay. The same goes for Florida, Texas, Washington State, or any other State. Some say this interference in State prerogatives and local prerogatives is justified by the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and that the Internet is too important to carry its fair share of the taxes. I ask: Is access to the Internet more important than food? If not, then why not limit the State sales tax on food, medicine, electricity, natural gas, water, corporations generally, car tags, telephones, cable TV? They are all in interstate commerce. Let us limit the tax on all of them from Washington, DC. Unless we want to get rid of State and local governments and transfer all responsibilities for local schools, colleges, prisons, State parks, and roads to Washington, DC, and claim all wisdom resides here, then we have no business telling State and local governments how they pay the bill for legitimate services. We should read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and get back to our basic job of funding war, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and debt. And leave decisions about what services to provide and what taxes to impose to State and local governments and to State and locally elected officials. Under the rules of the Senate, because this bill imposes costs on States without paying for them, it is an unfunded mandate and subject to a point of order to pass this bill that would extend the moratorium on State and local ability to tax access to the Internet. In its cost estimate of September 9, 2003, the Congressional Budget Office determined that S. 150, as reported by the Commerce Committee, would impose direct costs on State and local governments of lost revenues of $80 million to $120 million per year beginning in 2007. Because the estimate exceeds the threshold of $64 million for 2007, this is an intergovernmental mandate, subject to a point of order. According to the Multi-state Tax Commission, the bill has the potential to exempt telephone and cable companies from a broad array of State and local taxes that could amount to an unfunded mandate on State and local governments of up to $9 billion a year. Every Senator who votes to overturn the point of order to this bill would be voting for an unfunded mandate, which most of us have promised not to do. Let the moratorium on access to the Internet die a well-deserved and natural death when it expires on November 1 and let us remember the Republican Congress 10 years ago promised to end unfunded mandates. I ask unanimous consent that certain information from the Congressional Budget Act describing unfunded mandates and the point of order that is possible to be raised in opposition to such mandates be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, President Harry Truman once said that ``the only thing new is what we have forgotten about history.'' I am reminded of our history when I think about this debate on giving a loan. I am thinking of the choices we made when dealing with Germany after World War I, and then after World War II. After World War I, we made a choice that was a grave mistake. We defeated Germany, left them in ruins, sent them a bill, and we went home. What was the result? Adolf Hitler. As early as 1922, Hitler was railing against the Treaty of Versailles, talking about the payments Germany was forced to make. Eleven years later, in 1933, he became Chancellor of Germany. He was democratically elected. He, again, blamed the Treaty of Versailles and the payment of those debts for Germany's woes. Under such a debt with a failed reconstruction policy, we can see the same thing happening in Iraq. Our post-World War I policy with Germany was an utter failure. It gave us World War II. After World War II, we almost made the same mistake. We began by making loans. This is a summary of the Marshall plan by the Marshall Foundation. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.

Mr. ALEXANDER. The Marshall Foundation said: The idea of massive U.S. loans to individual countries had already been tried [right after World War II] (nearly $20 billion--mainly long-term low-interest loans--since the war's end) and had failed to make significant headway against Europe's social and economic problems. But there was a better idea, a different choice that someone learned from history. It was George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year plan, $13.3 billion, helping to rebuild the economies of 16 countries. Nearly $12 billion was grants, about $1 billion was loan, and what was the result? A continent that had been fighting itself for a thousand years became democratic, stopped fighting among themselves, and became our allies. That is why we need a ``Marshall plan'' for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5- year plan for building a democracy. The Marshall plan was used for a variety of purposes. It paid for the building of railroads, water systems, medicines, modernizing factories, restoring ports to allow foreign trade, and much, much more. We should do the same in Iraq. It cost $13 billion from 1948 to 1952--more than $100 billion in today's dollars. We can learn a valuable lesson from our experiences with Germany after World War I, a terrible failure, and after World War II, a remarkable success. After World War I, we made Germany pay its debts and we left them in ruins. We sent them a bill. We went home. We got Adolf Hitler. After World War II, we pursued the Marshall plan. It cost us some money. We gave them the money but as a result we got peace, new democratic economies, and our greatest allies. President Kennedy said it best in 1961. In his inaugural address, he said: We shall pay any price, we shall bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and success of liberty. The people of Iraq need our support. We paid for German reconstruction under the Marshall plan because it was in our interest. We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We cannot afford, in our own interest, to do anything less.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the challenge described by the Senator from North Carolina is immense: Restructuring the economy and government of a country that has borne decades of neglect by a tyrannical regime. If we fail, the consequences could be a disaster. A fractured, failed Iraq could become a safe haven for terrorists, a caldron for fomenting extremism, and a destabilizing force to its neighbors, throwing the entire Middle East into chaos. If we succeed, the results could be extraordinary. A democratic and economically vibrant Iraq would be a shining example to her neighbors that Islam and democracy can coexist. More important, such an Iraq would be a friend to the United States. I have often come to this floor to talk about the importance of teaching our children American history and civics so they grow up learning what it means to be an American. Former President Harry Truman put it this way. He said: The only thing new is the history you've forgotten. Let me look at history. I am reminded most about the choices we made when dealing with postwar Germany, after World War I and World War II. At the end of World War I, we made a grave mistake. We punished Germany for its actions. The Treaty of Versailles, which formally declared the end of the war, ordered Germany to repay its debt to other European countries and denied any aid for reconstructing war-torn Germany. Even though a new democratic government sprang up in Germany at that time, the Weimar Republic, we chose not to provide help but to tell the Germans to ``pay up.'' In other words, we defeated them, left them in ruins, sent them a bill, and went home. Sometimes we forget that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. What was the result? As early as 1922, a young Hitler was already railing against the Treaty of Versailles and the payments Germany was forced to make. Eleven years later, in 1933, Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany--elected. Again, he blamed the Treaty of Versailles for Germany's woes. He said: We want to liberate Germany from the fetters of an impossible parliamentary democracy. Under such a heavy burden of debt, with a failed reconstruction policy, Hitler convinced the German people that democracy was too much of a burden. We all know what happened next--another world war that was more devastating than the first. Our post-World War I policy with Germany was a complete failure. One can imagine a similar scenario playing out in Iraq today if we make the wrong choice. Let's say the United States, after getting a new Iraqi government in place, decides to go home and orders Iraq to pay its bills, as some on the other side of the aisle would have us do. It is not hard to imagine a new Iraqi leader emerging who blames Iraq's economic woes on the United States, who decries the debt we are making Iraq repay, who says we only waged the war in order to encumber its oil; a new leader coming to power on the wave of anti-American sentiment who proceeds to destroy the fledgling democratic system the United States helped to establish in Iraq; and suddenly, a few years down the road, we have a new evil tyrant running Iraq, who is a clear enemy of the United States and could start pursuing policies similar to those of Saddam Hussein, or even worse. Fortunately, there is another choice. After World War II, we took a very different approach to postwar Germany. In 1948, after a failed policy of loaning money to war-torn countries in Europe, the United States adopted the Marshall plan, named for Secretary of State George C. Marshall. The Marshall plan was a 4-year initiative to rebuild the economies of 16 countries in Europe, including Germany. The Marshall plan cost $13.3 billion and a lot of effort. Ninety percent of the money spent on the Marshall plan--nearly $12 billion--was grant money, not loan money. What was the result? At first, the results were uncertain. Germany's economy looked shaky. But over time, our continued investment paid dividends. A continent that had been fighting for a thousand years became a democracy and became our ally. In Japan--in another part of the world--our help took a country that had invaded us and made it an ally. The results could not have been better after World War II. Our policy was a complete success. That is why I believe we need a Marshall plan for Iraq. We need a 4- or 5-year plan for reconstructing Iraq, and we need to face up to the cost of the plan. We need to understand it is more for us, the United States, than it is for them. President Bush has laid out the first stages of such a plan. The Marshall plan was used for a variety of purposes to reconstruct war-torn Europe, including Germany. It paid for the building of railroads and water systems, for needed medicines, modernizing factories, for restoring ports to allow foreign trade, and much more. President Bush's request for funding will pay for many of the same things: restoring Iraq's ports on the Persian Gulf, building roads, restoring power and water systems, needed medicines, reopening schools, and much more. Some say funding Iraq's reconstruction would be too costly. But the cost of the President's request for rebuilding Iraq--$20.3 billion--is actually far less than what we spent on the Marshall plan. That was $13 billion then, between 1948 and 1952, and that would be at least $102 billion in today's dollars. Another way to compare the cost is percentage of gross domestic product. The Marshall plan cost 1.1 percent of our GDP during the 4 years it was in place. President Bush's proposal would be only one- fifth of 1 percent. Again, the Marshall plan was five times the cost of President Bush's Iraq plan. Or we can compare the cost as a percentage of the Federal budget. The Marshall plan cost 7 percent of the Federal budget during the years it was enacted. The President's requested funds, when added to those already spent on reconstruction, were only 1 percent of the Federal budget. So this idea that we are spending more on Iraq than we did after World War II is totally false. We can learn a valuable lesson from history. After World War I, we made Germany pay its debts. We left them in ruin. We went home. As a result, we got Adolf Hitler. After World War II, we pursued the Marshall plan, and it did cost some money. But as a result, we won democratic allies in more parts of the world. President Kennedy said it best in his 1961 inaugural address. This is what he said: We will pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and success of liberty. The people of Iraq, like the people of Germany 60 years ago, lived under an evil tyrant who wreaked havoc on his neighbors and his own people. In both cases, the evil tyrant was overthrown by the United States and its allies. America and its allies temporarily took over the administration of Germany and Iraq. We paid for the German reconstruction under the Marshall plan. We should do the same in Iraq and support the President's request. We cannot afford, in our own interests, to do anything less.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, just recently the Senate approved the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. During the same time period we paused to remember the tragic events of September 11. So it is a good moment to bring to the attention of my Senate colleagues and of the Department of Education the nonpartisan, nonprofit Freedom's Answer project which is a direct result of the 9/11 experience--and which seeks to engage high school students across America in the elections process even before they are old enough to vote. At a time when Senator Kennedy and I, along with many other Members of the Senate, are convinced that restoring civics education to schools should get a high priority, Freedom's Answer is one effort that is doing just that. It should have the highest priority for funding by the Department of Education within the discretionary funds of the Fund for Innovation in Education, the Character Education Program, the Civics Education program, or the Fund for Improvement in Post-Secondary Education. Freedom's Answer is a totally nonpartisan program, begun by long-time political professionals Mike McCurry and Doug Bailey. Its National Advisory Council is co-chaired by the Republican Leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, and the Democratic Leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi. The chairs of the Republican and Democratic National Committees both sit on its National Advisory Council. Started after the 9/11 tragedy, Freedom's Answer urged high school students in over 2,500 high schools throughout the country to seek 10 voting pledges each in the 2002 election, not for any particular party or candidate, but rather to honor the servicemen and women serving our country and risking their lives daily for our freedom. These students didn't just help set a mid-term voter turnout record-- nationally and in 27 different states--they learned first hand the power of political involvement. Even before they could vote, they learned the power not just of each and every vote, but also of collective involvement in the political process. It may well have been as good a civics lesson as they could ever receive--one certain to make them voters in the years ahead. Our young people owe it to us to be part of America's democracy. And we owe it to our young people, regardless of party, philosophy, religion, income, race or State to enable them both to know how the system works and how to be part of it. Freedom's Answer is a powerful way we can meet that commitment, and I join my colleagues in encouraging the Department of Education to consider using discretionary funds in the 2004 budget we will pass to help make this wonderful civics lesson come alive in every high school in the land.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire for his remarks and for his leadership on education, especially for his leadership on this issue where he has shown his characteristic persistence over the years, and I hope he succeeds. Listening to him talk about the children today creates a whole new way of thinking about this. I have noticed in education meetings I have attended--and I have been going to them now for a good while--people like the Senator from New Hampshire and I get up and make a speech, but if we sit down and invite a child to stand up and say something, it changes the whole nature of the meeting because it puts in perspective what we are talking about. I am glad the Senator talked about the children who are waiting in line for this opportunity to go to a better school because that is what we are talking about. All we are talking about is giving 7,500 of Federal dollars, new dollars--not taken from any other school but new dollars--to about 2,000 poor families, disadvantaged families in the Washington, DC, our Nation's Capital, families whose child is in an underperforming school, and giving them a chance to go to another school. That is what we are talking about. Especially since September 11, we have talked a lot about the American character. The American character has many aspects, but one aspect of our country is that we dream great dreams, and we are not ashamed of doing that. We say things like all men are created equal. We say things like President Kennedy said one time, that we will pay any price and bear any burden to defend freedom anywhere in this world. We say things like leave no child behind. We say things like anything is possible because that is our goal. Europeans and others think we are a little goofy when we say things like that because they will say obviously we are going to leave some child behind, obviously we are not going to defend freedom everywhere in the world, obviously not every man is created equal. The answer is we know that, but our goal is the greater goal. We really want to help every child succeed. We really want to defend freedom wherever we can. We really want every American to be equal, and we are a work in progress toward those goals. That is what makes this such a remarkable country. One of the greatest of our challenges is to meet the goal of anything is possible--and I was thinking about those children--one of the surest tickets towards success in America, in fact the surest ticket, is a good education. We cannot legislate a good family. Families are varied. But if a child has a great education, that child has a much better chance, to not be left behind but to succeed. So one would think we would be bending over backwards, falling all over ourselves, to identify the children in America who are disadvantaged, who are not as likely to have a good education, and giving them a chance too. That is what one would think we would all be doing. Is that not what we are talking about today? Are we not talking about identifying a couple of thousand kids who are disadvantaged, going to schools that are not working, and giving them a chance to go to a good school? What is wrong with that? I would think it would be embarrassing for our friends on the other side of the aisle. They have spent a lot of time talking about helping disadvantaged Americans. How can they say it is good for us Senators, our families, but we do not want to give these children that chance? In the next few minutes, I will take three or four issues that have come up in the debate, as I have listened to it, and discuss them. The first one was--When I listened to the distinguished Senator from Illinois the other day, one of the better debaters in the Senate, as described by Senator DeWine. The Senator from Illinois said this, and I wrote it down: This is a calamity. This will be the first diversion of Federal funds to private schools in our history, the first diversion of Federal funds to private schools. I wanted to ask the Senator then, and I will ask today, if I may, I wonder if he has ever heard of the University of Loyola or DePaul or Northwestern or Saint Xavier or Wheaton College or Illinois Wesley? Those are all private schools, private colleges, in the State of Illinois, and at least half the students at all of those schools and colleges attend those colleges with a Federal grant or loan to help pay for college. In the case of the Pell grant, the Federal grant, which may follow them to Loyola, DePaul, Northwestern, or Saint Xavier, that is a Federal voucher that follows them to the college of their choice. Now, that is not just true in Illinois. It would be true at Fisk University in Nashville. It would be true at Brigham Young out West. It would be true at Yeshiva. As long as the college is accredited, whether it is private or parochial. This has been true from the beginning of the GI bill for veterans, over the last 60 years, our country has allowed Federal dollars to follow students to a school of their choice. Someone might say I am mixing things up; I am mixing up a college with a high school. I do not think that is a real difference. At the University of Tennessee, we have a school of law, as well as a school of architecture. Those are schools. They are educational institutions. For 60 years Federal dollars have followed students to the school of their choice. What has been our experience with that program? Most people who look at the Federal Government think the GI bill for veterans and the Federal scholarships and loans programs have been the most successful social legislation in the history of our country. Maybe Social Security stands up there with it. But it is hard to think of legislation that has created more opportunity than the GI bill for veterans and the Federal Pell grants and the Stafford loans that help people go to college. No one says you have to go to the University of Tennessee or Vanderbilt or the University of Rhode Island or any particular school. You choose. I remember when I was president of the University of Tennessee, I was sitting there during the last week of August when we would have about 30,000 students, coming to our school. No one made them go there, they had to choose to go there, and the money followed them to the school. It never occurred to me to come to Washington and argue to the Senate, Please don't allow any of these students to go to Vanderbilt or to Fisk University because it might take money away from our school. We saw the value of giving Americans choices of colleges and universities. We saw what it had done for them. We saw what it did for the colleges and universities of this country, what it specifically did for the public colleges and universities, such as the University of Tennessee. Let's just look at the record. In 1945, maybe 8 or 10 percent of Americans had a college degree. Mr. President, 80 percent of the higher education students in America at the end of World War II were in private colleges and universities. In fact, when the GI bill for veterans came along, President Hutchins of the University of Chicago was appalled by the idea. He said hoboes would be coming to his distinguished university, the University of Chicago. At that time, at the end of World War II, 20 percent of students attended public university. What is it today? Today it is just reversed: 80 percent of students who attend higher education in America go to public colleges and universities, 20 percent go to private. So the effect of the GI bill for veterans, this Federal voucher that followed students to the school of their choice in higher education, which has been the law of our land since right after World War II, has not only created great opportunity, the effect of it has been to create the greatest system of colleges and universities in America. The Federal Government helped to fund that. We don't have just some of the best colleges and universities, we have almost all of them. And the Federal voucher for higher education has been a major source of that. So that was a really good idea. It is rarely our experience in education to have such a close analogy, to have a 60-year experiment with a Federal voucher for colleges that has helped create the best colleges in the world. The question might be; If it did that over 60 years, why wouldn't we at least try it to see if it created the best schools in the world? We have tried it also before the first grade. We have a child care voucher, which has been the law since 1990. It follows little children to the child care program of their parents' choice. So we would trust a single mom with the responsibility. She might be poor, she might not be very well educated herself, some might even say she's not capable of making a good judgment for her children, but we trust her to choose the daycare program for her child, and the Federal voucher follows the child to the daycare program. It could be public, private, or religious. We permit her to enroll in a community college or university in order to advance herself, and a Federal voucher follows her to a community college. But we say somehow there is something wrong with allowing her to make a decision about where her child goes to school from the 1st grade to the 12th grade. Of course, we don't have that problem with those who are better off-- Senators, for example. We assume we are really super parents and we know a lot about schools and we are trusted to make choices. We are allowed to move to another part of town so our child will go to this school instead of that school, and every real estate agent in America will tell you that parents make moves in housing based upon where their child will go to school. That is No. 1 for them. They have the money to do it. They are free to do it. But the disadvantaged family is not free to do it. I wonder what would happen if we were to pass a law that would be consistent with our friends on the other side of the aisle--most of them; there are some who agree with us--and just say there should be no choice to anybody; let's be fair to the rich as well as the poor. It sounds like rhetoric that might be coming from over there. Let's say no choice for school, the Government will tell you, no matter how much money you have, exactly where your child goes to school, and you may not take that child anywhere else. The Government will decide. Since your taking your child and your money to a Catholic school or private school which might hurt a public school, therefore you are not allowed to go to a Catholic school or you are not allowed to go to a private school. In effect, that is what we are telling poor families in America. We are telling them: Because you are poor, you have no choice. Let's say it to the rich folks, too. Let's make it equal. Nobody has any choice. That will help the public schools. That wouldn't help the public schools. That is the way the Soviet Union used to operate, one car for everybody, and by the time they got through, the car would barely run. Choice is an essential part of the American system. So, for the Senator from Illinois to stand up and say this is the first diversion of Federal funds to schools is just flat wrong. In fact, he is ignoring the most successful piece of Federal social legislation we have ever had, which for 60 years has helped create the best colleges in the world. My question would be, Why not try it with at least 2,000 children who are poor, going to underperforming schools in Washington, DC, and let's see what happens? Maybe it creates a better school. There is another little historical fact that maybe the Senator from Illinois missed as well. Right after World War II, a lot of the returning GIs didn't have a high school degree. Only maybe 5 percent of them even had a college degree at the time. So what did they do with the GI bill? They took it to high schools. There were thousands of returning GIs after World War II who took their GI bill to the Catholic high schools of America. The sky didn't fall. A lot of them ended up being among the most successful leaders in our country. A second comment I would like to make is sometimes I hear that this is a Republican idea, or a conservative idea. It really doesn't sound like a Republican idea. Republicans are characterized sometimes by not being as interested in the disadvantaged, by not being willing to spend more money, by not wanting to talk about education. I am glad that we are, in this case. But this ought to be a bipartisan idea. I am so glad to see the Senator from California has made this discussion a bipartisan idea because it deserves to be. Let me go back in a little history and suggest how this idea has not always been a Republican or conservative idea. Not long ago, someone gave me an article from the 1968 August issue of Psychology Today. The article was entitled ``A Proposal for a Poor Children's Bill of Rights.'' The proposal was this: To give a Federal coupon to perhaps up to 50 percent of American children, through their parents, to be spent at any school. Half the American children would get a Federal coupon, they called it--voucher, scholarship--to be spent at any school-- public, private, religious. By doing so, the authors of this proposal wrote, we might both create significant competition among the schools serving the poor--thus improving the school--and meet, in an equitable way, the extra cost of teaching the children of the poor. The idea here was to provide money on top of what is already being spent, because educating poor children costs more. The authors were not the chairman of the Republic National Committee but a young man named Theodore Sizer, along with Phillip Whitten. Ted Sizer, of course, is today one of America's most respected and pioneering educators. He was dean of the College of Education at Brown University and a leader of the Coalition of Essential Schools. He has been given about every major award American educators can give anyone, and 1968 was a long time ago. Lyndon Johnson was President. ``Power of the people'' was the battle cry. Sizer and Whitten went back much earlier than that. They said this: The idea of such tuition grants is not new. For almost two centuries various proposals for the idea have come from such figures as Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, John Stewart Mill, and more recently Milton Friedman. Its appeal bridges ideological differences. Yet it had never been tried. Quite possibly because the need for it has never been so demonstrably critical as now. This was in 1968. The authors quoted Mario Santini of the Ford Foundation--hardly a right-wing organization--who spoke of: . . . a parent's lobby with unprecedented motivation with a tangible grasp on the destiny of their children. The ability to control their own destinies definitely will instill in poor people a necessary pride and dignity of which they have been cheated. Maybe those are the 7,000 parents in the District who are lined up waiting for the other side of the aisle to quit filibustering and release $7,500 for each of those children so they can go to a good school. What about the argument that this poor children's bill of rights might destroy the public schools? Here is what Mr. Sizer and Mr. Whitten said in 1969: Those who would argue that our proposal would destroy the public schools raise a false issue. A system of public schools which destroys rather than develops positive human potential now exists. It is not in the public interest, and a system which blames its society while it quietly acquiesces in and inadvertently perpetuates the various injustices it blames for its inefficiency is not in the public interest. If the system cannot fulfill its responsibilities, it doesn't deserve to survive. That is their word. But if the public schools serve, they will prosper. Just as our public colleges and universities have with students who bring a voucher to those schools. Those are my words. Since 1987, we have watched in amazement how rapidly the rest of the world is seeking to emulate the American way of life. Everywhere in the world, freedom and choice and opportunity have become the principles upon which are built the answers to the most basic human questions. Around the world, nothing is in as much disfavor as government monopoly of important services. Yet that is what the other side is defending today. I think it is important, as we go through this debate, always to remember exactly what we are talking about. Those in opposition have such poor reasons for opposition that they invent all sorts of complications and make it sound exceedingly impossible. We are talking about this: Spending $40 million for students in the District of Columbia. The bill the Senate is debating today appropriates $13 million for scholarships for low-income children in underperforming public schools to go to any accredited school. $13 million for DC public charter schools and $13 million new dollars for the DC public schools. The Senator from New Hampshire went into great detail on this. Let me summarize a couple of points. In addition to the fact that the District of Columbia is different--and there would be State money, if it were Rhode Island, or West Virginia, or Tennessee, that we would be spending--but here we are spending $11,000 per student, which is among the highest in the country in the public schools. Class size is among the lowest, yet reading scores continue to be at or near the bottom of every national assessment. Sixty-nine percent of fourth graders are reading below basic level. That means 7 out of 10 fourth graders can't read. That means all educators and parents know that by the third grade, if they can't read, they are off on a track that goes anywhere but along with the American dream that anything is possible. DC students ranked last in the Nation in both SAT and ACT scores last year. Forty-two percent drop out of school. Those are some of the statistics here in the District. Finally, I would like to call attention to an article by William Raspberry that appeared on Monday, September 29--yesterday--in the Washington Post. Mr. Raspberry concludes his article with this question: If federally funded vouchers help a few hundred more local students to find such an environment, how bad is that? He was writing about the debate here in the District to create an academic high school 20 years ago. Some people said: Well, that will help some children and not others. Mr. Raspberry thinks it will help some children, and that will be good, and maybe that will help us find a way to help others. That is the basic essence of his article today. It is a good thing to use to conclude a discussion about the District of Columbia because it shows we all know that the children of the District of Columbia can succeed, the schools can succeed. This is the way he describes Washington's academic high school: By the way, Washington's academic high school--Benjamin Banneker--is not merely an established fact these days, it is an important source of pride for both the school system and the city. It was a Banneker student who a few years back scored a perfect 1600 on her SATs. It was a Banneker team that scored a record-setting total on the TV program ``It's Academic.'' Banneker's students are smart, but not necessarily that much smarter than students elsewhere in the city. What they have is an atmosphere where academic striving is the norm, where no one calls them ``nerds'' or ``brainiacs'' or accuses them of acting ``white.'' The recent result of Leave No Child Behind shows us something we already know--that we have a lot of good schools in America. But even in many of our better schools, there are some children--almost all disadvantaged and many of them minority kids--who are not learning what they need to know, all over America, and it starts right here in the Nation's Capital. We have tried about everything. We tried charter schools. We tried more money. We tried smaller classes. There are a lot of wonderful people working hard. What this debate is about is: Should we not take the idea which helped create the best colleges and universities in the world and try it here in the District? Should we not help those 7,000 families standing in line out there hoping anything is possible for their child? Why not give 2,000 of them $7,500 a year and let them go to a better school and have a brighter future? If we learn something about that which teaches us something about what to do about American education that will improve and help these disadvantaged children, so much the better. How embarrassing it must be to stand up and argue against giving $7,500 to 2,000 children in the Nation's Capital who deserve that brighter future. I hope this becomes an increasingly bipartisan discussion. The Senator from California has offered an amendment which improves the legislation. Not every Republican supports this. Not every Democratic Senator opposes it. I hope over time we will see that choice as an essential part of the American system. We have had it for 60 years in our colleges. We have had it for 12 years in the Child Care Program. Every family with money has it. Why not offer it to the disadvantaged, the poor families of America, starting with 2,000 families in the District of Columbia in this bill? Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Ohio giving me the opportunity to speak at a time while the Senator from California is still in the Chamber and the Mayor of the District of Columbia is still here. I greatly respect the leadership shown by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and by the Senator from California, who are willing to take a fresh look at children who need help. This leadership is based upon their own experiences and common sense, and wisdom to try something different. I listened very carefully to the Senator from California. I was thinking the Senate is a good place for someone with a lot of experiences on the street and in the Mayor's office, in political campaigns, and in legislative bodies. She is someone who has enough experience to come to her own conclusions. This is a terribly important decision. It would not even be before us if the Mayor and other local officials in the District of Columbia had not asked for it because too many of the changes that have been suggested in education are often suggested in the tone of: This is good for you. But, it rarely ever happens unless somebody says: I want this for my child, or my school district. I remember in Milwaukee 15 years ago, there was a strange confluence of circumstances that led Milwaukee to try to give the poorest families in the city more choices of school for their children. It only happened because Polly Williams, who was the State representative and was the leader of Jesse Jackson's campaign in Wisconsin, and the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee, and the Republican Governor, Governor--now Secretary--Thompson, all happened to come to the same conclusion. They all thought outside the box. They all did things that were different. But the person that really made the most difference, with great respect to the mayor and with great respect to the Governor at that time, was Polly Williams, who represented parents who said: I want this for my child. What we are hearing today in the Senate, and what the Senator from California has so beautifully stated, and the Mayor has brought to our attention, is that we have several thousand families in the District of Columbia who are saying to us: We want this for our child. We see the results. We see the figures the Senator from California cited: In eighth grade only a few children are reading at the eighth grade level, so few children are able to do math, this lack of academic success is almost a guarantee of a lack of success in life. I was glad I had the assignment of being the Presiding Officer at the time when the Senator from California made her speech. I wanted to add to that in a couple of ways. I think she beautifully distinguished between this proposal and a broad voucher program. We have argued those up and down the street for years. But here is what the Senator from California reminded us is different about this proposal: No. 1, the Mayor wants it. If we were in a State, if we were in the State of California, or Tennessee, or Ohio, the money we are talking about would really be the State's money; in effect, it would be money the State was spending the way the State wanted to spend it. We just happen to be in the District of Columbia where the money is collected a little differently. This is money that local people really ought to be able to decide how to spend, and they want to spend it this way. That is one big difference. The Senator from California said this is a pilot program. One might argue that there is not such a thing in Federal Government; that every program lasts forever. But it doesn't have to last forever. This is a chance to try to give 2,000 poor children from failing schools one option to see if they can succeed in their educational life. We don't have many pilot programs with this idea. We have one in Milwaukee where it worked well, I thought. I have been to those schools. We learned a lot. We have some programs in Ohio, which the Presiding Officer helped to implement. In the Nation's Capital, it might be good to have a look and see whether this idea works or not. The Senator from California suggested in her amendment some provisions which will help make sure that it gets a fair test--requiring scholarship students to take tests similar to other students in the District, requiring the Secretary of Education and the Mayor to select an independent entity for evaluation, and to say that the teachers of these children who are on scholarships should be as well qualified as possible. Those are very sensible additions. The Mayor wants it. It is a pilot program. And it helps 2,000 of the poorest children in failing schools by giving them $7,500 a year of new money. This comes from no other educational program. If it is not spent for this, it goes right back into the Federal budgets. It is new money to give them that choice. Pilot programs and studies sometimes help us learn things. For example, Vanderbilt University did a very interesting report that was published in September of 2001. The Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of Columbia might be interested in this, too. They took a group of schools, all of which have the characteristics of potential failing schools. In this group of schools, 35 percent of the students changed school every year, and 50 percent of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunches. The parents of the children in those schools had a modest education themselves. It is a recipe for failure when compared to most of our schools. Yet in these schools--instead of having only 1 of 10 or 1 of 20 8th graders who score proficient in math or reading, these schools are first in the country and second in the country among African- American students, according to the National Assessment for Educational Progress in Math and Reading. What schools are these? These are the schools on the military bases across the country. All of us can speculate as to why that is true. There might be more discipline in a military school or military environment. Another one might be that the school reports to the commanding officer of the base. The Senator from California has just increased the accountability of the schools in these scholarship programs by saying the Mayor is directly responsible. The Mayor of the District of Columbia is going to be paying attention to these schools and these scholarship kids. There is another thing we might learn from this study of the military. There is one other provision which I found very interesting. At the military post schools where the military children who live on the base go to school, parents must go to the parent-teacher conference. They don't have a choice. They can be court-marshaled if they don't go. They are ordered to go. I guess that might be the single most important thing. If this education has all of these aspects--and everyone is an expert. Everybody has 1,000 ideas. There are two things we know for absolute sure. The thing that makes the most difference in a child's education is the parent and the second thing is the teacher. Everything else all added up into a lump counts for relatively little compared to those first two. It might be that if there are 2,000 families who go to the trouble of helping their kids move from a failing school into another school that these parents will have increased parental involvement. This might be what makes the difference in terms of their child's success. But we don't know that unless we try to find out, which we can do over the next 5 years if we support the Senator's amendment and then we support the bill that is reported. There are a couple of other things I would like to say. The Senator from California said that she has lived long enough to do what she thought was right and that she was puzzled by the opposition to this program. I have to admit that I am puzzled, too. On my side of the aisle, I am not always in lockstep with all of the Republican ideas that come along because I have lived long enough to make up my own mind about things. But on the idea of saying that poor children shouldn't have the same choices of schools that middle-income and rich kids have, I have never really understood the opposition. It has always puzzled me. Let me give an example of why. This is not some idea from the Moon. The idea of giving families choices in educational institutions has been the single most successful social program we have ever had in our country's history. Most people would say that the GI bill after World War II has been our most successful social program. What happened after World War II? At a time when only 5 or 10 percent of Americans were going to college, the Government said to the veterans: When you come home, to pay you back, we are going to give you a scholarship to go wherever you want to go to school. They said: You may go to Berkeley. You may take this money to Fisk University. You might go to Hastings in California. You can to Vanderbilt, you can go to the University of Tennessee, you can go to Ohio State, or to Notre Dame, or Kenyon. You can go to Yeshiva. You can go to a Brigham Young University. Wherever you want to go you can go to an accredited university. A great many of the veterans returning from World War II used their GI bills to go to high schools. Many of them went to Catholic high schools. At that time, we began to allow Government scholarships to follow students to the educational institutions of their choice. At that time, about 20 percent of our higher educational institutions were public. About 80 percent of the students went to private schools. It sounds strange today because now we have big public universities. In Ohio you had all of those wonderful institutions--Miami, Kenyon, Oberlin--all the colleges in Ohio. And Ohio State wasn't all that big at the end of World War II. A lot of the colleges that are universities today were just small teachers colleges. What has been the effect of allowing Federal dollars to follow students to the educational institution of their choice since World War II? What happened is that it has created more opportunities for Americans more than any other program we have ever passed. It has created not just some of the best universities in the world but almost all of the best universities in the world. It continues today in the form of the Federal Pell grant and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. One-half or more of students who go to colleges or universities in California or in Ohio or in Tennessee go to college with a Federal grant or with a loan following them to the college or university of their choice. When I was president of the University of Tennessee, it never occurred to me to come to the Senate and say: Senator DeWine, I hope you will pass a law that keeps Federal dollars from following a Tennessee student to Vanderbilt or to Fisk or to Maryville College or Carson-Newman College or Howard University or Brigham Young or Yeshiva because they are private, public, or parochial. It never occurred to me. I wanted the students to have all of those choices. It helped them and it helped our university. If we have the tradition of choice in America, and if we have 60 years of funding educational institutions by allowing the money to follow the student to the school of their choice, it has always puzzled me as to why we exempt grade schools and high schools. We even allow Federal scholarships to let money follow preschoolers to Head Start or the child care program of their choice. Many States allow juniors and seniors in high school to let money follow them to the college of their choice. We have gotten in this rut, and it is not clear how we got there but some people are determined to keep it forever. The ones paying the price are the poor kids of America. We just finished what has turned out to be a very unpopular set of tests in Tennessee and America, the leave no child behind test. In our State, some of the superintendents and teachers were up in arms. They said: We are not a failing school. I said: I would not get too proud or too embarrassed about the scores in Tennessee or California because all the leave no child behind tests are demonstrating is what we already know, which is that in most of our schools in America, even some of our finest schools, there are some children who are not learning to read. They are not learning to compute. Almost all of those children are disadvantaged. We can ignore that and adopt a new slogan that says leave no more than 35 percent of our children behind and go right on to decide to try some other things. As the Senator from California said, one thing we could try is to allow the District of Columbia to spend its money helping 2,000 of those children who are poor and in failing schools, help them go to a school of their parents' choice and see whether that helps. Some people say the school choice plan is a think-tank plan, maybe a conservative plan, maybe even a Republican plan. It is none of that. Let me give an example. One of the most distinguished educators in America is a man named Ted Sizer, at Harvard University, a graduate student during the Lyndon Johnson days. He was a ``power to the people,'' Johnson liberal Democrat. As his graduate degree thesis in the late 1960s, Ted Sizer published a proposal called ``The Poor Kids Bill of Rights.'' The idea was that part of the war on poverty, under the LBJ programs, the Federal Government should give $5,000, in 1969 dollars, to every poor kid--he defined poor as middle income or below; which meant half the kids--give $5,000 to half the children in America and let it follow them to the school of their choice. That proposal came out of the 1960s from Ted Sizer, out of Harvard, out of Lyndon Johnson's philosophy. It is as true to that philosophy as it is to Milton Friedman's philosophy. I like better what the Senator from California said. She was not so interested in a philosophy. She was interested in parents and kids on the street. That is who we should be listening to. If the Mayor and the chairman of the city school board say: We have tried everything. We are spending $11,000 per kid; we are putting more money into charter schools; we are improving our schools, but we have all these children who are not learning to read, could we not try to give them a chance to go to some of the same schools that they could go to if their parents had some money? That is all they are saying. I am very glad to have been here today to hear the Senator from California address the Senate. I am glad she is here to make a difference. I am glad the District of Columbia Mayor is here to make a difference too. Everyone, after being here for a while, looks to the end of their careers and wonders what it will look like when looking back. My guess is when the Senator from California and the Mayor of the District of Columbia look back--these decisions, which are courageous in a political sense, are decisions they will take great pride in years to come.

Mr. ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise to commend President Bush for nominating Gov. Mike Leavitt to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Governor Leavitt's hearing was this morning and, from all accounts, he performed admirably, as I would expect. He is a distinguished public servant who has worked diligently to address the environmental problems in Utah and the Western States. I believe the President has found the right person for the job of leading the EPA. The EPA Administrator must establish realistic regulations that often require compromise and balance. In my experience, almost all of the issues that deal with our environment require a good sense of balance because there are so many competing interests. Governor Leavitt has demonstrated his ability to work with all groups affected by environmental regulation. He pulled together, for example, Governors, tribal leaders, industrial leaders, and environmental activists to get behind a comprehensive plan to clear the haze obscuring the scenic views in the West, including the Grand Canyon. For nearly 11 years, Governor Leavitt managed to bring together a diverse group of State and tribal officials, industrial leaders, and environmental activists who focused on developing a plan which led to action that is clearing the air in the West. I hope that a similar plan can be developed to clear the haze in the great Smoky Mountain National Park, which is about 2 miles from where I live. It is the Nation's most visited national park, and it also has earned the unwelcome distinction of becoming the most polluted national park in America. We welcome the help of Governor Leavitt as head of the EPA in coming up and working with our Governor and Federal delegation and our communities in Tennessee, who are very concerned about this, to help get on a long-term path that would clear the haze in the Smokies and restore its natural beauty. This will require cooperation among local, State, and Federal Governments and industry and environmental activists. I believe Governor Leavitt is the right person to help lead that effort. He has demonstrated he can do this by getting collaboration among groups instead of polarization. As Governor, Mike Leavitt has encouraged results-oriented environmental action. I strongly support his views that policy should encourage outside-the-box thinking in solving problems rather than just complying with Federal programs. Our environmental problems are complex. They require examination of many strategies to achieve our Nation's goals. The EPA Administrator plays a crucial role in balancing our desire to protect the environment and our desire for jobs and prosperity. I believe we can have good jobs and strong industry and clean air and clean energy. The solutions are not easy, and in most cases--many cases--require new technology. However, with Governor Leavitt's leadership, I believe we will be able to develop the solutions and partnership to meet realistic environmental goals. The job of protecting the environment is a difficult one, one in which I take a great personal interest. The President of the United States--this President--has distinguished himself by making a number of superb appointments. He has made another such nomination, and I look forward to the chance to vote for Mike Leavitt as EPA Administrator. May I add just a personal note, Mr. President? I was elected Governor first in 1978 in Tennessee. Since then, I have known more than 200 Governors, probably served with 80 or 100. Only a handful of those Governors, some on each side of the aisle--Democratic and Republican-- have really understood the job, have used that office to set a clear agenda to develop a strategy to meet the agenda, and then persuade at least half the people they are right. All three of those elements are being part of being a good Governor. Those Governors have transformed their States. Mike Leavitt is one of those Governors. Because of that, he was elected to be the chair of the National Governors' Association. He would not have been elected, and he would not have succeeded in the job if he had not been able to work with both Democratic and Republican Governors. He has earned and shares the respect of all who have known and worked with him. He is one of the outstanding State leaders of the last quarter of a century. He has a great sense of balance. He has an imaginative sense of what is possible, and he has an excellent ability to persuade half that he is right, which is a very important part of doing that job. I am very pleased to see him coming to Washington, and I am delighted with President Bush's appointment. I wanted to be among the first to welcome him here. I thank the Chair.